**To all Obama lovers, forgive my harsh words. I do wish the man well, and I ask that you read this open-mindedly.**
I have to admit, there are different sides of me when it comes to the reality of Obama soon being our President. Part of me is worried to death, part of me is hopefull that this will be a brick wall for America to run into, and start over returning to the ways of the Founders. Part of me just has faith in God. I realize that even if Obama is President, no matter how much he abuses his power, Jesus is King. Of course, I also wonder if Obama's life has much time ahead of it. I would not be shocked if someone takes his life in the next eight years.
Overall, I think that, despite socialism and anti-Americanism, I can handle an Obama Presidency. I guess that if I had the slick rhetoric skills of Obama, his money, support, and power, I might be tempted to abuse my power too. God in His infinite plan, put Obama here to be elected as our President for a reason, and I must trust His Will.
But my problem is that the American people are so ignorant to elect someone like Obama. Can our people not see we need less government, not more? Can they not see that we need a sensible foreign policy, one that, whether pro-war or anti-war is at least pro-America? Can we not see that socialism and communism does not work? Do we not understand the Constitution? It seems we have not realized these things. If we did realize these things, I believe that our President elect would not be Obama.
I know that we can not all of a sudden return to the ways of our Founding Fathers without some sort of catastrophic blow to our nation. We have simply drifted too far. But I am dissapointed in my fellow American's that we, of all people, have fallen for socialism. I would think that surely America would be a place where her people would not fall for such tyrannical government as socialism. I have been hopefull that we can sooner or later elect someone into office who would at least start returning us to a more Constitutional form of government, with a federal relationship between the states and their common central government. I would think that maybe we would start educating ourselves to realize that we are a mixed government, not a pure Democracy. I thought that we would eventually realize that we are a Constitutional Federated Republic, not a Socialized Centralized Democracy. If electing Obama is any indication, then we have apparently not realized these basic truths that founded this nation, and give us many of the gifts we benefit from even today.
I know Obama may sound good, but look at his policies. Is socialized healthare (excuse, "universal" healthcare), allowed in the Constitution? Is redistributing wealth an idea that Adam Smith would have supported? Is being friendly with terrorists, and stating who you want to bomb on national television really pro-America? Maybe some of the rumors about Obama are a smear on him, but if just half of them are true, he seems very anti-American, and anti-Christian.
God is in control, and He is still King. He may want Obama to destroy America for all I know. I would hate for that to be the case, but God has His reasons. People did not expect or want to see the Roman Empire to fall from within, but that is what happened. And the fading away of Rome is what in large part, over the course of some thousand years, help set up America herself. Interestingly enough, it was the Church that is in large part accredited to overthrowing the empire. The Church, with no real political power, overtook the greatest empire the world had seen, without war.
Now, under an Obama Presidency, the Church more than ever should be the Church. If the Church wants to get involved in the political system, the best way to do it is to be the Church. The most political thing the Church can do is to be the Church. Whether this restores America, overthrows America with the Power of the Gospel, or something entirely different, is in God's Hands. But the Church should not complain about an Obama Presidency when She has not done Her job. The Church has failed to show us what proper Biblical government should look like, and has failed to teach Herself government from a Christian perspective. Thus, our culture is not going to recognize the dangers of socialism. Our culture is not going to see the anti-Americanism and anti-God in Obama's policies. Thus, our result will be Obama himself.
If the Church is simply the Church - helping others instead of asking the government to help us, cleaning homes instead of searching them for Harry Potter, fixing our own marriages before asking the government to fix others, etc., then one of two things will happen. The Power of the Gospel will save our culture because our culture repents and follows the Gospel, or the Power of the Gospel will be a sword that our unrepentent culture cannot handle, and thus our culture will fade away like Rome, but the Power of the Gospel will give greater benefits throughout the earth.
All in all, I am dissapointed in America. We elected a socialist. That is unnaceptable for a nation founded on such principles as America was founded on. But maybe what we need is a brick wall to run into, and maybe Obama is that brick wall. Maybe the Church will get woken up. Who knows. I'm not too worried about an Obama Presidency itself. I voted my conscience, and let God deal with the results. But it is a little frightening that our culture would be so ignorant as to vote for Obama. May we wake up and smell the coffee. While we can.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless President-elect Barack Obama
November 5, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Final Thoughts Before the Election
**Please do not discard this as simply another one of Ryan Hampton’s boring political notes. Though it may be political, and at times boring, I believe I can bring up some points that will be helpful for you and I to consider heading into the election this Tuesday. And although I am pessimistic towards the choices we have for President this year, I do offer some sort of optimism in this nasty political season. I ask that if you have time, to read this open-mindedly, and give me your thoughts (I know many of you do not have much time, but any thought is greatly appreciated : ))**
Forty-eight hours from now, it will probably be apparent who our next President will be. After a short time in the Senate, Barack Obama has come out of nowhere with an optimistic message of change. Meanwhile under-dog John McCain is hoping for a great comeback as he had some several months ago in the Republican primaries. With much at stake, this Presidential election seems to be all I see on television and even facebook.
There is so much I could write about in regards to the election, and I do not know where to begin. But I will try to cover each point I want to make thoroughly, while being economical with my words, and thus your time and mine.
First, I will cover the reason to vote. I believe that voting is an important thing to do, and I do encourage everyone who is registered to vote to show up at the polls, so long as you are educated and feel comfortable with one of the choices you will see on your ballot. However I will not say that you are not American for not voting. Here is what I believe to be un-American: “John McCain is a Republican, so I think I will vote for him,” “I think it would be cool to have a black President,” “I don’t care about who the leaders of this nation are, so I just won’t vote,” “There’s an election Tuesday?”
Being apathetic is really what is largely un-American. But if you are apathetic, at least admit it. I have more respect for the person who at least realizes and admits to being apathetic. I probably have as much or more patience for the last two of those un-American statements I listed above, than for the first two. At least they realize they are apathetic, and therefore do not force themselves to make an uneducated vote.
A lot of people I am sure, as I have received minor criticism even on facebook, look down upon me for highly considering placing a vote for Constitutionalist Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin for President. But that I believe is a better vote than an ignorant vote for McCain or Obama. Are half of our voters even intellectually qualified to vote? Do our voters know what our three branches of government are? Do our voters know much at all about the Constitution, such as its purpose, what it says, and its history? How many American voters assume that we are simply a Democracy (in case you think we are, we actually are not)? How many of our voters can recite even a line of the Declaration of Independence? How many voters can mention half of our nation’s Presidents, know when they served, etc.? How many people know how the electoral process works, how many Senators we have, etc? How many American voters understand economics and foreign policy – perhaps the two biggest issues of this election? How many voters even know where their favorite candidate stands on the issues (see the Howard Stern video below)?
Perhaps we should have a voters test. We have a drivers test, drivers permit test, citizenship tests for some foreigners, tests to graduate high school and college, etc. But any person of age can vote for whomever and whatever they want on any pretenses.
I support Chuck Baldwin because I believe that out of the candidates for President who will be listed on my ballot, he is our best choice. I definitely do not like Obama and his socialism, but I am not a huge fan of McCain either. I would like the think that McCain at least has more integrity than Obama, would be a better leader, and is not quite as much of a socialist, but many of his policies, etc., are nowhere near mine. Some consider it throwing my vote away, but here is the way I look at it: why continue to support the two-branches-of-one-party monopoly establishment we have? Why vote for someone who I do not like? McCain will probably take all of Alabama’s electoral votes anyway, so why give him even more support that he does not deserve? The more votes a third-party candidate receives, the more media attention they will receive. The more media attention they receive, the more they are likely to gain more support and more votes. And beyond this, a vote against the establishment of two branches of one party is a vote for another choice, and for our leaders to wake up and realize that not every American is so dumb to be fooled by socialist and tyrannical policies (I am not calling McCain or even Obama a tyrant, but understand that if we are oblivious to the possibility of a tyrant, we become at the greatest risk for one; people did not elect Hitler because they wanted a tyrant).
Do I fear the future of this nation? Well, I sort of do. I want best for the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I do not believe that projected winner Barack Obama is the best. Honestly, I believe he would be one of the worst Presidents America has had. And even if John McCain makes a last minute comeback, which is possible, he is by no means my ideal President either. But I do have optimism. No matter who becomes President, America will still have the same King. America, until her end, will be a monarchy ruled by the same Ruler. King Jesus will still reign in America and everywhere. And even if Obama becomes President, perhaps it will give more of an opportunity for the Church to show that it is Jesus, not Obama, Who truly rules this nation and all the nations.
I simply encourage you this political season to not be so apathetic. If you are educated and like one of the candidates running for President (also keep in mind there are other things we are voting on as well), and you are eligible to vote, then please vote for that candidate. If you at least understand that you do not know what you should, then please, be humble enough to stay at home and leave such an important task in wiser hands. If you are apathetic, then I encourage you to start trying to understand the issues better, and be more prepared to vote for the next election that comes around. But please, do not vote for someone because they sound good, or because you think your mom or dad is a Republican, etc. Understand the issues for yourself, and even ask yourself, “Who would Jesus, the true King of America, vote for?” When you ask yourself that question, vote according to the knowledgeable conclusions you reach.
Please consider what I have said here.
Below are some videos I think you may find interesting pertaining to this note:
Howerd Stern interviewing uneducated people
http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/10/16_Getting_What_We_Deserve.html
John Stossel’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics (this is just part 1 of 6, but you can find the rest on youtube as well. One part specifically talks about whether uneducated Americans should vote).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apsz_1sSTS0
Chuck Baldwin for President
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqB6p02Kek
What do you think?
God bless America
No King but King Jesus
Pray for our Troops
November 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Forty-eight hours from now, it will probably be apparent who our next President will be. After a short time in the Senate, Barack Obama has come out of nowhere with an optimistic message of change. Meanwhile under-dog John McCain is hoping for a great comeback as he had some several months ago in the Republican primaries. With much at stake, this Presidential election seems to be all I see on television and even facebook.
There is so much I could write about in regards to the election, and I do not know where to begin. But I will try to cover each point I want to make thoroughly, while being economical with my words, and thus your time and mine.
First, I will cover the reason to vote. I believe that voting is an important thing to do, and I do encourage everyone who is registered to vote to show up at the polls, so long as you are educated and feel comfortable with one of the choices you will see on your ballot. However I will not say that you are not American for not voting. Here is what I believe to be un-American: “John McCain is a Republican, so I think I will vote for him,” “I think it would be cool to have a black President,” “I don’t care about who the leaders of this nation are, so I just won’t vote,” “There’s an election Tuesday?”
