Unfortunately Paul is on the wrong side of the cultural war. He is also not on the Constitutional side as he basic principles including separation of church and state and the later application of Constitutional liberties to the states.

Paul is on the wrong side of the culture wars, as well ignoring Constitutional rights regarding freedom of religion and privacy when he supports a woman’s right to control her own body and when he supports school prayer.

As I’ve said many times before, and as Naughten demonstrates, the Paul campaign is a far right wing social conservative movement, not a libertarian movement.

This Ron Paul constitutional rebellion is an escallation and re-orientation of the American Cultural War, by the American People, against the rising governmental tyranny by Neoconservative Republicans and Leftist Democrats. It is sweeping across America like a wildfire – ignited by the illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

It raises many crucial questions; such as, where does the American Constitution give my government the right to sacrifice precious American wealth and blood, in interests of domestic and foreign lobbies?

And, where does the American Constitution give my government the right to allow my nation to be invaded and permanently by illegal aliens?

And, where does the American Constitution give my government the right to support the sacrificial killing of children, by their own mothers?

And, where does the American Constitution give my government the right to discriminate against traditional religious practices in public schools, universities, marriage institutions, armed forces, and governmental offices?

This creeping governmental tyranny, driven by perverse special interests, has now been going on for so many decades, like the illegal invasion, that the impending American Reformation is regarded with fear and loathing, by those who are to lose their illicit gains.

Like Gandhi, Ron Paul is drawing his intrepid volunteers from the full spectrum of humanity; and World is cheering him on to victory.

however there is no one who comes even close to his integrity running for pres, let alone in washington. so dispite his shortcomings a vote for paul is not a vote for the lesser of two evils or against someone who is crappy. it is a vote for someone who is actually pretty good.

I am not saying that we should not talk about what we disagree with him on but that it makes sense to show support even when we do to help show people the direction to liberty even if paul is not the final stop

There’s still the question of the final outcome with the pork. If he introduced the pork measures and then they died it might be argued that he deceived his constituents but no harm was done financially. On the other hand, if the measures he introduced passed, even without his vote, it could still be said he is responsible for adding unnecessary spending to the budget.

If he routinely introduced pork to get support in his district and then voted against it, I would think that sooner or later someone would catch on and this would be used against him in a campaign.

He puts requests in for Pork like every other congressman, and other things to serve the people of his district, then votes against them as it is counter to his ideology.

This means that he can serve his district, while not betraying his beliefs.

This thoery is just my take on it, so if anyone else knows better please correct me.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll201.xml

What’s that mean?