The registered Democrats of Connecticut rejected him as their Senatorial candidate in 2006 in favor of Ned Lamont in a democratically held election. His reaction to the election results was characteristically undemocratic "I cannot and will not let that result stand". Fine. He ran as an independent and was elected. He is an independent, unless or until the Republicans want to accept him into their party. The Democratic leadership in the Senate owes him nothing. His presence in the Democratic caucus is noxious to many members of the Democratic Party, a Party I would like to rejoin some day when it has been purged of neocon-enablers like Lieberman and Pelosi.

Does that make me a Nazi?

For those who consider Ron Paul (PR) a dimwit or a nut case, consider the following comparison with the current White House resident (W):

RP: born into a family of modest means, worked his way through college and medical school, requiring intelligence, self-reliance, and persistent effort.

W: born into a family that was already well-connected with the worlds of politics and big business, had an undistinguished college career.

RP: served with honor as an Air Force flight surgeon during the 1960s.

W: father got him a Vietnam-safe position with the Texas National Guard, from which he went AWOL for the last year.

RP: Started a successful private business as an obstetrician, serving the medical needs of the community.

W: Ran several businesses into the ground while indulging in cocaine and alcohol.

RP: Turned to politics as a result of his interest in reading about monetary systems and policy. Became as self-educated and articulate defender of his position on this issue.

W: Recruited into politics due to family connections and an apparent lack of any success in business. Became an inarticulate but manageable spokesperson for big business interests.

RP: Political career has been focused on using the Constitution of the United States as a tool to ensure and protect the natural rights of citizens, the sovereignty of the nation, peaceful foreign relations, and efficient government.

W: Although sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, has cynically ignored and contradicted its provisions and intent to establish a quasi-dictatorship run amok in the world, violating human rights, surrendering national sovereignty to globalist corporate capitalism, attacking other nations without provocation, and nearly doubling the national debt, giving away hundreds of billions to the already wealthy oligarchs.

In a truly sane world, which one should have been President? Will we continue to select Presidents who are the tools and lackeys of the globalist corporation elite, or will we wake up to recognize and reward true achievement, honor, intellect, and commitment by electing men and women with these characteristics to our highest office?

Would Congresswoman Bachmann consider a politician to be anti-American if he or she did any of the following?

Engaged American military forces in prolonged, bloody, and horrendously wasteful invasion and occupation on false pretenses?

Violated the Constitution by authorizing a program to spy on the private communications of American citizens and falsely denying its existence many times over several years?

Further flaunted the authority under which he or she holds office (the Constitution) by using "signing statements" to warp enforcement or non-enforcement of legislation according to his whim, thereby becoming a "unitary executive", exactly what the Founders wished to guard against in establishing Constitutional government?

Reduced the next and possibly following generation of Americans to a kind of tax slavery by authorizing tax breaks to the wealthy, thereby multiplying the national debt?

Compromised the sovereignty of the United States by supporting "Free Trade Agreements" with provisions harmful to the United States economy and creating a "Security and Prosperity" arrangement with Canada and Mexico to the further detriment of American workers?

If Michelle Bachmann has any real sense of what it means to be an American, any concept of why our Revolution was fought, and any notion of the advantages of Constitutional government over tyranny, then she would join the efforts of those who would remove such politicians from office and prosecute them for their many high crimes and misdemeanors.

Deficit spending of any kind, but especially massive deficit spending, is ethically wrong for the simple reason that it violates one of the principles on which the Revolution that gave birth to our Republic was based: No Taxation Without Representation! Deficit spending shifts the burden of taxation into the future, to a time at which the members of Congress who voted for borrowing the money and creating the deficit are out of office through retirement and death and therefore immune from the righteous wrath of those paying the taxes.

The "service" on the national debt, the number of federal dollars that must be expended as interest annually to maintain the debt, generally goes into the pockets of people that are potentially hostile to democratic government: foreign banks and investors in non-democratic countries and domestic banks and investors who we have seen over the past eight years have little interest in safeguarding the Constitution or policies that do not in some manner increase their wealth and power. The "service" on the debt is an expenditure that does not improve our infrastructure, security, or liberty.

Runaway deficit spending is just another way to assault the processes of Constitutional government, so badly damaged after the past 8 years. It empowers those who already wield an excess of power. As previous writers have already noted, deficit spending is the likely cause of the present economic difficulties, making it an unlikely remedy.

Chalk me up as another Hooverite for impeachment.