Republican Rep Dr. Ron Paul of Texas has repeatedly stood up in Congress and eloquently condemned the U.S. foreign policy of using bribery, meddling, intimidation, and deadly violence in support of corporate globalist objectives. This course of constant interference with the internal affairs of other nations has earned us the emnity of their peoples and fueled the current battles in the Middle East against us. Dr. Paul prefers George Washington's approach of fostering open, friendly, and respectful relations with other countries, respecting their sovereignty while at the same time insisting on the maintenance of our own. Over the last 60 years the financially powerful globalist elite have made an awful mess of U.S. foreign relations and their influence needs to be terminated.

Ron Paul's campaign is about the rediscovery of what America is supposed to be. The shocks of war and economic depression in the 20th Century contributed to the growth of the federal government, both in authority and as a factor in the economy. As the post-World War II economy boomed people were increasingly willing to give up critical thinking on political issues and surrender their right to expressing an informed opinion to the "experts". Both in Vietnam and now in Iraq, we are seeing that the certainty of the experts turned out to be far less prescient than the views of those, like myself, who took to the streets to protest these military actions. This raises the question about how much more of the "expert opinion" that has been used to guide government policy on issues like deficit spending and balance of trade will ultimately prove to be a freeway to disaster.

I can't believe anyone would defend continuance of the personal income tax in its current form. Even with a measured I.Q. of 130 and a degree from a major university, figuring my tax has been a major stress factor in my life for years and, for the past two, I haven't been able to calculate it correctly. Not only is it an intrusion into my personal affairs by government agents, but it serves as a tool of intimidation by those who are supposed to be our servants, not our masters.

I support Dr. Paul's campaign because it is consistent with core American values: it promotes personal liberty and national independence and is based on reason and respect. Dr. Paul confronts the basic issues facing the American People and offers a refreshingly original, Constitutionally consistent, rational perspective in contrast to the cacophony of the fear-mongers and authoritarians who tempt us to give up our freedom in exchange for "security".

Millions of dollars in campaign contributions from globalist fat-cats and hundreds of times as much free exposure on corporate-controlled mainstream media as the anti-globalist who represent the real interests of the people. That's why, when you elect these toadies to the big financial interests you get nonstop worldwide conflict, exploding budget deficits, burgeoning government bureaucracy, erosion of civil liberties, little enforcement of immigration laws, and a "for sale" sign on the whole country to pay for balance of trade deficits. From here on out I'm supporting only anti-globalist candidates. Don't believe the fear-mongering tripe you hear from the likes of H. Clinton and R. Guliani. Their very status as designated "front runners" already bespeaks the fact that they have sold their loyalties to the corporate globalists whose interests they will promote at the expense of everyone else in the world.

He is the only democratic candidate who will focus on breaking up monopolies, including agri-business monopolies and media monopolies.

Lost "front runner" status right there.

Anyone else notice that the media anointed "front runners" are always grouped together in the center in these debates, so that one is always getting a "cluster shot" of Romney, Giuliani, and McCain whenever one of them speaks. The only one with any original ideas, Ron Paul, is seated at the very end. It was the same with the Democrats: Clinton in center flanked by Edwards and Obama. Once again, the corporate globalist-owned media not-so-subtly skew the public's vision of the candidates toward those who would serve the globalist agenda.

Inherent in the idea of debate is that all participants start with a level playing field. I propose that, at the beginning of each debate, the candidates draw numbers from a hat to give each his or her priority in selecting a podium position. This would help counter the "in your face" bias that is so blatant and I find so repulsive.

The "conservative movement", as exemplified by Limbaugh, Bush, Gingrich, et al., conserves nothing but their own power and the power of the wealthy globalist corporate elite. Aside from hurling out wedge issues to bamboozle and intimidate their erstwhile supporters, they offer nothing but war, injustice, exploitation, and misery for the masses. They don't conserve the material, financial, and human resources of the planet, but spend them lavishly, increasing the burden of debt and the load of pollution, garbage, and frustrated lives. They don't conserve the values of liberty of the American Revolution, but seek to arrogate to themselves the powers of life and death. By their fruits you shall know them. Show me a politician who seeks to preserve the rights of the world's citizens, who uses reason and negotiation instead of deadly force, who conserves the Earth's resources through conservation and recycling, and I will show you a conservative.