Every day that passes, my excitement in the Ron Paul campaign grows because I see so many people catching on to his philosophy, especially the young people of this country who are ready for change.
Just today, I had a conversation with someone about registering to vote and mentioned that they should vote for Ron Paul in the elections coming up. Their response, "that's who I am planning on voting for."
For once, I really feel that Ron Paul has a chance at winning this election and not just making a big impact on it. It will take long and hard work but the payoff will be the greatest thing to happen to this country since the founding of it.
I got this idea from a post on Ron Paul's Facebook group and decided that I should create a list of the presidents that I thought were the worst in history. The following is in no particular order and consist of reasons I believe these men were the worst presidents ever.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt was the thirty-second president of the United States, who if often given credit for his management during the Great Depression. However, FDR is the father of modern socialism and one of the worst presidents in history. Roosevelt created socialized programs such as Social Security and numerous other unconstitutional programs.
Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln, despite being championed as one of our greatest presidents, initiated a bloody and unconstitutional war against the South. Lincoln denied the right of the South to succeed from the Union and suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus while jailing hundreds of protesters and journalists.
The Civil War was hardly over slavery, rather, it was a war over keeping the Union in tact. Lincoln despised the blacks, and sought to keep blacks inferior to whites.
Woodrow Wilson
Woodrow Wilson was the twenty-eighth president of the United States. He is responsible for entering the United States into a ridiculous World War 1 where thousands of Americans died in a small European problem that escalated into nonsense.
He also created the League of Nations -- a precursor to the United Nations. Enough said with that.
George W. Bush
I don't think much needs to be said about this president. George W. Bush deceived the American people and entered them into the Iraq War. He has also suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and enacted the Patriot Act which has led to warrentless wiretaps and renditions. He has also expanded the national debt tremendously and his foreign policy has created much more hatred around the world towards America.
Lyndon B. Johnson
Lyndon B. Johnson, the thirty-sixth president of the United States, is responsible for the escalation of the war in Vietnam which resulted in the deaths of millions. He also created many socialized programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and started the "War on Poverty," which was more of an escalation on Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.
I hope this creates some great discussions. I wouldn't mind hearing from people on their ideas of the worst presidents in history. I also plan on making a list of the 5 greatest presidents in history in the coming days.
MSNBC.com has a new polling device on their website for the presidential candidates that is interesting to say the least, which you can access it by clicking here. You can rate the candidates on a total of five issues -- the economy, energy, health care, immigration and the iraq war -- on how you feel about what they support. You can then submit your ratings to a member's poll in which all the ratings are taken into account and are visible to everyone.
Ron Paul is, of course, leading in the polls in every category. Is that surprising to anyone? Not to me.
So, according to a mysterious Professor Harrington, my skull is full of mush. His comment was in regards to a previous post entitled, "Vague Understandings." Please then, Professor Harrington, make yourself known and make at least one valid argument as to why my skull is full of mush instead of telling me that I should come back in ten years.
I find it ridiculous that a Professor would insult a person who is studying the political process and political philosophies and tell them to come back in years. Are you then implying that within ten years, my thoughts and beliefs will change? And what if they don't -- is my skull still filled with mush?"
I am not going to result to calling people names and insulting them.
Everyone should watch this video in which Mitt Romney completely ignores the question from a medical marijuana patient in regards to whether Mitt Romney would arrest him -- if he became president -- for using marijuana for medical purposes.
As Kody Tinnel posted in his blog, Meet the Press Ignores Ron Paul, on how Tim Russert from Meet the Press managed to ignore Ron Paul's third quarter fund raising which exceeded $5 million dollars, MTV seems to be one of few that has fairly reported it.
It showed up in between commercials on their segment "MTV News" when they talked about Hilary Clinton's popularity in the polls and then mentioned that even though the numbers were high, others weren't "throwing in the towel" yet. MTV News mentioned that "darkhorse candidate" Ron Paul had raised over $5 million dollars.
