Thought I'd go ahead and bring this to everybody's attention. It might be in everyone's best interest to start writing some letters urging their representatives to support this bill.

H.R. 3835
American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007
Introduced by Dr. Ronald Paul (R-TX)
15 October 2007

A BILL

To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Unchecked power by any branch leads to oppressive transgressions on individual freedoms and ill-considered government policies.

(2) The Founding Fathers enshrined checks and balances in the Constitution to protect against government abuses to derail ill-conceived domestic or foreign endeavors.

(3) Checks and balances make the Nation safer by preventing abuses that would be exploited by Al Qaeda to boost terrorist recruitment, would deter foreign governments from cooperating in defeating international terrorism, and would make the American people reluctant to support aggressive counter-terrorism measures.

(4) Checks and balances have withered since 9/11 and an alarming concentration of power has been accumulated in the presidency based on hyper-inflated fears of international terrorism and a desire permanently to alter the equilibrium of power between the three branches of government.

(5) The unprecedented constitutional powers claimed by the President since 9/11 subtracted national security and have been asserted for non-national security purposes.

(6) Experience demonstrates that global terrorism can be thwarted, deterred, and punished through muscular application of law enforcement measures and prosecutions in Federal civilian courts in lieu of military commissions or military law.

(7) Congressional oversight of the executive branch is necessary to prevent secret government, which undermines self-government and invites lawlessness and maladministration.

(8) The post-9/11 challenges to checks and balances are unique in the Nation's history because the war on global terrorism has no discernable end.

(b) Purpose- The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 is intended to restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

SEC. 3. MILITARY COMMISSIONS; ENEMY COMBATANTS; HABEAS CORPUS.

(a) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is hereby repealed.

(b) The President is authorized to establish military commissions for the trial of war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy.

(c) The President is prohibited from detaining any individual indefinitely as an unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States, provided that no United States citizen shall be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant.

(d) Any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States shall be entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28, United States Code.

SEC. 4. TORTURE OR COERCED CONFESSIONS.

No civilian or military tribunal of the United States shall admit as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion.

SEC. 5. INTELLIGENCE GATHERING.

No Federal agency shall gather foreign intelligence in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The President's constitutional power to gather foreign intelligence is subordinated to this provision.

SEC. 6. PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS.

The House of Representatives and Senate collectively shall enjoy standing to file a declaratory judgment action in an appropriate Federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of a presidential signing statement that declares the President's intent to disregard provisions of a bill he has signed into law because he believes they are unconstitutional.

SEC. 7. KIDNAPPING, DETENTIONS, AND TORTURE ABROAD.

No officer or agent of the United States shall kidnap, imprison, or torture any person abroad based solely on the President's belief that the subject of the kidnapping, imprisonment, or torture is a criminal or enemy combatant; provided that kidnapping shall be permitted if undertaken with the intent of bringing the kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process. A knowing violation of this section shall be punished as a felony punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 2 years.

SEC. 8. JOURNALIST EXCEPTION TO ESPIONAGE ACT.

Nothing in the Espionage Act of 1917 shall prohibit a journalist from publishing information received from the executive branch or Congress unless the publication would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to the national security of the United States.

SEC. 9. USE OF SECRET EVIDENCE TO MAKE FOREIGN TERRORIST DESIGNATIONS.

Notwithstanding any other law, secret evidence shall not be used by the President or any other member of the executive branch to designate an individual or organization with a United States presence as a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization for purposes of the criminal law or otherwise imposing criminal or civil sanctions.
-------------------------------------------

This is my first post here, and I look forward to being able to share more with you all.

-S. Morris

Does the Bill have any riders thus far? Aside from Paul are there any who support it; does it have any weight? - You can simply post links.

No sponsors yet, other than the good doctor.

It's a brand new bill, just introduced on the 15th of this month. The only link available right now is here. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.3835:) Govtrack.us doesn't have anything on it yet.

While I don't know exactly how your system works I can tell you that here private members bills (that is bills not supported by the government) don't have a chance in hell of passing, sounds like the same thing here.

Thanks for posting this, MorrisOK.

Alas, in spite of the best efforts of people like Ron Paul to make America free again, I fear that the collapse of America into a police/surveillance state is all but inevitable. The government we live under is not likely to vote to limit its own power.