Being apathetic is really what is largely un-American. But if you are apathetic, at least admit it. I have more respect for the person who at least realizes and admits to being apathetic. I probably have as much or more patience for the last two of those un-American statements I listed above, than for the first two. At least they realize they are apathetic, and therefore do not force themselves to make an uneducated vote.
A lot of people I am sure, as I have received minor criticism even on facebook, look down upon me for highly considering placing a vote for Constitutionalist Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin for President. But that I believe is a better vote than an ignorant vote for McCain or Obama. Are half of our voters even intellectually qualified to vote? Do our voters know what our three branches of government are? Do our voters know much at all about the Constitution, such as its purpose, what it says, and its history? How many American voters assume that we are simply a Democracy (in case you think we are, we actually are not)? How many of our voters can recite even a line of the Declaration of Independence? How many voters can mention half of our nation’s Presidents, know when they served, etc.? How many people know how the electoral process works, how many Senators we have, etc? How many American voters understand economics and foreign policy – perhaps the two biggest issues of this election? How many voters even know where their favorite candidate stands on the issues (see the Howard Stern video below)?
Perhaps we should have a voters test. We have a drivers test, drivers permit test, citizenship tests for some foreigners, tests to graduate high school and college, etc. But any person of age can vote for whomever and whatever they want on any pretenses.
I support Chuck Baldwin because I believe that out of the candidates for President who will be listed on my ballot, he is our best choice. I definitely do not like Obama and his socialism, but I am not a huge fan of McCain either. I would like the think that McCain at least has more integrity than Obama, would be a better leader, and is not quite as much of a socialist, but many of his policies, etc., are nowhere near mine. Some consider it throwing my vote away, but here is the way I look at it: why continue to support the two-branches-of-one-party monopoly establishment we have? Why vote for someone who I do not like? McCain will probably take all of Alabama’s electoral votes anyway, so why give him even more support that he does not deserve? The more votes a third-party candidate receives, the more media attention they will receive. The more media attention they receive, the more they are likely to gain more support and more votes. And beyond this, a vote against the establishment of two branches of one party is a vote for another choice, and for our leaders to wake up and realize that not every American is so dumb to be fooled by socialist and tyrannical policies (I am not calling McCain or even Obama a tyrant, but understand that if we are oblivious to the possibility of a tyrant, we become at the greatest risk for one; people did not elect Hitler because they wanted a tyrant).
Do I fear the future of this nation? Well, I sort of do. I want best for the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I do not believe that projected winner Barack Obama is the best. Honestly, I believe he would be one of the worst Presidents America has had. And even if John McCain makes a last minute comeback, which is possible, he is by no means my ideal President either. But I do have optimism. No matter who becomes President, America will still have the same King. America, until her end, will be a monarchy ruled by the same Ruler. King Jesus will still reign in America and everywhere. And even if Obama becomes President, perhaps it will give more of an opportunity for the Church to show that it is Jesus, not Obama, Who truly rules this nation and all the nations.
I simply encourage you this political season to not be so apathetic. If you are educated and like one of the candidates running for President (also keep in mind there are other things we are voting on as well), and you are eligible to vote, then please vote for that candidate. If you at least understand that you do not know what you should, then please, be humble enough to stay at home and leave such an important task in wiser hands. If you are apathetic, then I encourage you to start trying to understand the issues better, and be more prepared to vote for the next election that comes around. But please, do not vote for someone because they sound good, or because you think your mom or dad is a Republican, etc. Understand the issues for yourself, and even ask yourself, “Who would Jesus, the true King of America, vote for?” When you ask yourself that question, vote according to the knowledgeable conclusions you reach.
Please consider what I have said here.
Below are some videos I think you may find interesting pertaining to this note:
Howerd Stern interviewing uneducated people
http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/10/16_Getting_What_We_Deserve.html
John Stossel’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics (this is just part 1 of 6, but you can find the rest on youtube as well. One part specifically talks about whether uneducated Americans should vote).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apsz_1sSTS0
Chuck Baldwin for President
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqB6p02Kek
What do you think?
God bless America
No King but King Jesus
Pray for our Troops
November 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Monday, September 29, 2008
Ryan Hampton Endorses...
With just a little over a month until the general election, I have figured it is time for me, Ryan Hampton, to throw out my official endorsement for our next President to all of my millions (*cough*choke*gag*) of readers. Some of you who have read much of what I have said lately probably have a good idea of who it would be. Some of you probably have a good idea of who it would be because you know that I, Ryan Hampton, am no liberal, much less a socialist like Barack Obama. And so you naturally figure that I would endorse John McCain.
But I have decided to go out on a limb and not endorse John McCain. So how could I endorse Obama of all people? I don’t. I decided to do what should be the honorable and reasonable thing to do: to support the person who I felt would make the best President out of those running. And that person is Baptist Pastor Dr. Chuck Baldwin.
For starters, Pastor Chuck Baldwin has all of the “conservative Christian” in him that Huckabee did, but without all the political junk behind it. He is no “Washington insider,” which is something that many people adore Sarah Palin for supposedly not being. He wants to return to a humble and sensible foreign policy, while recognizing that pulling every troop out of Iraq now will not make everything perfect. Dr. Chuck Baldwin will start caring about that document…what’s it called…I think it might be the most important document in our nation…the Con…Consti….Constitution, that’s it! Chuck Baldwin will do all he can as the President to reduce taxes, cut wasteful spending, etc. Meanwhile, he will focus on the more important issues of protecting innocent life even if it is in the womb, protecting our borders, etc.
I have been hesitant to endorse Mr. Baldwin. I know he doesn’t have much chance to win. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was also running and I considered endorsing him. Senator McCain has had war experience which I admire and did pick, from best I can tell, a fairly decent running mate. He would probably be the best of the two evil out of him and Obama. And an Obama Presidency is certainly not a good thing.
But I knew I had to endorse somebody. I could not endorse the socialist Obama. But neither could I endorse John McCain who is certainly no proponent of free enterprise. Both McCain and Obama would lead us more and more toward socialism, it’s just that McCain would take us there a little slower. I had a hard time wrapping my mind around voting for someone who honestly believes that mankind controls the weather, and wants laws to protect us from the weather! I also have a hard time voting for someone who would desire to keep innocent lives in a foreign land for one-hundred years. And obviously, it would be hard for me to vote for a grumpy old man who thinks he can get away with anything with a goofy smile.
Ever since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans have not put out an inspiring candidate into the general election. McCain is no different. At least Huckabee had a somewhat solid platform by his Christian foundations. Fred Thompson at least appealed to the hard-line conservative Southerner. Tom Tancredo had a platform of restoring our borders. None of these were a Ronald Reagan, but all would have been more Presidential and more inspiring than McCain! At least Barack Obama is inspiring if you believe what he says. I know inspiration is not the only thing to vote on, but I want someone who makes me feel proud to be an American.
Ron Paul was inspiring. He stood up for the Constitution, and provided an idea of real change. Now I understand that he was not popular among conservatives because of his war ideas, and some of what he said sounded too radical to the 21st century American. But perhaps what we needed is someone radical, not typical. Ron Paul was my endorsement in the primaries.
Now, Ron Paul has, I believe, officially endorsed Chuck Baldwin, which pretty much finalized my decision. I certainly would not do something just because Ron Paul did it (I’m not that obsessed with him!). But it was logical. I trust much of what Paul says because he has proven trustworthy. Chuck Baldwin, who heavily campaigned for Paul, is basically running a second Ron Paul race. If fact, his slogan is “Continuing the Revolution,” when Paul’s was “The Revolution.” And he getting a semi-major endorsement like that will probably help him out a bit. Consider if every Ron Paul supporter from Alabama voted for Chuck Baldwin. Paul received approximately 3% of the vote in the primaries. If Baldwin got up to 4% of the vote, then he would make an amazing showing for a third-party candidate, and probably get much media attention for him, or a future candidate like him. Yet in Alabama, at least, it would not shift the vote to Obama. If no third-party candidate was involved, then McCain would probably take at least 60% of the vote. That four percent would simply not go to McCain, but would also not go to Obama. So the percentage would be (hypothetically), 56% for McCain, 40% for Obama, and 4% for Chuck Baldwin. Me voting for Chuck Baldwin, I do not believe, will prevent McCain from winning in Alabama, and obviously, the winner of Alabama will take all of her electoral votes no matter what the margin is.
I could have supported Bob Barr. But his record is not as consistent as Baldwin’s. He is not as inspiring as Baldwin. Though he is running as a libertarian, he is, best I can tell, simply one of the better Republicans. Those out there like me, who wanted to support a third-party candidate who followed the Constitution, seemed to like Chuck Baldwin far more than Barr. And again, with Paul endorsing Baldwin, it kind of solidified it. I like some of his ideas, but he just failed to grasp me as much as Baldwin did.
I have given a brief defense of my endorsement for Pastor Chuck Baldwin. I obviously have not touched on everything about him. Are there things about him I would change to make an idea candidate? Probably so, as perhaps I would have changed things about Paul. But he seems to be the best candidate to reflect what political views I have. His Constitutional views of pro-gun, pro-life, pro-family, pro-national sovereignty, anti-big government, anti-policing-the-world, anti-U.N., etc., seem to stem from a solid Christian worldview he has. And that, my friends, is much more than you can say about either of our two main candidates running. So I ask that you don’t assume that I don’t care about America because I support somebody who has little chance at winning. I am voting for someone who I believe would make the best President out of those running. To sum this up, I will leave you with some videos and links for you to see for yourself. Obviously I won’t condemn you for voting for McCain or Obama, but I encourage you to at least check out Chuck Baldwin and consider him to possibly receive your vote this crucial election year.
Website: http://www.baldwin08.com/
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
September 29, 2008
Ryan Hampton
But I have decided to go out on a limb and not endorse John McCain. So how could I endorse Obama of all people? I don’t. I decided to do what should be the honorable and reasonable thing to do: to support the person who I felt would make the best President out of those running. And that person is Baptist Pastor Dr. Chuck Baldwin.