Quite interesting how MTV News is not even a journalistic television station and they managed to report things fairly while others ignore Ron Paul.
This is an update on the following post: Patriotism and the Patriot.
I ended up getting a 'B' on the paper, a little worse than what I hoped but still not that bad. Anyways, the Ron Paul quote I used in it on the topic of patriotism, got some notice from my professor who commented on it. I am a bit confused as to the context of her comment, but she stated "Where did you get this (Even though it was in my Works Cited)" and "He's a libertarian." I don't fully understand the last comment but, I hope it was meant as something good.
Throughout all of my discussions throughout the years on the issue of abortion, I have found that all of these arguments -- from either side -- come down to one main issue: when are we considered human and/or when are we determined alive?
I am well aware that I go against the mainstream libertarian philosophy although, I believe that the mainstream is terribly wrong and terribly contradictory. This issue is hardly an emotional one for me rather, it is more of a logical one. Don't get me wrong, the aborting of innocent humans do hit me on an emotional level but, when it comes to philosophy and law-making, I focus on the logical side.
So then, here is my logic -- if we consider a human dead when their heart is no longer beating, should not we also consider a human alive when that heart beat begins? If this is true, then the aborting of a human is an act of violence, an initiation of force which is, contradictory to the very core of libertarianism. And, if one is not sure when to determine the beginning of human life, how many more negligent decisions would they make concerning human life?
This is not a matter of the right of the woman, it is a matter of a human life.
This is more of a continuation with my frustration with political parties. I have heard some (a few) Libertarians complain to the point that it is almost ridiculous, that Congressman Ron Paul is running for president with the wrong party and should be running on a Libertarian Party ticket because, well, that is were his principles are most generally aligned with. What does this matter? It means absolutely nothing and to complain about him running with the wrong party frustrates me terribly and is a complete waste of time.
It seems, at least to me, that loyalty to the party has overtaken the people to the point where they would complain about someone running for the wrong party. The main point that I am trying to make is that political parties just cause more problems than that which they try to solve. I know that it may seem that I am attacking the Libertarian Party and well, in some ways I am. All I know is that I need to stick to my principles and not a political party.
Ironically, I am now the vice-president of the IPFW Campus Libertarians. I am proud of this role and am glad that we seek to promote the philosophy of Libertarianism and Objectivism. We were also involved in the IPFW Voters Registration Drive that was featured in the News Sentinel and the president of the IPFW Libertarians, Kody Tinnel, was interviewed in it. The article can be read here.
I am finding it hilarious that those that try to argue against the philosophy of Libertarianism and/or Objectivism have a vague understanding of what they really mean. Some get the basic concept -- low taxes, more freedom -- but have no clue why the philosophy is made up of those values.
Unfortunately, I find myself distancing from the Libertarian Party. Part of this reason comes from the drug issue. It seems that most drug users embrace Libertarianism because the philosophy would dictate that the individual has the right to engage in the use and thus, they are happy to promote it because they would then have the right to use drugs. However, the soul problem herein, is the issue that these people give the party a bad reputation and until this problem can be addressed -- that is, the philosophy does not encourage drug use -- then it is hard for me to embrace the Libertarian Party. The party needs to teach principles and I see this lacking.
I am happy that the IPFW Campus Libertarians are not directly associated with the Libertarian Party. It is encouraging to see people who understand that it is a philosophy, not a party.
Today, at the IPFW Voter Registration Drive, I couldn't help but be discouraged to see more so-called Republicans supporting Tom Henry. What happened to the Republicans of principle and low taxes? I am not sure where they went, but I wish I knew.
Today, there is barely any difference between the two parties. Both seek more power from the people and one preaches low taxes but doesn't perform.
I just got done creating a template for the IPFW Campus Libertarians blog. Please go check it out and let me know what you think of it and any suggestions are welcome.
IPFW Campus Libertarians