To my knowledge, Dr. Paul is the only person in all of Congress who even cares about the Constitution or freedom anymore. He's certainly the only presidential candidate who does (except perhaps for Mike Gravel). His grassroots support is impressive, but the mainstream media is being careful not to give him too much coverage, and that's what ultimately determines elections (if not outright electoral fraud). So he's in a lonely position.

Of course I'm going to continue to support Ron Paul however I can, and I urge others in the US to do the same, but it's crucial that we also continue to prepare to defend ourselves even to the death against the jackbooted thugs who will probably one day come to drag us off to the torture rooms.

The House and the Senate will need veto-proof majorities to get this bill
passed. Otherwise, it's dead in the water because there's no way that G. W.
Bush will sign it into law given his war on terror and fanatic belief that
trampling on the Constitution is the way to win.

I assume that anyone who votes for Ron will be on 'The List' of people to roundup after the next 9/11 self-inflicted wound that gives El Presidente Bush total dictorial power.

I can't help but see only a bright side to this for some reason. :) (My cup is half-full today! Hooray!).

I'm thinking that regardless whether the bill ever goes through, the fact that the bill was written and proposed before all is a very good thing... it means it's very ideas must be addressed by the entire House and it's success or failure will also be scrutinized by all interested parties. (maybe never before in these past few decades have members of congress been so afraid of how their voice is interpreted when voting on a bill?). I am so pleased to see something like this... I'm ecstatic, even, if not merely hopeful. (Ron Paul is the man!).

This alone is definitely more than just a step in the right direction, IMHO. Many people (even sheeple) reading such a proposal may actually wake the fuck up and see what sort of bills they'd really LIKE their "representatives" to be putting forth for them. If it gets buried, people WILL take notice, and it will not play out well for TPTB in the long run if they stifle it, and yet we know this they will try.

All we must do is make sure that this bill cannot be simply overlooked or hushed by the MSM and becomes common knowledge to all, though. It must become the focus of every discussion in every little nook, cranny, and crevace of the USA... from every diningroom table or workplace watercooler to the local university circlejerk stairwells and poolhalls. Don't let it be ignored by anyone or overcome by any other bill or BS commie agenda! Demand media coverage! For all we know, it just may be the last decent bill proposed before firearms start clawing their way out of the earth and following their owners around everywhere they go, legal or not... (that won't be a pretty USA to live in anymore, I'm sure of it).

Supporting this bill in every way you can will certainly be even be more important than turning out for a [pseudo] vote come 11/08.

Please, everyone, spread the buzz and do all you can to promote this! Write your congressmen and alert your friends. Trying your best will cost you nothing. Failing may cost us everything.

I assume that anyone who votes for Ron will be on 'The List' of people to roundup after the next 9/11 self-inflicted wound that gives El Presidente Bush total dictorial power.

I don't doubt it a bit, but I think most of the people who care enough about this nation to vote for Dr. Ron Paul are already on "the list" for one thing or another anyways.

Fear of being on "the list" has never prevented me from doing what I thought was right. Whether or not Ron Paul gets the nomination, and ultimately, becomes President is out of my hands, thanks largely to the Electoral College. But I will continue to support him because that is what I believe is the right thing to do at this time.

The government we live under is not likely to vote to limit its own power.
Fortunately, we ARE the Government. In spite of what you have been raised to believe, the Federal Government is not it's own entity, but made up of civilians who have been elected to represent the citizens of their states. This is how the Federal Government has gotten around the Tenth Amendment to form unconstitutional bodies like Federal Law Enforcement. The house and senate are "the people" because they are civilians ans citizens of the United States. If any representative gets enough letters calling for his/her vote on this, then that representative will vote.

We still have time to correct the flow of things in our nation before it gets down to taking up arms. Write letters, and urge others in your state to do the same.

Morris.

Fortunately, we ARE the Government. In spite of what you have been raised to believe, the Federal Government is not it's own entity, but made up of civilians who have been elected to represent the citizens of their states.I have to disagree with you here. "Our" leaders indeed are citizens, but they are not our equals under the law any more than the ruling communist party in China are the equals of the common people there. Politicians are a privileged and protected class, as are their pig enforcers. Unless there's a public outcry about some particular action, or unless other politicians see fit to assail their rivals, these people can get away with essentially anything.

We're not the government. I have absolutely no say in what laws get passed in this country, which is why I don't consider myself bound by any of the laws that aren't common sense (especially those forbidding victimless crimes).

