Rep. Ron Paul, the most freedom-loving, Constitution-defending, rational Republican candidate for 2008, if you think about the modern sense of the word, really isn’t a Republican at all. If you think about the word as it was used in the 1960s, however, to describe such men as Barry Goldwater, then he is the only true Republican. It could go both ways. In any case, the libertarian is the right man to be President.

Ron Paul, a 72-year old Representative from Texas’s 14th District, first ran for President in 1988. He has decided to run again, this time as a Republican. He is against abortion, supports non-interventionism (and its undesired outcomes), and recently signed a contract to never raise taxes. He has never once voted to raise his own pay, and he doesn’t accept money from lobbyists. He was against Iraq from the beginning (because it was unconstitutional), and has never once changed his stance on the issue. This is to be admired. The man has guts and integrity. He doesn’t judge potential legislation by his personal views, but lets the Constitution decide. He is a Constitutionalist in the strictest sense of the word, and a true patriot. To be in his early 70s, he is very articulate and a straight-shooter, and very youthful.
Rudy Giuliani knows this. That is exactly why Giuliani turned an entire audience against Paul a few weeks ago. Rudolph Giuliani is threatened by Dr. Ron Paul, even though he is considered a minor candidate. Ron Paul has rational thoughts and debates well. Saul Anuzis knows this. That is why he attempted to ban him from future debates. Luckily, his petition caused an uproar and Anuzis was forced to withdraw it.

Ron Paul is the only viable candidate for 2008. Read up on him. Support him. Contribute to his campaign. We’ll give ‘em hell in ‘08.

[This endorsement is not necessarily representative of the ACYU]

What a pity. Poor Joseph Lieberman, one of the only fresh, bipartisan and perhaps only Democrats to step away from partisanship, has been roasted by his own party, for supporting his nation, his army, and his President. The Dems are prepared to thrust “Fighting Joe” into the abyss, and the primaries are getting even closer, scheduled for 8 August. If he doesn’t win the primaries, Lieberman says he may run as an Independent. Lieberman states that his duty to his country comes before that of his party, and I believe he’s correct:

I’m a loyal Democrat but I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party, and that’s my loyalty to my state and my country.

Although he’s Pro-choice, this man seems like one of the few innovative minds the Dems have in Congress, and if they’re willing to boot him out then they’re signing their death warrant. In 2009, they’re will be a Republican President in office, mark my words. And they’re is no telling how many seats we’ll gain in the legislature, with this going on. Maybe it’s for the good that they boot him out and he runs as an Indy, it will create further divisions within the Democratic Party. We Republicans have enough ourselves, with immigration and all.

I recently saw the new Adam Sandler film “Click”. You would think it would be a comedy film, or that’s what the previews wanted you to think.

Most Hollywood actors are liberals, and yes, that’s a generalization, but a correct one. You have the occasional conservative celebrity (like Robert Duvall, who has donated money towards John McCain’s (R-AR) bid for President in 2000). But for the most part, you’ll see celebrity poster-boys for animal rights (a large proportion of actors and actresses actively campaign for PETA, etc.), feminism (Charlize Theron, Cheryl Crow, Susan Sarandon), and abortion.

I don’t know if they were aware of it or not, but Click, which was released in theaters on the 23rd of last month, is a film that promotes traditional family values. (more…)

By now you would think I am used to this sort of Leftist propaganda employed to indoctrinate our young children and remaining uncorrupted youth. It seems they are packaging BS in colorful, short, and especially dangerous children’s books now, which, if you think about it, is quite horrific. (more…)

A couple days ago there was a story running around in conservative circles about the ban of several national symbols of America, including the ban of wearing American flags; red, white and blue; and camoflouge. Camoflouge was seen as supporting the troops, which apparently, the school administration thought was inflammatory, and well, who knows what they were thinking when they banned the flag:

WESTMINSTER - The illegal-immigration debate in Congress keeps sparking racial tensions at metro Denver schools, and another principal has had enough of the flags, camouflage and bandanas that she says stoke the fire.”An increasingly large number of students were showing their feelings on immigration by the clothes they wore, and that had turned into ugliness, racial slurs and hurt feelings,” Myla Shepherd, principal of Shaw Heights Middle School, said Tuesday. (from MSNBC, read the full article here) (more…)

I was watching the O’Reilly Factor on the “Fair and Balanced” news source last night, and they began rambling on about how Easter, like Christmas before it, may be a target of the secular humanists in the near future, as the holiday draws nearer.

The War on Christmas has passed. Easter, a national holiday which celebrates the Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, may be too religious for those that seek to rid the United States of any Christian beliefs, or anything that involves faith, period.

They went on about how a woman in a workplace in St. Paul, Missouri, was asked to get rid of a bunny rabbit (a traditional representation of Easter, its nature not religious in the least bit) because he believed it would “offend” people. Tell me this: how is a holiday, rooted though it was in earlier times, now indicated by eggs and rabbits and colorful garnishments, going to be a threat to religious freedom and tolerance when its present form has no religious foundation? If we got rid of everything that had a religious background, like many our attempting, our nation would be defunct! Why? Because America used to be a God-fearing, moralistic, and highly religious nation. That has since passed, but there is nevertheless a strong Christian sentiment still existent, and it is in a bout with secular humanism, which is also increasingly more threatening to our traditional Christian heritage and way of life.

I pity them, I really do. For a people who are known for parading around in favor of human rights and personal freedoms, they are pretty intolerant. The Liberal, Left-wing, and secular humanists that see something a threat to their beliefs just as quick censor Easter as we conservative Christians censor pornography. That is hypocrisy.

I don’t want to compromise the American peoples’ security. I don’t think anyone that means well would either. But President George Bush, who states he wants to do best for the country, stated last month he would veto legislation preventing Dubai Ports World, an Arabic company centered in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), from gaining administration of six U.S. ports that were previously directed by a British group.

Bush is faced with a series of threatening choices. He is given only two. He can make friends with the Middle East and mediate political differences between us and them; or, he can protect the governed. The option is clear to me, the latter. It is oxymoronic and dangerous to allow otherwise! You can’t go to war with one nation, claiming to be protecting Americans; you can’t breach privacy laws in the name of security; and you can’t take radical measures to ensure security at the expense of national security, while doing this. As I said before, oxymoronic foreign and domestic policy.

Bush is indifferent to common sense and is contradicting himself not for security, but for international cronyism.