For starters, Pastor Chuck Baldwin has all of the “conservative Christian” in him that Huckabee did, but without all the political junk behind it. He is no “Washington insider,” which is something that many people adore Sarah Palin for supposedly not being. He wants to return to a humble and sensible foreign policy, while recognizing that pulling every troop out of Iraq now will not make everything perfect. Dr. Chuck Baldwin will start caring about that document…what’s it called…I think it might be the most important document in our nation…the Con…Consti….Constitution, that’s it! Chuck Baldwin will do all he can as the President to reduce taxes, cut wasteful spending, etc. Meanwhile, he will focus on the more important issues of protecting innocent life even if it is in the womb, protecting our borders, etc.
I have been hesitant to endorse Mr. Baldwin. I know he doesn’t have much chance to win. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was also running and I considered endorsing him. Senator McCain has had war experience which I admire and did pick, from best I can tell, a fairly decent running mate. He would probably be the best of the two evil out of him and Obama. And an Obama Presidency is certainly not a good thing.
But I knew I had to endorse somebody. I could not endorse the socialist Obama. But neither could I endorse John McCain who is certainly no proponent of free enterprise. Both McCain and Obama would lead us more and more toward socialism, it’s just that McCain would take us there a little slower. I had a hard time wrapping my mind around voting for someone who honestly believes that mankind controls the weather, and wants laws to protect us from the weather! I also have a hard time voting for someone who would desire to keep innocent lives in a foreign land for one-hundred years. And obviously, it would be hard for me to vote for a grumpy old man who thinks he can get away with anything with a goofy smile.
Ever since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans have not put out an inspiring candidate into the general election. McCain is no different. At least Huckabee had a somewhat solid platform by his Christian foundations. Fred Thompson at least appealed to the hard-line conservative Southerner. Tom Tancredo had a platform of restoring our borders. None of these were a Ronald Reagan, but all would have been more Presidential and more inspiring than McCain! At least Barack Obama is inspiring if you believe what he says. I know inspiration is not the only thing to vote on, but I want someone who makes me feel proud to be an American.
Ron Paul was inspiring. He stood up for the Constitution, and provided an idea of real change. Now I understand that he was not popular among conservatives because of his war ideas, and some of what he said sounded too radical to the 21st century American. But perhaps what we needed is someone radical, not typical. Ron Paul was my endorsement in the primaries.
Now, Ron Paul has, I believe, officially endorsed Chuck Baldwin, which pretty much finalized my decision. I certainly would not do something just because Ron Paul did it (I’m not that obsessed with him!). But it was logical. I trust much of what Paul says because he has proven trustworthy. Chuck Baldwin, who heavily campaigned for Paul, is basically running a second Ron Paul race. If fact, his slogan is “Continuing the Revolution,” when Paul’s was “The Revolution.” And he getting a semi-major endorsement like that will probably help him out a bit. Consider if every Ron Paul supporter from Alabama voted for Chuck Baldwin. Paul received approximately 3% of the vote in the primaries. If Baldwin got up to 4% of the vote, then he would make an amazing showing for a third-party candidate, and probably get much media attention for him, or a future candidate like him. Yet in Alabama, at least, it would not shift the vote to Obama. If no third-party candidate was involved, then McCain would probably take at least 60% of the vote. That four percent would simply not go to McCain, but would also not go to Obama. So the percentage would be (hypothetically), 56% for McCain, 40% for Obama, and 4% for Chuck Baldwin. Me voting for Chuck Baldwin, I do not believe, will prevent McCain from winning in Alabama, and obviously, the winner of Alabama will take all of her electoral votes no matter what the margin is.
I could have supported Bob Barr. But his record is not as consistent as Baldwin’s. He is not as inspiring as Baldwin. Though he is running as a libertarian, he is, best I can tell, simply one of the better Republicans. Those out there like me, who wanted to support a third-party candidate who followed the Constitution, seemed to like Chuck Baldwin far more than Barr. And again, with Paul endorsing Baldwin, it kind of solidified it. I like some of his ideas, but he just failed to grasp me as much as Baldwin did.
I have given a brief defense of my endorsement for Pastor Chuck Baldwin. I obviously have not touched on everything about him. Are there things about him I would change to make an idea candidate? Probably so, as perhaps I would have changed things about Paul. But he seems to be the best candidate to reflect what political views I have. His Constitutional views of pro-gun, pro-life, pro-family, pro-national sovereignty, anti-big government, anti-policing-the-world, anti-U.N., etc., seem to stem from a solid Christian worldview he has. And that, my friends, is much more than you can say about either of our two main candidates running. So I ask that you don’t assume that I don’t care about America because I support somebody who has little chance at winning. I am voting for someone who I believe would make the best President out of those running. To sum this up, I will leave you with some videos and links for you to see for yourself. Obviously I won’t condemn you for voting for McCain or Obama, but I encourage you to at least check out Chuck Baldwin and consider him to possibly receive your vote this crucial election year.
Website: http://www.baldwin08.com/
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
September 29, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, September 5, 2008
Lessos From the Olympics
The Olympics have recently been wrapped up in Beijing, the Communist Capital of the world, and I must say that America did really great. America earned the most medals of all countries, and was only second to China is most golds. Michael Phelps added to the summer of super-heroes by becoming, to steal Ray Melicks word, "aqua-man," Nastia Luckin and Shawn Johnson took gold-silver in the women's gymnastic all-around, Dara Torres was one of the fastest women swimmers, and certainly the fastest 41 year-old, American beach volleyball took gold in both men's and women's, and as expected, America took gold in men's and women's basketball. That's not to mention plenty of other sports where America took home medals as well.
I believe that our olympians represented themselves and their nation well. Outside of being close with China, America dominated the competition and did so with class and sportsmanship.
And it makes me wonder - what if our leaders viewed their jobs the same way as our olympians viewed their jobs. What if John McCain and Barack Obama took the Constitution as seriously as Michael Phelps took the techniques of swimming, or Nastia Lucan took the routines of gymnastics. We can only wonder. Maybe I would vote for one of them in that case.
Kerri Walsh and Misty May don't take an oath with their hand on the Bible to win gold. But they do it anyway. Michael Phelps did not swear on national telivision to win gold in all of his competition. But he did anyway. Those who are elected President take an Oath of Office with their hand on the Bible to simply do their best to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against enemies foreign and domestic. But it seems so often that they are the enemy of the Constitution themselves.
I can only wonder, what if our leaders cared as much about their jobs as most of us care about ours, where we'd be today.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
August 25 , 2008
Ryan Hampton
I believe that our olympians represented themselves and their nation well. Outside of being close with China, America dominated the competition and did so with class and sportsmanship.
And it makes me wonder - what if our leaders viewed their jobs the same way as our olympians viewed their jobs. What if John McCain and Barack Obama took the Constitution as seriously as Michael Phelps took the techniques of swimming, or Nastia Lucan took the routines of gymnastics. We can only wonder. Maybe I would vote for one of them in that case.
Kerri Walsh and Misty May don't take an oath with their hand on the Bible to win gold. But they do it anyway. Michael Phelps did not swear on national telivision to win gold in all of his competition. But he did anyway. Those who are elected President take an Oath of Office with their hand on the Bible to simply do their best to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against enemies foreign and domestic. But it seems so often that they are the enemy of the Constitution themselves.
I can only wonder, what if our leaders cared as much about their jobs as most of us care about ours, where we'd be today.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
August 25 , 2008
Ryan Hampton
Monday, June 16, 2008
Politics Today
Politics
Well I feel the urge to write something. I really haven’t had much time to write stuff lately (working 45 hours a week does that to you ; )) But I feel the urge to write something while I can, and one of the things I want to write about is the current politics, especially of the elections coming up in Novemeber.
The 2008 Presidential race, as far as the Reps and Dems go, is between McCain and Obama. I admit it wasn’t exactly how I predicted it. I didn’t really think McCain would get the nomination. He didn’t have the “presidentialism” that others had, and he fell way behind when Giuliani got ahead. I was also a bit skeptical of Obama, if he really had what it took to get him through the Democratic nomination. I was not sure he could get past Hillary, and now that he has, he, despite all the turmoil that has come up with him, is perhaps the favorite in the general election.
So this would probably be my time to say that although I’m not a huge McCain fan, he’s good enough to endorse and support – especially over Obama. I’m supposed to say that I think McCain has better war tactics and economic tactics, and seems a little closer in line to my beliefs. This seems like my time to, even though I haven’t supported him in the primaries, to give a defense for what will be my vote for him this November.
But if that day comes, it is not today. Nor am I supporting Obama. I don’t really like either one. I guess McCain is probably the lesser of the two evils, but he’s no angel by any means. I know that since I’m not running for President and since it’s a harder job than it seems and my leaders are given to me by God, people say I shouldn’t complain. All those things are true, but somehow I still feel an urge to complain and feel justified.
Both have flawed economic plans. I was looking on Obama’s website just a few minutes ago. I didn’t want to assume he bad just because everyone else said so. I wanted to see his own words. What does he support? He basically wants a plan for anything that might be a problem – a government plan. Since we have children with disabilities and we’re caring Americans, we need a government program to help them, so says Obama. Since the temperature of the earth may be a little higher than it was a few hundred years ago, we need government intervention to cool it down and “control” our environment, or so Obama tells us. We need more government funds into our education system because it is the backbone to America, according to Obama that is. But I don’t want the government to control or attempt to control children with disabilities, the environment, or education. It’s my job to help those adapt to the disabilities the Lord graciously created them with. It’s my job to be a good steward of what the Lord has given me so that I may play my part in keeping a good environment (not that I or any man can control its weather!). It’s my job to get a good education! And its your job on the issues as well. It is not the government’s job! If Obama and other liberals are so against the government bordering with religion or morality, then why force charity on us by taking our money in the name of the poor and disabled?
McCain isn’t quite as bad as Obama on these issues, but he has his ways. He’s a big believer of the “global crises” and wants government to help it. He talks about his “plans” and when I hear politicians talk about their plans I get scared. Here is my plan: get the government out of the economy. Maybe I sound too libertarian but the philosophy holds true with economic principles. I don’t think Obama or McCain either one really understands much about government altogether – about how we have government to protect our Rights given to us by God, namely which are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not the government’s job to create utopia. It is the government’s job to secure the peace and protect our life. McCain and Obama both seem to think that the Constitution gives us our Rights. Our Rights come from God not Constitutions. This is just part of their flawed philosophy. If man gives us Rights, then man perhaps also can take away rights, legislate morality, and promote a utopian society. This sounds like Socialism or Communism! Meanwhile, they utterly ignore what the Constitution really says. To many politicians, it tells us what rights we have and if they are not mentioned, then it must mean we don’t have the rights and the government must stop us from the act. The Constitution was actually written for the opposite purpose: to list out where our Federal government should go, assuming that what is not listed is for them not to go. There may be slightly different interpretations to the Constitution, and some may interpret it very strictly while others interpret it broadly, but nonetheless it is a very important work for our leaders to follow, abide by, and defend to the best of their ability. I'm not sure if McCain or Obama care much about it. And when they take their oath of office, whomever it is, they will swear with their hand on the Word of God to defend it.