Neither does the government represent us -- unless we're members of powerful lobbying groups, big business, or the establishment elite. Congress cares a GREAT deal about what the Israel lobby and the NAACP want, but they don't give a damn about what you or I want as individuals. Majority opinion certainly plays a role in policy formation, but the majority of people are stupid (remember, fully half of people have double-digit IQs), and therefore public opinion is manipulated almost as easily as silly putty by the government and its lapdog media.

This is how the Federal Government has gotten around the Tenth Amendment to form unconstitutional bodies like Federal Law Enforcement. The house and senate are "the people" because they are civilians ans citizens of the United States. If any representative gets enough letters calling for his/her vote on this, then that representative will vote.What I said above applies here, too (unfortunately).

We still have time to correct the flow of things in our nation before it gets down to taking up arms. Write letters, and urge others in your state to do the same.I agree that we should do our best in this manner, but don't get too optimistic about it working. The System isn't there for our benefit; it's there to control us and keep us in our place. And far too many Americans are sheeple who LIKE it that way. We freedom-loving individualists have been greatly marginalized in this country of pro wrestling fans, metrosexuals, and soccer moms.

So again, I advocate that anyone who still cares about making America free again support Ron Paul as much as time and finances allow. But keep sharpening your talons and fangs in the meantime, because as Ragnar Redbeard wrote, "to be powerless is to be criminal."

The vast majority of the American population are not only brainwashed, braindead, zombiefied, sheeple content to ignore the sharp claws of the tyrannical wolf that is the fedgov, but they are also getting old. This election will be about one thing, health care.

Bitchery Clinton will bleat health care at every opportunity because all those baby boomers care about is dying without pain. They don’t care about the future because they will be dead.

Who will pay the massive income taxes for the baby boomers health care? The younger generations.

Who will suffer when student aid, student loans, and educational funding is eviscerated to pay for baby boomer health care? The younger generations.

Who will pay when economic development, job skills training, small business loans, and investment opportunities becomes non-existent to pay for baby boomers health care? The younger generations.

Who will pay for baby boomers health care despite staggering unemployment in the wake of American big business fleeing the country after Bitchery closes the tax loopholes? The younger generations.

Socialized medicine is a good thing… for the lazy who don’t work or believe they should have to pay for anything.

Socialized medicine is a good thing… for the fedgov who has another way to control our private lives.

Socialized medicine is a good thing… for those older people who won’t be around 20-30 years from now when our economy has been bankrupted and we are thrust into the bowels of a great depression far worse than the first.

I am not against health care, but I don’t think everyone should get whatever they want because they think it is an entitlement. How many people without health insurance are shopping at the mall for new cloths, or paying for a brand new car, living in an overly expensive house, or subscribing to the super massive premium cable TV package? No one wants to give up those things that make the middle class the middle class, but you should not expect the fedgov to pay for your sick ass so you can buy more crap instead of getting your own damn insurance.

If the government actually got its act together and actually tried to CURE something instead of treating everything, health care costs would be moot. We won’t get a cure if our entire economy is hijacked to pay for health care because there won’t be enough money for the next generation to grow and develop scientifically and economically.

When Bitchery speaks, her plan will sound good. Hell if I didn’t know better I would vote for her myself, but I know she is a liar. Any politician who talks about big changes is a liar, and their campaign promises will never happen. Any big government socialized health care system will end up a compromise, but a compromise that pleases NO ONE AT ALL. Doctors, patients, maybe even the fedgov itself will hate the system because that’s how politics works. There are too many sides to please, so the Bitchery socialized health care system will end up displeasing everyone as little as possible, but we will still all be displeased. We can’t have one side get its way, and the other sides lose, the liberal way teaches us we are all equal, we are all equally losers.

And if you want to back up Mega's assessment, you only have to look at the UK National Health Service. Leaking roofs, flaking paint, squalor, junior doctors forced to work 100+ hours a week, waiting lists to get on waiting lists that are 6 months long, MRSA, and more.

And it eats a huge sum of money, most of which goes on the middle (mis-)management that private industry weeds out as dead wood when it leads to one manager per nurse, as the premiums get too high, which with competition, they lose paying customers to other groups. That cannot happen with the government. They don't like competition!

