Why not Ron Paul?

I have noticed the media, both conservative and liberal, reporting on all the Republican presidential hopefulls. The liberal media rips them apart on various aspects of their positions while demonizing the Tea Party and if you listen to Fox, they want to push Perry, Romney and Bachman down our throats. You never hear them speak about the one candidate who actually makes sense. So I ask, why NOT Ron Paul? Some in the media would have you believe he simply isnt electable or that his ideas are insane, yet they give no real specifics. Every now and then I hear someone say that Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs or that his foreign policy is weak. When I ask them to elaborate, they can't. They are merely parroting what they have been told. In fact, it seems this is ONE area that both Republicans and Democrats agree. They just don't acknowlege Ron Paul...period. They treat him as a non-entity, but why?
He supports bringing our troops home. Wouldn't this be a position for liberals to rally behind? One would think so, but they don't. He believes in a fiscally responsible government. Tea Party and Republicans should be able to get behind this since this is what they promised the American public when elected into congress last year. But no, not a word of support is heard from the conservative right. So why do we hear little to nothing from either party or from the media? My answer to that question is this; Ron Paul threatens the centralization of power that it's taken our government decades to establish. He wants to audit the Federal Reserve, abolish the IRS, limit government involvement in the private sector and restore our personal liberties granted by our Constitution. You know, the Constitution that both Republicans and Democrats attemp to circumvent on an almost daily basis? The constitution that limits congressional power and was meant to keep them from becoming oppressive. Yeah, THAT Constitution. Ron Paul wants a Constitutionally Limited Government and deep down, neither Democrats or Republicans want that because it limits what THEY can do. Ron Paul threatens everything they have worked so hard for. The constant bickering over ideology and the fact that we, as a nation, have become almost like sheep and are so entrenched in the whole "My party is right and you're is wrong" debate, we have lost sight of what's right (and wrong) for us as a nation. We've allowed the party rhetoric and buzz phrases to influence our opinions. If we could all take a step back and look at things without the opinions that others have convinced us we have, maybe we could see what is actually happening to us. Look back over the decades and see where we have sacrificed some of our personal liberty here and there when our politicians convinced us that failure to enact some type of legislation (for our own safety) would result in some type of catastrophe. Perfect examples are things like The Patriot Act and the TSA. Before you jump on the "I hate Republican band wagon", let me remind you that Obama, who ran on promises of getting rid of The patriot Act, has extended it time and again as well as expanded upon it by adding additional wording to include "Domestic Terrorists". A "Domestic Terrorist" is someone living here, a U.S. citizen who is considered a "Right Wing" extremist. How hard is it it classify as a "Right Wing Extremist"? Not as hard as one might think.

(Taken from DHS document concerning the definition of Domestic Terroist)

“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

According to Obamas DHS:

“Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms Scholars and experts disagree over poverty’s role in motivating violent radicalization or terrorist activity.”

“High unemployment, however, has the potential to lead to alienation, thus increasing an individual’s susceptibility to extremist ideas. According to a 2007 study from the German Institute for Economic Research, there appears to be a strong association between a parent’s unemployment status and the formation of rightwing extremist beliefs in their children—specifically xenophobia and antidemocratic ideals.”

“Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.”

Is this something that our founding fathers envisioned for our nation? A police state full of citizens dependent on our government? I don’t think so, but don't take my word for it. Do your own research. Set aside what you have been told to think and listen to what Ron Paul has to say. Watch his speeches from past to present. Check his voting record and bills he has supported and ask yourself this question...Why NOT Ron Paul?

A new flavor of ice cream

Its' been awhile since I posted anything on here...lack of traffic LOL but oh well.

I've been thinking about the current administration and what exactly it is that they are trying to do. It doesn't make sense to me and I know I'm not the only one.
Its very hard to pin down exactly what ideology this administration is trying to implement here. There are shades of communism, socialism and fascism in many of Obamas policies and beliefs. But if you look up their definitions, he doesn't quite "fit" any one definition. I think it could be said that all three have the common thread of totalitarian style government. They also seem to function on the principle of collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.” You could almost say though, that socialism, communism and fascism are just different flavors of the same brand of ice cream. I think Obama has taken facets of each and created a neopolitan sort of flavor which has made it hard to pin down. Whether or not this is intention, I don't know, but it does allow his supporters to discredit someone when they try to assign any one label to define his policies.
If you look at his stimulus packages that have allowed him the ability to influence the banking and car industries, you could definitely draw the parallel to fascism. Obamacare strongly resembles a socialistic style of single payer, government provided healthcare. His belief in wealth distribution fits into this category as well.
Obama has made statements like "It's time to level the playing field" which could be taken as the desire to create a classless society and is very much in line with communism. In his book, The Audacity of Hope" he, in his own words says he aligned himself with Marxist, Socialist and Communists in his college days. It's not so far a stretch to assume he supports these ideologies.If this is the case, 2012 cannot come soon enough.