I don't think either of these candidates is real wise on foreign policy. They each have different views it seems, so it would make since I'd chose one of their views and side with one candidate on the issue. But both are interventionists. McCain may be a strong supporter of the military, and I admire his service to his nation and his patriotism, but that doesn't necesarilly make him wise in foreign affairs. I think McCain may be a little tougher on our enemies that Obama, but I also think he would drive us into war with almost the entire Middle East, making more enemies. However we do it, we need to start returning to the humble foreign policy our Founders promoted and Bush ran on in 2000. Obama may say he'll give us that some, but I'm not sure. I think in his four or eight years (if he's elected), he would bring us into some war or perhaps make enemies with another nation and set us up for war sometime in the future. Maybe that’s just speculation, but I wouldn’t really doubt any of that.
So since I don't like either candidate and I don't support or endorse either one, what do I do? I am kind of stuck between the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and the Constitutionalist candidate Chuck Baldwin. Barr is one of the better Libertarians in my opnion. He was actually an ex Republican Congressman from Georgia. Chuck Baldwin is a Baptist Minister and a frequent candidate of the Constitutionalist Party. I don't know a great amount about either one, but both are pro-life and they have both been big supporters of Republican candidate Ron Paul, who I voted for in Februrary. I think both are good men with good values, who would bring lower taxes, lower spending, promote a sensible foreign policy, and at least to some degree restore the value of the Constitution.
Before leaving, let me briefly defend my decision to possibly vote for a third-party candidate with little hope of winning. Our two parties have become sort of a one party with two branches. They are both, for the most part, wrong on many areas. I look at voting like this: out of those running, you pick who you like the best. If it happens to be a third-party candidate then so be it! Vote your conscience! I know there may always be some strategy in voting. If out of the two mainline candidates, one I liked almost as much as a third-party candidate and needed my vote to win, then I may cast my vote for him. But McCain and I are out of line a bit, and Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin are both similar to my ideal candidates. And McCain is probably going to win Alabama anyway, so I might as well use my vote to promote a third-party candidate – especially if I like them anyway. I know that the third-party candidates may seem too “radical,” but maybe that’s what we need. We keep justifying our votes for the “lesser” of the two evil candidates. Maybe it’s time we vote for someone worth voting for or just not vote at all! Until we do that, we can expect to see our nation go downhill as both parties get worse. I won't tell you who to vote for, but I would encourage you to at least look into some third-party candidates. Just at thought.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
June 16, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Well I feel the urge to write something. I really haven’t had much time to write stuff lately (working 45 hours a week does that to you ; )) But I feel the urge to write something while I can, and one of the things I want to write about is the current politics, especially of the elections coming up in Novemeber.
The 2008 Presidential race, as far as the Reps and Dems go, is between McCain and Obama. I admit it wasn’t exactly how I predicted it. I didn’t really think McCain would get the nomination. He didn’t have the “presidentialism” that others had, and he fell way behind when Giuliani got ahead. I was also a bit skeptical of Obama, if he really had what it took to get him through the Democratic nomination. I was not sure he could get past Hillary, and now that he has, he, despite all the turmoil that has come up with him, is perhaps the favorite in the general election.
So this would probably be my time to say that although I’m not a huge McCain fan, he’s good enough to endorse and support – especially over Obama. I’m supposed to say that I think McCain has better war tactics and economic tactics, and seems a little closer in line to my beliefs. This seems like my time to, even though I haven’t supported him in the primaries, to give a defense for what will be my vote for him this November.
But if that day comes, it is not today. Nor am I supporting Obama. I don’t really like either one. I guess McCain is probably the lesser of the two evils, but he’s no angel by any means. I know that since I’m not running for President and since it’s a harder job than it seems and my leaders are given to me by God, people say I shouldn’t complain. All those things are true, but somehow I still feel an urge to complain and feel justified.
Both have flawed economic plans. I was looking on Obama’s website just a few minutes ago. I didn’t want to assume he bad just because everyone else said so. I wanted to see his own words. What does he support? He basically wants a plan for anything that might be a problem – a government plan. Since we have children with disabilities and we’re caring Americans, we need a government program to help them, so says Obama. Since the temperature of the earth may be a little higher than it was a few hundred years ago, we need government intervention to cool it down and “control” our environment, or so Obama tells us. We need more government funds into our education system because it is the backbone to America, according to Obama that is. But I don’t want the government to control or attempt to control children with disabilities, the environment, or education. It’s my job to help those adapt to the disabilities the Lord graciously created them with. It’s my job to be a good steward of what the Lord has given me so that I may play my part in keeping a good environment (not that I or any man can control its weather!). It’s my job to get a good education! And its your job on the issues as well. It is not the government’s job! If Obama and other liberals are so against the government bordering with religion or morality, then why force charity on us by taking our money in the name of the poor and disabled?
McCain isn’t quite as bad as Obama on these issues, but he has his ways. He’s a big believer of the “global crises” and wants government to help it. He talks about his “plans” and when I hear politicians talk about their plans I get scared. Here is my plan: get the government out of the economy. Maybe I sound too libertarian but the philosophy holds true with economic principles. I don’t think Obama or McCain either one really understands much about government altogether – about how we have government to protect our Rights given to us by God, namely which are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not the government’s job to create utopia. It is the government’s job to secure the peace and protect our life. McCain and Obama both seem to think that the Constitution gives us our Rights. Our Rights come from God not Constitutions. This is just part of their flawed philosophy. If man gives us Rights, then man perhaps also can take away rights, legislate morality, and promote a utopian society. This sounds like Socialism or Communism! Meanwhile, they utterly ignore what the Constitution really says. To many politicians, it tells us what rights we have and if they are not mentioned, then it must mean we don’t have the rights and the government must stop us from the act. The Constitution was actually written for the opposite purpose: to list out where our Federal government should go, assuming that what is not listed is for them not to go. There may be slightly different interpretations to the Constitution, and some may interpret it very strictly while others interpret it broadly, but nonetheless it is a very important work for our leaders to follow, abide by, and defend to the best of their ability. I'm not sure if McCain or Obama care much about it. And when they take their oath of office, whomever it is, they will swear with their hand on the Word of God to defend it.
I don't think either of these candidates is real wise on foreign policy. They each have different views it seems, so it would make since I'd chose one of their views and side with one candidate on the issue. But both are interventionists. McCain may be a strong supporter of the military, and I admire his service to his nation and his patriotism, but that doesn't necesarilly make him wise in foreign affairs. I think McCain may be a little tougher on our enemies that Obama, but I also think he would drive us into war with almost the entire Middle East, making more enemies. However we do it, we need to start returning to the humble foreign policy our Founders promoted and Bush ran on in 2000. Obama may say he'll give us that some, but I'm not sure. I think in his four or eight years (if he's elected), he would bring us into some war or perhaps make enemies with another nation and set us up for war sometime in the future. Maybe that’s just speculation, but I wouldn’t really doubt any of that.
So since I don't like either candidate and I don't support or endorse either one, what do I do? I am kind of stuck between the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and the Constitutionalist candidate Chuck Baldwin. Barr is one of the better Libertarians in my opnion. He was actually an ex Republican Congressman from Georgia. Chuck Baldwin is a Baptist Minister and a frequent candidate of the Constitutionalist Party. I don't know a great amount about either one, but both are pro-life and they have both been big supporters of Republican candidate Ron Paul, who I voted for in Februrary. I think both are good men with good values, who would bring lower taxes, lower spending, promote a sensible foreign policy, and at least to some degree restore the value of the Constitution.
Before leaving, let me briefly defend my decision to possibly vote for a third-party candidate with little hope of winning. Our two parties have become sort of a one party with two branches. They are both, for the most part, wrong on many areas. I look at voting like this: out of those running, you pick who you like the best. If it happens to be a third-party candidate then so be it! Vote your conscience! I know there may always be some strategy in voting. If out of the two mainline candidates, one I liked almost as much as a third-party candidate and needed my vote to win, then I may cast my vote for him. But McCain and I are out of line a bit, and Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin are both similar to my ideal candidates. And McCain is probably going to win Alabama anyway, so I might as well use my vote to promote a third-party candidate – especially if I like them anyway. I know that the third-party candidates may seem too “radical,” but maybe that’s what we need. We keep justifying our votes for the “lesser” of the two evil candidates. Maybe it’s time we vote for someone worth voting for or just not vote at all! Until we do that, we can expect to see our nation go downhill as both parties get worse. I won't tell you who to vote for, but I would encourage you to at least look into some third-party candidates. Just at thought.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
June 16, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, February 1, 2008
Final Thoughts Before the Primaries
I figured before I get back into my "lessons" series, I would give a final blog about the upcoming Presidential Primary elections here in Alabama. I want to make this a quick (hopefully!) defense for my support of Congressman Ron Paul, Texas. I understand that he has little chance of winning, and many consider his views too radical, but I do believe he would be the best man for the job.
For one, Congressman Paul is the most convicted man running I do believe. He has convictions that do not depend on the latest surveys or polls. Congressman Paul is a Christian, and incorporates this worldview into his political ideology. Even if you may have disagreements with some of his applications, it is fairly obvious that he is at least convicted in his thoughts, and has come to what he sees as the best conclusion.
In saying this, he has the most consistent record of anyone running, and in Congress is known as "Dr. No." If the proposed bill is unconstitutional, then you can almost bank all of your money that Congressman Paul will vote against it, if he does indeed vote on the matter. And I believe with little question that one of the key missing elements in today's political society is the Supremecy view of the Constitution, and the main reason we have a Constitution. The Constitution was formed to limit the role of the Central government, not the people of the nation.
But even in saying this, I agree with most of what Dr. Paul has to say about the applications of this philosophy. We have a big monstrous government that spends way too much. Not many politicians would speak against our dangerous system of fiat money as I believe it is, but Dr. Paul does. Not many politicians want to get the Central Government out of education (something that is unconstitutional) while I do, but Dr. Paul does. This list that seems all too "radical" can go on longer, but these are the more obvious issues that come to my mind.