There is an excellent article on Rush Limbaugh's website about socialized medicine. It is a transcript from a caller about his experience with a doctor that sounds insidiously like what the fedgov will do when socialized medicine gets underway. Since I am not sure how long material at Rush's site lasts for free, I shall reproduce the article here for posterity...

From http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100507/content/01125117.html.guest.html

Socialized Medicine & The State
October 5, 2007

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Michael Graham today has a column in the Boston Herald, and it's fascinating. Not being a parent, I have not encountered this. It's what happens when you send your kids to the doctor and what the doctor starts asking the kids about you. "They're watching you right now," begins Michael Graham. "They counted every beer you drank during last night's Red Sox game. They see you sneaking out to the garage for a smoke. They know if you've got a gun, and where you keep it. They're your kids, and they're the National Security Agency of the Nanny State. I found this out after my 13-year-old daughter�s annual checkup. Her pediatrician grilled her about alcohol and drug abuse.

Not my daughter's boozing. Mine. 'The doctor wanted to know how much you and mom drink, and if I think it's too much,' my daughter told us afterward, rolling her eyes in that exasperated 13-year-old way. 'She asked if you two did drugs, or if there are drugs in the house.' 'What!' I yelped. 'Who told her about my stasher, I mean, "It's an outrage!"' I turned to my wife. 'You took her to the doctor. Why didn't you say something?' She couldn't, she told me, because she knew nothing about it.

"All these questions were asked in private, without my wife's knowledge or consent. 'The doctor wanted to know how we get along,' my daughter continued. Then she paused. 'And if, well, Daddy, if you made me feel uncomfortable.' Great. I send my daughter to the pediatrician to find out if she's fit to play lacrosse, and the doctor spends her time trying to find out if her mom and I are drunk, drug-addicted sex criminals. We're not alone, either. Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad's 'bad' behavior. We used to be proud parents. Now, thanks to the AAP, we're 'persons of interest.' The paranoia over parents is so strong that the AAP encourages doctors to ignore 'legal barriers and deference to parental involvement' and shake the children down for all the inside information they can get.

"And that information doesn't stay with the doctor, either. Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, 'Does Daddy own a gun?' When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc. If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying. But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her family's (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad. She also got a new doctor. ... Of course doctors have a choice. They could choose, for example, to ask me about my drunken revels, and not my children. They could choose not to put my children in this terrible position. They could choose, even here in Massachusetts, to leave their politics out of the office. But the doctors aren't asking us parents. They're asking our kids. Worst of all, they're asking all kids about sexual abuse without any provocation or probable cause. The American Academy of Pediatrics has declared all parents guilty until proven innocent. And then they wonder why we drink."

Now, you know, you want to listen to a little quotation here from Orwell? (interruption) What is it, Mr. Snerdley? Just stick with me on this. That is why I wanted people to watch the movie The Lives of Others, the German Academy Award winner. This is exactly what happened in East Germany. This is really not new, in terms of happening in human civilization. But here's a little quote, this is an excerpt from 1984 by George Orwell. "'Are you guilty?' said Winston. 'Of course I'm guilty,' cried Parsons with a servile glance at the telescreen. 'You don't think the party would arrest an innocent man, do you?' His frog-like face grew calmer and even then took on a slightly sanctimonious expression. 'Thought crime is a dreadful thing, old man,' he said, 'it's insidious, it can get hold of you without you even knowing it. Do you know how it got hold of me? In my sleep. Yes, that's a fact. There I was working away trying to do my bit, never knew I had any bad stuff in my mind at all, then I started talking in my sleep. You know what they heard me saying?' He sank his voice like someone who is obliged for medical reasons to utter an obscenity. 'Down with big brother. Yep, I said it, over and over again, it seems. Between you and me, old man, I'm glad they got me before it went any further. Do you know what I'm going to say to them when I go up before the tribunal? Thank you, I'm going to say, thank you for saving me before it was too late.'

"'Well, who denounced you?' said Winston. 'It was my little daughter,' said Parsons. 'She listened at the keyhole, heard what I was saying, she nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh? I don't bear her any grudge for it. In fact, I'm proud of her. It shows I brought her up in the right spirit, anyway.'" This is from 1984 with the kid ratting out a parent saying "down with big brother." Now, Michael Graham writes this in what is a humorous way. But this is right in keeping with this movie, The Lives of Others, that I have recommended that you see. If we end up with state-run health care, this could be required. This could end up being just like it has been here in Massachusetts, children informing on their parents about their activities and their lifestyles. I haven't seen the list of questions, but I will bet you that none of the questions asked by the Massachusetts doctors are about any politically correct lifestyle choices. Like I'll bet they're not asked, "Does dad have boyfriends?" I'll bet there aren't questions like that on this test.

When you socialize medicine, doctors can't help but become socialists themselves. This is the one angle of socialized medicine that I don't think we think about enough. Who's going to pay the doctors and what's going to be in it for them? Who will their bosses be? Federal government, state government, that's who they'll work for. Doctors won't tell parents when their 13-year-old is going to have an abortion, for crying out loud. Right now doctors are not allowed, if they find out, to tell the parents. But you get socialized medicine in there, and those people who run it, � la Mrs. Clinton, want to find out what you're doing at home. The best way to do it is to require the doctors, as part of an examination of your kids, to find out from them, and then they'll know. In this case, the instance of a mother whose daughter told the stories about guns in the home, all legal, they got the attention of the authorities with this.
END TRANSCRIPT

The fedgov is coercing doctors to force children to rat on their parents. Soon fedgov schools will likely encourage teachers to force the young sheep to undergo lengthy training sessions on identifying drugs, hiding places, and any "unAmerican" activity. Then the little state indoctrinated troopers will write their final essays "FINAL REPORT ON SUSPECTED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OF PARENTAL UNITS." The teachers send along the reports to the local politburo and the SWAT teams gear up for murder. Oh, and later I guess some warrents can be photocopied and entered into the record.

Mega,

There's no doubt that socialized medicine will be an unmitigated disaster. I definitely share your concerns over that. And even without it (e.g., if a Democratic president can't get it through Congress) a Hillary or Obama presidency will still be atrocious for this country.

On the other hand, don't expect things to be any better under the mainstream GOP candidates -- especially Giuliani. He might not implement socialized medicine, but he will most certainly do his best to turn the rest of the US into the kind of open-air prison camp that NYC was under "Mr. 9/11" (and still is). Expect more surveillance cameras, wiretaps, assault-weapons bans (in spite of his pandering to the Neutered Rifle Association), and broadly-expanded police powers of all kinds under him.

This is Giuliani's attitude toward freedom:

Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A9629582 60

In a word, all mainstream presidential candidates in both parties, as well as 99% of Congress, believe in keeping us citizens in our place.

As for Rush Limbaugh, I can assure you that he's 100% on the side of big government, even if it's not exactly the kind of big government the Democrats want. Basically, he and his fellow neocons support fascism, while the Democrats support Marxism. Rush will most assuredly be cheering on the SWAT pigs when they kick in the doors of "domestic terrorists" like us. He is completely in their corner, since only "liberals" criticize the noble, heroic men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line for each of us every day -- like the Chicago PD:

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/10/chicago-police-department-perpetual.html

New Zealand has had socialized medicine for a very long time, and it is doing splendidly. Part of the secret is also having a socialized accident-compenation (including for medical misadventure) scheme, which greatly reduces the need of medical professionals for public-liability insurance. The present Socialist Labor-led government, in power for 8 years now, has been steadily going from strength to strength, as Socialist New Zealand prospers. Australia looks like going the same way in elections next month.

@Bugger: Part of the reason that socialized medicine will not work well in the USA is that it's history is not that of NZ. Medicine in the USA has always been a big money deal. What would happen to the $500 x-ray and the $15 Tylenol tablet? Doctors in the USA are either very well paid highly skilled men & women or very well paid quacks....but they and the hospitals they work in are serious money makers. That is their history.
To do other wise is to fuck with a "cash-cow"; and that's always a bad idea from many perspectives.

On another subject....
The idea that a doctor in Massachusetts would try to gain information from a child about the parents seems quite normal to me. The very reason I don't live in places like that is the psychotic nanny-state mentality passed down to the common man via PC directives run amok.

Ever since the politicians and the doctors at the Center For Disease Control
decided to view guns as 'toxins', doctors have been urged to ask about guns
in the home. In 1999, my doctor's office began asking about guns on the
patient medical history forms along with standard medical questions. I didn't
answer that one and the doctor didn't press me for a response. That's
bullshit that kids are being interrogated about their parents' activities. So, if
the parents don't respond, try to get it out of the kids. IMHO, this is an
end-run around the 4th and 2nd Amendments. We need Ron Paul's bill
passed into law more than ever !