On the more dominant issues we see, Dr. Paul is pro-life, and for tougher border security, wanting no amnesty for those who come here illegally. After all, should they come here and not pay the taxes legal citizens pay, only to take part in our government programs (which are unconstitutional often times anyway)? Dr. Paul also wants to abolish the Federal Income Tax (which was also originally unconstitutional). We are all over taxed, and perhaps Dr. Paul stresses that the most. Consider how much more the government takes from you against your will, compared to the ten percent you should freely tithe at church.
I write this, and have written little on the issue of foreign policy, which is perhaps the biggest issue that drive Congressman Paul apart from the conservatives. I wrote of this in the last blog, and briefly defended Paul. I do not deny the possibility that Dr. Paul is perhaps a bit naive, but at least he knows where he stands and why he stands there. Congressman Paul has been the most consistent in foreign policy, showing me that he is not just making this a political issues as many Democrats and Republicans do. Even if you disagree with his foreign policy, I would rather disagree with a principled man, than agree with a man (or woman) of no principles, who will probably change their mind when the time shows them benefits of doing so. I would rather be in no war than a war for merely political reasons.
And the issue of foreign policy is really very complicated anyway. While I do agree that we should go after our enemy (as Dr. Paul agrees with as well), we should be careful. And one thing I wonder: If there are terrorists who camp out in Iraq, then perhaps they are there because we are there. If they want to kill us, wouldn't they go where we go? And if getting out of Iraq means they would follow us here, then does it follow that going to Iraq or staying in Iraq means that they would follow us to or stay in Iraq? Maybe this logic can be explained away, but I do think they are at least a decent question to be asked.
I should probably mention the others who are running for President as well. I appreciate Mike Huckabee's Christian values, but he wants a big Central government (and he scares me be a slick Christian from Arkansas, as Clinton was). Giuliani is a bit liberal on social issues and does not have the best personal life either. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, has changed his political views over time, and does not have the best right now anyway. John McCain is just John McCain, and has been moderate-at-best on many issues. When it is said and done, Congressman Paul is the most principled man, the best Constitutionalist, and closest to my specific points of view.
So when it is said and done, I give support for Congressman Paul for these reasons: I believe he is the most principled man running for President; I believe that he will better secure the borders; I believe he will lower taxes accross the board; I believe his foreign policy, whether you agree with it or disagree with it, will be acted upon in principles, not for political purposes; he is pro-life and has spoken in favor of over-turning Roe vs. Wade; and finally, because he is the best Constitutionalist running for President, a principle much forgotten about today.
And one last quote about war that I just found yesterday...Warriors fight, not because they hate those in front of them, but because they love those who are behind them. -G.K. Chesterton
And one more...Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis
And to close it up, here is a link to Dr. Ron Paul's statement of faith:
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
For one, Congressman Paul is the most convicted man running I do believe. He has convictions that do not depend on the latest surveys or polls. Congressman Paul is a Christian, and incorporates this worldview into his political ideology. Even if you may have disagreements with some of his applications, it is fairly obvious that he is at least convicted in his thoughts, and has come to what he sees as the best conclusion.
In saying this, he has the most consistent record of anyone running, and in Congress is known as "Dr. No." If the proposed bill is unconstitutional, then you can almost bank all of your money that Congressman Paul will vote against it, if he does indeed vote on the matter. And I believe with little question that one of the key missing elements in today's political society is the Supremecy view of the Constitution, and the main reason we have a Constitution. The Constitution was formed to limit the role of the Central government, not the people of the nation.
But even in saying this, I agree with most of what Dr. Paul has to say about the applications of this philosophy. We have a big monstrous government that spends way too much. Not many politicians would speak against our dangerous system of fiat money as I believe it is, but Dr. Paul does. Not many politicians want to get the Central Government out of education (something that is unconstitutional) while I do, but Dr. Paul does. This list that seems all too "radical" can go on longer, but these are the more obvious issues that come to my mind.
On the more dominant issues we see, Dr. Paul is pro-life, and for tougher border security, wanting no amnesty for those who come here illegally. After all, should they come here and not pay the taxes legal citizens pay, only to take part in our government programs (which are unconstitutional often times anyway)? Dr. Paul also wants to abolish the Federal Income Tax (which was also originally unconstitutional). We are all over taxed, and perhaps Dr. Paul stresses that the most. Consider how much more the government takes from you against your will, compared to the ten percent you should freely tithe at church.
I write this, and have written little on the issue of foreign policy, which is perhaps the biggest issue that drive Congressman Paul apart from the conservatives. I wrote of this in the last blog, and briefly defended Paul. I do not deny the possibility that Dr. Paul is perhaps a bit naive, but at least he knows where he stands and why he stands there. Congressman Paul has been the most consistent in foreign policy, showing me that he is not just making this a political issues as many Democrats and Republicans do. Even if you disagree with his foreign policy, I would rather disagree with a principled man, than agree with a man (or woman) of no principles, who will probably change their mind when the time shows them benefits of doing so. I would rather be in no war than a war for merely political reasons.
And the issue of foreign policy is really very complicated anyway. While I do agree that we should go after our enemy (as Dr. Paul agrees with as well), we should be careful. And one thing I wonder: If there are terrorists who camp out in Iraq, then perhaps they are there because we are there. If they want to kill us, wouldn't they go where we go? And if getting out of Iraq means they would follow us here, then does it follow that going to Iraq or staying in Iraq means that they would follow us to or stay in Iraq? Maybe this logic can be explained away, but I do think they are at least a decent question to be asked.
I should probably mention the others who are running for President as well. I appreciate Mike Huckabee's Christian values, but he wants a big Central government (and he scares me be a slick Christian from Arkansas, as Clinton was). Giuliani is a bit liberal on social issues and does not have the best personal life either. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, has changed his political views over time, and does not have the best right now anyway. John McCain is just John McCain, and has been moderate-at-best on many issues. When it is said and done, Congressman Paul is the most principled man, the best Constitutionalist, and closest to my specific points of view.
So when it is said and done, I give support for Congressman Paul for these reasons: I believe he is the most principled man running for President; I believe that he will better secure the borders; I believe he will lower taxes accross the board; I believe his foreign policy, whether you agree with it or disagree with it, will be acted upon in principles, not for political purposes; he is pro-life and has spoken in favor of over-turning Roe vs. Wade; and finally, because he is the best Constitutionalist running for President, a principle much forgotten about today.
And one last quote about war that I just found yesterday...Warriors fight, not because they hate those in front of them, but because they love those who are behind them. -G.K. Chesterton
And one more...Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis
And to close it up, here is a link to Dr. Ron Paul's statement of faith:
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Foreign Policy
One of the most heated topics of debate in this year's Presidential Election is that of what our foreign policy should be. Should we have a humble foreign policy? Should we try to spread the American way of life? Do the two go together? How does our overall foreign policy philosophy fit into our foreign affairs of today?
Saying that I have mixed feelings toward these questions, particularly the last question, would be an understatement. To my admission, one reason I would consider it an understatement is because of ignorance. I do not know the entire situation of every country in the world, not that I really know a good chunk of it either. I can have an overall foreign policy philosophy, but determining how it plays into our position in the world today is really a tricky question.
As far as our place in Iraq, and whether we should have gone, should get out, and the like, I will pose the four basic viewpoints:
It was a mistake to go, but because we went, we should finish the job (stay in).
We needed to go, but we caught Saddam, so it's time to get out.
We needed to go, and we should finish the job (stay in).
It was a mistake to go, so it is a mistake to stay. Get out!
When I try to find some opinion on the matter, I really cannot make up my mind between those. On one hand, I want to finish the job, whether we should have gone or not. But on one hand I am ready to get out, because we are losing lives and seeing little progress of late. On one hand I tend to think that withdrawing would allow the terrorists a place to camp out, and they would soon follow us back here. On the other hand it seems that if the terrorists would follow us here if we left Iraq, then going to Iraq only means that they followed us to Iraq in the first place. If we go home and secure our borders, then we would be much safer.
I do want to make this point though: we have strayed from the foreign policy of our founding fathers, which I tend to think is the best foreign policy we can have. Our founders, particularly Washington, supported a humble foreign policy. History has dictated to us that things do not get better when we delve into the affairs of other nations. Not just this administration, but many administrations before have fallen from the foreign policy of Washington. Washington in his Farewell Address listed out several points that are often ignored, forgotten, or even denied today. One of these is that of a humble foreign policy. We should not force our will upon other nations. This would be like one family telling another family how to run a family life. Besides, we have our own problems to work out here at home.
But there are times for war, and that should not be ignored either. Our founders knew this. They just came from war, and they designated Congress the power of declaring war. But we should remember certain things about war, and what must happen to be in war. We must have
A just cause
A probable chance of winning, and
A proper declaration of some sort. Furthermore, it must be
A last resort.
We have fallen astray from these principles. And it is not just the Republicans. The Democrats have fallen astray, and perhaps to make the matter worse, they have turned the war into a political issue. When blood is on the line, the issue is no longer merely political. It is moral, sacred, all out hell.
But I do not believe that anyone against the war should be declared guilty of treason. A point can be made both for staying in Iraq, and for getting out. Ultimately, the question is about how we apply foreign policy philosophy to a world that has abandoned the philosophy. Should we have a mass pull out? Should we finish the course we are on, and then seek correction? Should we slowly but surely pull out? Answering these questions are hard and complicated, and I suppose that not many people really can answer the question with great evidence for their case.
Before leaving, I would like to make a few more points. I do believe that the acts of 9/11 were acts of war. We needed to go fight the war and win. Catch those behind attacks, and better secure the borders so no more terrorists gets in. They gave us hell and it was time to give them hell. However this does not mean we attack the entire Middle East. Many conservatives even then wanted a humble foreign policy, but they have been slowly changing since.
I would also rather be in no war than to be in a political war, and I see some Republicans making the war a political issue. If we are in the war, then we should fight it, win it, and not fiddle around with it.
Also, we should be making a move to return to the sound foreign policy of our founders. Be humble and friendly with other nations. Declare war when you should go to war. Win the war (or at least give a darn good effort). But do not "experiment" with other nations in war.
And certainly we should support our Troops, whether we agree with the war or not. Pray for those who risk their lives doing what their nation asks of them to do.