You should be proud you have someone willing to suggest such a bill though...
Even if it does not get passed the idea has been released maybe it will awaken more to the fact that now a bill needs to be passed to give you rights you already had?

The ironic thing about the US is that with all the problems you are facing you still posses more freedoms than many of us in other country's (my self included in the Republic of Ireland). Amazing how my country fought for 800 years to get freedom (and in the north there are boys still fighting I suppose) and then within 50 years of having freedom we gave our right to govern ourselves to Europe.

Ron Paul seems like a pretty great candidate though I imagine if he somehow did get elected he would go the way of Kennedy. Am I missing something election coverage of the US is very sparse over here (I don't think I have heard him mentioned over here actually) surely there must be a bad side to this guy?

A0tu, that is exactly what the media wants you to believe. "Ron Paul is so crazy, he not a patriot, and his ways are so out there. There is no way he will win, so why even give him any attention." I promise you if Ron Paul had as much air time as the other candidates, he would overwhelmingly win this coming election. However, some politicians have powerful friends who own the news :). If anyone really thinks Dr. Paul is bad, I challenge you to do 20 minutes of research on him, and you will truly see how revolutionary this man is.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/
How can any rational person argue with what he stands for?

I am hoping he will get in for sure! He seems to as you say yourself stand for the right things and most importantly in a rational way! How is it looking for him over there?

In the US many people believe that elections are "bought" & their reasoning is sound. What many believe is that elections are public relations campaigns that depend upon TV time slots ($) and marketing a "label identity"; like any other commodity. The candidates become objects or commodities like Coke or Pepsi; this makes them seem stable and removes their human frailties. Most people consider themselves to be "moderate" in terms of their perceived political thinking & want a candidate who projects "moderation".

They remain politically conservative [in the truest sense] in that they really don't want change & their world view is narrow. A fellow like Ron Paul is a challenge to the status quo and that alone makes him a threat to the voted who wants things as they are for the most part.

The US voter has "hot button" issues. They are typically such things as "gun control", the "environment" or "abortion". These are the focus of their tirades and they would change directions in a heartbeat if the candidate threatens the issue as they perceive it. Big picture issues are down-played due to the lack of education in the voting public. This however, is only my opinion as I am not a political scientist.

Ron Paul's biggest crime right now is he is a Republican. To the liberal media being a Republican automatically makes him a loser because they have their golden children Bitchery and Obama to praise. After 8 years of Bush the Republican party name has been blackened, so I get the impression that the Republican candidate has been written off.

However, Ron Paul is definitely not part of Bush's cronies and insiders circle that has gotten us mired into a war, gone too far in creating a police state, and plunged us back into a deficit we were making good crawling out of. Ron Paul is the best hope for the party because he is the opposite of Bush, and the opposite of Bush is not the Democrats.

We are still more than one year away from the election, so the campaign season has not officially kicked off for the Presidential race. After Christmas the coverage will pick up.

There will be MANY rational (sounding) arguments against Ron Paul from the demorats. He is against abortion, so the feminazis will say he want to control their bodies by not allowing them to kill infant bodies, the social staters will say how can we pay for welfare and free health care for illegal immigrants if income taxes are abolished. Basically anyone with a selfish agenda who feeds off the fedgov tit will scream and moan against Paul (liberals, gays, minorities, and anyone else who wants to force the masses to accede to the will of the minority).

Hillary Clinton is the next president.

Why? Because she was an attendee at the Bilderburger group in 2006. Neither Ron or the NY Wop were, so they're not future president material.

I love watching Republican want-to-be-nominee debates. Ron Paul absolutly destroys other candidates.

Paraphrased example:
"would you consult congress before going to war with Iran?"

Other candidate: I feel consulting congress may not be necessary, although I would definitly consult my attornies.

Ron Paul: This just baffles me! You have to consult congress before going to war! Its in the constitution! Consulting your attornies? Why not consult the constitution!?


Anyways...
If Ron Paul gets elected, he pledges return the constitutionality to America; at that point my faith in government might be slightly revived. Slightly.

If anyone other than Ron gets elected, the best thing to do is advance the fascist regime to the point of mass revolution, in hopes that a revolution occuring in my lifetime. Or that the percentage of educated persons in the revolution is enough to overthrow the regime.