And the person I support for President is against the war. His name is Ron Paul, and he is a Republican Congressman from Texas. I would rather have someone who is against the war because of moral convictions and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, than I would have someone who is for the war for political reasons. Ron Paul is the best Constitutionalist running for President (at least of the major candidates), and can actually defend himself when questioned about his foreign policy. I would not deny the possibility that he may be a bit naive toward foreign policy, but I do agree with his long-term plan, and would put more confidence in someone like him than I would in those who make the war a political issue.
UPCOMING BLOGS: I will write a follow up on this declaring why I support Congressman Ron Paul. I call this a follow up, because it takes a whole separate blog to defend my support for an anti-war candidate to my fellow conservative friends. I then plan to write a four part series on building Christian theology. This will cover the ideas of predestination/free will, sacraments, salvation, and worship. I plan for each to build on each other.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 27, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Saying that I have mixed feelings toward these questions, particularly the last question, would be an understatement. To my admission, one reason I would consider it an understatement is because of ignorance. I do not know the entire situation of every country in the world, not that I really know a good chunk of it either. I can have an overall foreign policy philosophy, but determining how it plays into our position in the world today is really a tricky question.
As far as our place in Iraq, and whether we should have gone, should get out, and the like, I will pose the four basic viewpoints:
It was a mistake to go, but because we went, we should finish the job (stay in).
We needed to go, but we caught Saddam, so it's time to get out.
We needed to go, and we should finish the job (stay in).
It was a mistake to go, so it is a mistake to stay. Get out!
When I try to find some opinion on the matter, I really cannot make up my mind between those. On one hand, I want to finish the job, whether we should have gone or not. But on one hand I am ready to get out, because we are losing lives and seeing little progress of late. On one hand I tend to think that withdrawing would allow the terrorists a place to camp out, and they would soon follow us back here. On the other hand it seems that if the terrorists would follow us here if we left Iraq, then going to Iraq only means that they followed us to Iraq in the first place. If we go home and secure our borders, then we would be much safer.
I do want to make this point though: we have strayed from the foreign policy of our founding fathers, which I tend to think is the best foreign policy we can have. Our founders, particularly Washington, supported a humble foreign policy. History has dictated to us that things do not get better when we delve into the affairs of other nations. Not just this administration, but many administrations before have fallen from the foreign policy of Washington. Washington in his Farewell Address listed out several points that are often ignored, forgotten, or even denied today. One of these is that of a humble foreign policy. We should not force our will upon other nations. This would be like one family telling another family how to run a family life. Besides, we have our own problems to work out here at home.
But there are times for war, and that should not be ignored either. Our founders knew this. They just came from war, and they designated Congress the power of declaring war. But we should remember certain things about war, and what must happen to be in war. We must have
A just cause
A probable chance of winning, and
A proper declaration of some sort. Furthermore, it must be
A last resort.
We have fallen astray from these principles. And it is not just the Republicans. The Democrats have fallen astray, and perhaps to make the matter worse, they have turned the war into a political issue. When blood is on the line, the issue is no longer merely political. It is moral, sacred, all out hell.
But I do not believe that anyone against the war should be declared guilty of treason. A point can be made both for staying in Iraq, and for getting out. Ultimately, the question is about how we apply foreign policy philosophy to a world that has abandoned the philosophy. Should we have a mass pull out? Should we finish the course we are on, and then seek correction? Should we slowly but surely pull out? Answering these questions are hard and complicated, and I suppose that not many people really can answer the question with great evidence for their case.
Before leaving, I would like to make a few more points. I do believe that the acts of 9/11 were acts of war. We needed to go fight the war and win. Catch those behind attacks, and better secure the borders so no more terrorists gets in. They gave us hell and it was time to give them hell. However this does not mean we attack the entire Middle East. Many conservatives even then wanted a humble foreign policy, but they have been slowly changing since.
I would also rather be in no war than to be in a political war, and I see some Republicans making the war a political issue. If we are in the war, then we should fight it, win it, and not fiddle around with it.
Also, we should be making a move to return to the sound foreign policy of our founders. Be humble and friendly with other nations. Declare war when you should go to war. Win the war (or at least give a darn good effort). But do not "experiment" with other nations in war.
And certainly we should support our Troops, whether we agree with the war or not. Pray for those who risk their lives doing what their nation asks of them to do.
And the person I support for President is against the war. His name is Ron Paul, and he is a Republican Congressman from Texas. I would rather have someone who is against the war because of moral convictions and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, than I would have someone who is for the war for political reasons. Ron Paul is the best Constitutionalist running for President (at least of the major candidates), and can actually defend himself when questioned about his foreign policy. I would not deny the possibility that he may be a bit naive toward foreign policy, but I do agree with his long-term plan, and would put more confidence in someone like him than I would in those who make the war a political issue.
UPCOMING BLOGS: I will write a follow up on this declaring why I support Congressman Ron Paul. I call this a follow up, because it takes a whole separate blog to defend my support for an anti-war candidate to my fellow conservative friends. I then plan to write a four part series on building Christian theology. This will cover the ideas of predestination/free will, sacraments, salvation, and worship. I plan for each to build on each other.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 27, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Elections...
First off, let me wish you all a very Merry Christmas. Ultimately, as we are reminded in Mike Huckabee's Christmas ad, the real meaning of this season is the real meaning of Christmas, namely, Christ's birth - not political agenda and the like. I do want to make one point very clear before exploring the current standings of the election: REAL and GOOD change does not begin at the voting booths, but in the heart of anyone of fears the One God.
However with that said, our faith in God should influence all we do, including the elections, and the elections should not be overlooked, being that they are a major part of our society. They do not make change, but show us the results of our change.
When I had wrote of the elections a while back, I made the point that it would be hard for McCain to beat Giuliani. Even if Giuliani gets beat by someone else, it would be hard for McCain to outdebate him, and win the American people over. I brought out the same point with Obama and Clinton, although I did recognize the slick rhetoric of Barack Obama, and showed the possibility of the Democratic race turing into a three-way race if Edwards stays in a strong third place and finds a couple of breaks along the way. But I made the point that Clinton can get away with acting like a jerk, whereas Obama can not. He may knock Clinton down some, but he would not beat out Clinton, unless Clinton made bad campain choices. If her and Obama got into a feud, it would be possible for Edwards to gain momentum just in time for the primaries. On the Republican side, McCain could not beat out Giuliani, but might knock him down some giving rise to the slick Mitt Romney, the (then) upcoming Fred Thompson, or one of the (then) back-pack crew such as Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee.
And as it turned out, the race for 2008 has been every bit as interesting as this and all the more. It was Huckabee, who by wise political moves and a faith-based campain, was the back-pack man who turned into a front runner. Now Mike Huckabee, despite having little money, has as much of a chance as any Republican at winning the nomination. My predictions on McCain seemed true for a while. He slipped dramatically in the polls. Meanwhile, with the help of good speeches and an endorsement by none other than Democratic Senator Joseph Liberman, he has made a comeback. He could gain much ground by winning the votes of the independent moderates. According to some polls, he actually leads Rudy Giuliani, who has fallen behind a good bit in the polls.
What happens is when people get into the lead, they are the subject of talk and debate. People play closer attention to them. When two people get into feuds, it often becomes too nasty for many voters. Giuliani struggled when asked about his religious views. Huckabee always came through with good speeches and powerful rhetoric. He was endorsed by Chuck Norris, and seemed confident and sincere when asked about his faith. Giuliani and Clinton began making unwise political moves - especially the Christmas political ads. Giuliani's ad is known for wanting fruitcake, and Hillary Clinton's ad was known for a confused woman who temporarily misplaced the "universal pre-k" gift. Barack Obama and John Edward's each made videos of emotional appeals wishing us a Merry Christmas. Edwards' ad got to the heart of his campaign with the "Two America's" slogan. In this he did not bring up specific issues, but did wish everyone a Merry Christmas. Obama's was simpler. He and his family simply wished us a Merry Christmas. The much contraversial Mike Huckabee "Bookcase or cross" ad was probably the most beneficial. It struck to the heart of his campain in a politically incorrect way. The lesser heard of Ron Paul Christmas ad was also good, but did not gain enough attentian to matter much anyway.
I thought that Giuliani and Clinton had commited political suicide, but now Clinton has a great lead over Obama. Only someone such as Clinton could get away with an ad like hers. Meanwhile Edwards is rivaling Obama, and the two may try to gang up on the leader Clinton.
Giuliani stays within a shot of the nomination and should not be ruled out. However it is Huckabee and Mitt Romney who are the two front runners now just eight days before the Iowa caucuses. McCain and Giuliani are battling out third and fourth place, while Thompson is in fifth place with a Ron Paul who is slowly creeping up staying in sixth place. The Republican race is up for grabs more than ever. It is hard to tell if Tancredo's drop out is helping his endorsement Mitt Romney, although I think it may be more than we expected given the hole Romney fell in trying to explain how his Father marched with Martin Luther King Jr. Although Tancredo was one of the least likely to win the nomination, his few percent may be all it takes to swing the election. If most of his supporters turned to Romney, it may be just enough to pull Romney ahead of Huckabee. It is really hard to tell.
Huckabee offers what I call "Big Government Conservatism." Even though he said education is a state's issue, he called for more education to the left side of the brain using courses such as arts and music. He may be right, but he sounds contradictory in wanting the Federal Government to do such a thing, while calling education a state's issue. He wanted more government spending in space explorations. Despite the polls do not show it, Tom Tancredo would often get Huckabee in these corners during debates. It is only Huckabee's strong basis and slick rhetoric that has kept him alive. Only time will tell if it brings him through or not.
The top five candidates are really a flip-flop for voters. I have heard several people who have changed their support from one of these candidates to another. If these lost their support to someone such as Duncan Hunter, it could open the door for him or Ron Paul, who has a strong support basis - especially over the internet. Ron Paul is also perhaps a little underated in that he is rasing a lot of money, has a strong appeal to young voters who are not polled much, as well as to third-party affiliates and possibly even independents. If these people pulled together in favor of Ron Paul, then he could have a chance. However as of now, the top five candidates are only switching places. But as Ron Paul continues to gain support slowly while the other candidates switch or lose support, he may have a chance. Iraq, the main but certainly not only difference Ron Paul has with the other candidates, is becoming less of an issue to many of the domestic issues that America is facing. One friend of mine actually said that he disagree's with Ron Paul on foreign policy, but would support him because America needs a Constitutionalist, and that is the exact kind of philosophy Ron Paul offers to his politics. If Ron Paul can appeal to the Christians, then he may have a chance. Although Ron Paul does not talk of his faith as much as Huckabee does, he is as firm as Huckabee when questioned about it.
So all of this is to say that we really do not know who will win. The Democratic race is still uncertain, although my prediction that Hillary Clinton will win seems to be very possibly. It is also possible that it could turn into a three-way race. As I have said before, John Edward's may not be in as bad of a position as some may think. The Republican side is up for grabs as well. I had originally picked Giuliani to win, but that was a hypothetical guess, and it does not seem as likely now, although it is still quite possible. My prediction now would that it would come down to Hillary Clinton against Mike Huckabee, but we really do not know. Each side is coming more and more down to the wire, and more and more a toss-up. We really do not know, but that is perhaps the rare beauty we find in politics.
And in case your wondering, I plan to vote for Ron Paul. I will explain reasons why later on closer to the Alabama caucuses.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless our Troops
Merry Christmas
December 26, 2007
Ryan Hampton
However with that said, our faith in God should influence all we do, including the elections, and the elections should not be overlooked, being that they are a major part of our society. They do not make change, but show us the results of our change.
When I had wrote of the elections a while back, I made the point that it would be hard for McCain to beat Giuliani. Even if Giuliani gets beat by someone else, it would be hard for McCain to outdebate him, and win the American people over. I brought out the same point with Obama and Clinton, although I did recognize the slick rhetoric of Barack Obama, and showed the possibility of the Democratic race turing into a three-way race if Edwards stays in a strong third place and finds a couple of breaks along the way. But I made the point that Clinton can get away with acting like a jerk, whereas Obama can not. He may knock Clinton down some, but he would not beat out Clinton, unless Clinton made bad campain choices. If her and Obama got into a feud, it would be possible for Edwards to gain momentum just in time for the primaries. On the Republican side, McCain could not beat out Giuliani, but might knock him down some giving rise to the slick Mitt Romney, the (then) upcoming Fred Thompson, or one of the (then) back-pack crew such as Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee.
And as it turned out, the race for 2008 has been every bit as interesting as this and all the more. It was Huckabee, who by wise political moves and a faith-based campain, was the back-pack man who turned into a front runner. Now Mike Huckabee, despite having little money, has as much of a chance as any Republican at winning the nomination. My predictions on McCain seemed true for a while. He slipped dramatically in the polls. Meanwhile, with the help of good speeches and an endorsement by none other than Democratic Senator Joseph Liberman, he has made a comeback. He could gain much ground by winning the votes of the independent moderates. According to some polls, he actually leads Rudy Giuliani, who has fallen behind a good bit in the polls.
What happens is when people get into the lead, they are the subject of talk and debate. People play closer attention to them. When two people get into feuds, it often becomes too nasty for many voters. Giuliani struggled when asked about his religious views. Huckabee always came through with good speeches and powerful rhetoric. He was endorsed by Chuck Norris, and seemed confident and sincere when asked about his faith. Giuliani and Clinton began making unwise political moves - especially the Christmas political ads. Giuliani's ad is known for wanting fruitcake, and Hillary Clinton's ad was known for a confused woman who temporarily misplaced the "universal pre-k" gift. Barack Obama and John Edward's each made videos of emotional appeals wishing us a Merry Christmas. Edwards' ad got to the heart of his campaign with the "Two America's" slogan. In this he did not bring up specific issues, but did wish everyone a Merry Christmas. Obama's was simpler. He and his family simply wished us a Merry Christmas. The much contraversial Mike Huckabee "Bookcase or cross" ad was probably the most beneficial. It struck to the heart of his campain in a politically incorrect way. The lesser heard of Ron Paul Christmas ad was also good, but did not gain enough attentian to matter much anyway.
I thought that Giuliani and Clinton had commited political suicide, but now Clinton has a great lead over Obama. Only someone such as Clinton could get away with an ad like hers. Meanwhile Edwards is rivaling Obama, and the two may try to gang up on the leader Clinton.
Giuliani stays within a shot of the nomination and should not be ruled out. However it is Huckabee and Mitt Romney who are the two front runners now just eight days before the Iowa caucuses. McCain and Giuliani are battling out third and fourth place, while Thompson is in fifth place with a Ron Paul who is slowly creeping up staying in sixth place. The Republican race is up for grabs more than ever. It is hard to tell if Tancredo's drop out is helping his endorsement Mitt Romney, although I think it may be more than we expected given the hole Romney fell in trying to explain how his Father marched with Martin Luther King Jr. Although Tancredo was one of the least likely to win the nomination, his few percent may be all it takes to swing the election. If most of his supporters turned to Romney, it may be just enough to pull Romney ahead of Huckabee. It is really hard to tell.
Huckabee offers what I call "Big Government Conservatism." Even though he said education is a state's issue, he called for more education to the left side of the brain using courses such as arts and music. He may be right, but he sounds contradictory in wanting the Federal Government to do such a thing, while calling education a state's issue. He wanted more government spending in space explorations. Despite the polls do not show it, Tom Tancredo would often get Huckabee in these corners during debates. It is only Huckabee's strong basis and slick rhetoric that has kept him alive. Only time will tell if it brings him through or not.
The top five candidates are really a flip-flop for voters. I have heard several people who have changed their support from one of these candidates to another. If these lost their support to someone such as Duncan Hunter, it could open the door for him or Ron Paul, who has a strong support basis - especially over the internet. Ron Paul is also perhaps a little underated in that he is rasing a lot of money, has a strong appeal to young voters who are not polled much, as well as to third-party affiliates and possibly even independents. If these people pulled together in favor of Ron Paul, then he could have a chance. However as of now, the top five candidates are only switching places. But as Ron Paul continues to gain support slowly while the other candidates switch or lose support, he may have a chance. Iraq, the main but certainly not only difference Ron Paul has with the other candidates, is becoming less of an issue to many of the domestic issues that America is facing. One friend of mine actually said that he disagree's with Ron Paul on foreign policy, but would support him because America needs a Constitutionalist, and that is the exact kind of philosophy Ron Paul offers to his politics. If Ron Paul can appeal to the Christians, then he may have a chance. Although Ron Paul does not talk of his faith as much as Huckabee does, he is as firm as Huckabee when questioned about it.
So all of this is to say that we really do not know who will win. The Democratic race is still uncertain, although my prediction that Hillary Clinton will win seems to be very possibly. It is also possible that it could turn into a three-way race. As I have said before, John Edward's may not be in as bad of a position as some may think. The Republican side is up for grabs as well. I had originally picked Giuliani to win, but that was a hypothetical guess, and it does not seem as likely now, although it is still quite possible. My prediction now would that it would come down to Hillary Clinton against Mike Huckabee, but we really do not know. Each side is coming more and more down to the wire, and more and more a toss-up. We really do not know, but that is perhaps the rare beauty we find in politics.
And in case your wondering, I plan to vote for Ron Paul. I will explain reasons why later on closer to the Alabama caucuses.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless our Troops
Merry Christmas
December 26, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Recapping the Debate
This is the second of the three blogs I will be posting today (hopefully!)
I finally got around to watching one of the Republican debates last night. Eight of the candidates running were present. I will give you a breif take on each candidate, and how I feel the race is shaping out. (The order I present here is ordered according to who I think is in the lead at the moment. It is not ordered based on who I like the most, or how I predict it to turnout, becuase it could change.)
Rudy Giuliani: He is considered one of the more liberal Republicans, but he actually did not do all that bad last night. He had probably the funniest campaign add. He took a pledge not to raise taxes (although this is only a pledge, and he is a politician). He actually mentioned the word "Constitution" a few times. The only candidate who actually seemed to talk much about the Constitution was Congressman Ron Paul. He was attacked for his stance on gun control, and worded it fairly well for what it was worth. I am not saying I agree with all the issues he spoked on, but his rhetoric was pretty well. He answered the questions fairly well. However he did not do so well when asked his views on the Bible. He was asked if he believed every word. His answer was something like this: "Yes, but it is not always exactly right, but yes I do in the way that it is a good book. It helped me during 9/11 and other crises. It is true, but sometimes allegorical, but yes, I believe it for the most part." The answer is pretty much a yes or no question. If expounded upon, Huckabee's answer probably would have been best. To this exception, though, Giuliani had a pretty good debate.
Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney made a cheesy comment about his son owning a gun. He got in a little bit of a feud with John McCain. His rhetoric was relatively good, but somewhat dull. He was asked about how he changed views on abortion. He said he had a change of heart, and it had nothing to do with a political move. He sounded relatively convincing, but just remember, he is a politician!
Mike Huckabee: Huckabee answered most his questions well. He showed supported a fair flat tax. He was able to talk of his faith without over emphasizing the matter. He did fairly well. He was put in a bind when a campaign add questioned his tax history - that he had supported higher taxes before. He answered it fairly well for what it worth, and for the position he was in. Huckabee seems to support a bit of the religious conservatism of the Republican Party, but this does not always mean less spending. He talked of more spending for Space programs. He also called America a Democracy. The word Democracy is overused. I would rather hear "Constitutional" or "Republic." Or better yet, Constitutional Federated Republic. How many candidates talk like that? Still, not too bad a night for Huckabee. He will continue to climb in the polls. He may could be the cinderella candidate.
Fred Thompson: Fred Thompson had trouble answering a few questions. He would ramble on about irrelevent issues. Thompson never had a really bright moment, but never had too much of a bad moment either. His campaign has not been as good as some may have thought. He will probably slowly decline or stay about the same. His chances of winning is for the candidates above him to cancel each other out. A mediocre night for Fred Thompson.
John McCain: John McCain looks like a 1970's President last night. That is how he has always seemed to look. He looks like an okay President, but a bit outdated. He does not look like he has the charisma. This has little to do whether I like him as a person or as President, but it was the image he gave last night. He was dull and seemed a bit unsure of himself. He then rambled on about waterboarding to Mitt Romney, getting the two in a bit of a feud. He was not bad, but he did not have anything to remember.
Ron Paul: Ron Paul had trouble answering a few questions. He was not asked many questions either. But the questions he was asked were fairly tough questions, and for the most part, he did well. He showed consistency throughout. He made good points. He had more memorable moments than many other candidates did. His campaign has very slowly risen, but it was Huckabee who seemed to have made a nice cinderella move. Still, if he continues to have good debates, and if McCain and Thompson continue to decline, Ron Paul might could get into the mix with the top guys. But with only a couple months or so unti the first primaries, that will be hard.
Duncan Hunter: Duncan Hunter does not seem to have the charisma that some of the politicians had. He tried winning emotional appeal by telling family gun stories. His politics are pretty much conservative, but he has not made much headway into the election. Last night was a general reflection of him. He was dull, simple, and more or less conservative. I do not think he proved much and will probably not make much headway in the future.
Tom Tancredo: Tancredo had a decent night. He is one of the "back-pack" of the Republicans. But I think that he may make a small run in the polls. He has been a bit one sided with his approach to illegal immigration. Most Americans want more done about stopping illegals, but this seems his only main issue. But last night, he seemed to balance this more. He made a nice rebuttle to Huckabee when Huckabee was talking about spending for space programs. Tancredo said he wants very little spending. A decent night for Tancredo.
Well there is that. We will have to see how it goes. To see parts of the debates, go to the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
November 29, 2007
Ryan Hampton
I finally got around to watching one of the Republican debates last night. Eight of the candidates running were present. I will give you a breif take on each candidate, and how I feel the race is shaping out. (The order I present here is ordered according to who I think is in the lead at the moment. It is not ordered based on who I like the most, or how I predict it to turnout, becuase it could change.)
Rudy Giuliani: He is considered one of the more liberal Republicans, but he actually did not do all that bad last night. He had probably the funniest campaign add. He took a pledge not to raise taxes (although this is only a pledge, and he is a politician). He actually mentioned the word "Constitution" a few times. The only candidate who actually seemed to talk much about the Constitution was Congressman Ron Paul. He was attacked for his stance on gun control, and worded it fairly well for what it was worth. I am not saying I agree with all the issues he spoked on, but his rhetoric was pretty well. He answered the questions fairly well. However he did not do so well when asked his views on the Bible. He was asked if he believed every word. His answer was something like this: "Yes, but it is not always exactly right, but yes I do in the way that it is a good book. It helped me during 9/11 and other crises. It is true, but sometimes allegorical, but yes, I believe it for the most part." The answer is pretty much a yes or no question. If expounded upon, Huckabee's answer probably would have been best. To this exception, though, Giuliani had a pretty good debate.
Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney made a cheesy comment about his son owning a gun. He got in a little bit of a feud with John McCain. His rhetoric was relatively good, but somewhat dull. He was asked about how he changed views on abortion. He said he had a change of heart, and it had nothing to do with a political move. He sounded relatively convincing, but just remember, he is a politician!
Mike Huckabee: Huckabee answered most his questions well. He showed supported a fair flat tax. He was able to talk of his faith without over emphasizing the matter. He did fairly well. He was put in a bind when a campaign add questioned his tax history - that he had supported higher taxes before. He answered it fairly well for what it worth, and for the position he was in. Huckabee seems to support a bit of the religious conservatism of the Republican Party, but this does not always mean less spending. He talked of more spending for Space programs. He also called America a Democracy. The word Democracy is overused. I would rather hear "Constitutional" or "Republic." Or better yet, Constitutional Federated Republic. How many candidates talk like that? Still, not too bad a night for Huckabee. He will continue to climb in the polls. He may could be the cinderella candidate.
Fred Thompson: Fred Thompson had trouble answering a few questions. He would ramble on about irrelevent issues. Thompson never had a really bright moment, but never had too much of a bad moment either. His campaign has not been as good as some may have thought. He will probably slowly decline or stay about the same. His chances of winning is for the candidates above him to cancel each other out. A mediocre night for Fred Thompson.
John McCain: John McCain looks like a 1970's President last night. That is how he has always seemed to look. He looks like an okay President, but a bit outdated. He does not look like he has the charisma. This has little to do whether I like him as a person or as President, but it was the image he gave last night. He was dull and seemed a bit unsure of himself. He then rambled on about waterboarding to Mitt Romney, getting the two in a bit of a feud. He was not bad, but he did not have anything to remember.
Ron Paul: Ron Paul had trouble answering a few questions. He was not asked many questions either. But the questions he was asked were fairly tough questions, and for the most part, he did well. He showed consistency throughout. He made good points. He had more memorable moments than many other candidates did. His campaign has very slowly risen, but it was Huckabee who seemed to have made a nice cinderella move. Still, if he continues to have good debates, and if McCain and Thompson continue to decline, Ron Paul might could get into the mix with the top guys. But with only a couple months or so unti the first primaries, that will be hard.
Duncan Hunter: Duncan Hunter does not seem to have the charisma that some of the politicians had. He tried winning emotional appeal by telling family gun stories. His politics are pretty much conservative, but he has not made much headway into the election. Last night was a general reflection of him. He was dull, simple, and more or less conservative. I do not think he proved much and will probably not make much headway in the future.
Tom Tancredo: Tancredo had a decent night. He is one of the "back-pack" of the Republicans. But I think that he may make a small run in the polls. He has been a bit one sided with his approach to illegal immigration. Most Americans want more done about stopping illegals, but this seems his only main issue. But last night, he seemed to balance this more. He made a nice rebuttle to Huckabee when Huckabee was talking about spending for space programs. Tancredo said he wants very little spending. A decent night for Tancredo.
Well there is that. We will have to see how it goes. To see parts of the debates, go to the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
November 29, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Ryan Hampton Supports...
We are about five months away to the primaries of the Presidential elections, and many people have already decided who they will vote for. I will be a first-time voter myself, and I have been trying to make the right decision as to who I will vote for. No, I have not tirelessly read and researched every single candidate of every single party in full detail, but I have put at least some thought into who will receive my first official vote I cast for being President of The United States of America.
I have finally decided who I will give my official support to. This candidate has seemed better than any of the others from the very beginning I started studying of him. He is pro-life, and is a Christian. He is for a limited, Constitutional Government. His voting record is perhaps the most consistent of those running. His stance of immigration has been strong and consistent: essentially, to secure our borders. He is a protector of states rights, and is for low taxes. He also wants America independent of global government.
This candidate, though, is stuck in no-where’s land politically. Not many conservatives like him (even though he claims to be the most conservative of those running). Not many Democrats like him either, nor do many Libertarians. He would probably fall best in line with the Constitutionalist Party, but he is running as a Republican.
This candidate is Congressman Ron Paul, from Texas. His stance on the war has made him not very popular among Republicans. A lot of what many conservatives would want the Federal Government to do, Paul advocates it to be done by State Government because of Federalism. These nit-picky gripes conservatives make at Paul keep him from gaining attention as the strongest upholder of the Constitution.
An interesting topic is the gold standard of money. Hardly any politician today would claim to want to go to the gold standard. But Ron Paul does. Many people consider this too radical or too "out there," but Ron Paul has good points. If we base our money currency standard off of nothing but meaningless paper, then it is essentially as if the Government can buy anything on a credit card. Our next generation must pay for that credit card bill. If we base our money currency policy off of gold- something that is scarce and has real value in and of itself- then we have a real backing for anything anyone- especially the government itself- buys and trades for.
Perhaps the biggest concern conservatives and Republicans have toward Paul is his stance on the war. I have questioned it myself. I have never considered myself anti-war, even in regards to this war. But Paul has, and given the fact that there are lives on the line in the war, I have considered carefully the war as in issue to help determine who wins my votes. But I do not think that Paul is against catching terrorists who do harm to our country. He simply holds the foreign policy held by none other than our founders: to stay out of foreign entanglements when at all possible. Catching the enemy is one thing, and an important thing- being a moral police to the entire world is quite another. In the past we have given money and/or support to those who seemed to be our friends, but turned against us (such as Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). Ron Paul also defends his beliefs on the war not on political benefits as many Democrats, but on the Constitution. War should be declared by Congress Constitutionally. In this case, it was mostly the President who declared war. Furthermore, Ron Paul is for national security- even if not in an all-out war on Iraq. The first step to national security is to secure your borders- something Ron Paul is a strong advocate of. War comes only after that. Ron Paul would be for catching the terrorists- just not making an all-out war on nearly every nation in all of the Middle East or Eastern Civilization. But beyond all of this, war (certainly this war) is a complicated issue. I do not think that any one person who will be reading this could give me a definite account of what we should do. If you have been to war, then God bless you, and you probably know more than many people. But even those who have gone to war have different opinions. I might have to place my trust in a politician on the matter- because I do not know the full details of the war. I only have to go by my philosophy to war, and the little I can see of it. I do not like placing my trust in politicians, but Ron Paul is probably the most trustworthy of those who are running for President.
I have considered other candidates. Fred Thompson might be the best of those who actually stand a good shot at winning (the chances of Paul winning are small). His speech on Federalism seemed like a breath of fresh air compared to what I hear many politicians say. Mike Huckabee brings forth a good traditional conservative Christian approach, which is missing in politics today. Giuliani may be one of the best leaders who will be running (although some of this may be stereotype and not completely true). Tom Tancredo is for tough immigration laws, and seems to be in favor of school choice. Sam Brownback made some speeches on morality in politics that seemed pretty good and fair to say, and consistent within my views. But Ron Paul seems to be the most honest, fair, and Constitutional person running for President.
Until any further notice, Ryan Hampton, and his blog, From The Mind of Ryan Hampton, will be a supporter of Republican Congressmen Ron Paul of Texas, as the next President of the United States of America.
Check out my blog at http://www.ryanhampton.blogspot.com/
Check out Ron Paul's website at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Thank you.
What do you think?
August 28, 2007
God Bless America
Ryan
I have finally decided who I will give my official support to. This candidate has seemed better than any of the others from the very beginning I started studying of him. He is pro-life, and is a Christian. He is for a limited, Constitutional Government. His voting record is perhaps the most consistent of those running. His stance of immigration has been strong and consistent: essentially, to secure our borders. He is a protector of states rights, and is for low taxes. He also wants America independent of global government.
This candidate, though, is stuck in no-where’s land politically. Not many conservatives like him (even though he claims to be the most conservative of those running). Not many Democrats like him either, nor do many Libertarians. He would probably fall best in line with the Constitutionalist Party, but he is running as a Republican.
This candidate is Congressman Ron Paul, from Texas. His stance on the war has made him not very popular among Republicans. A lot of what many conservatives would want the Federal Government to do, Paul advocates it to be done by State Government because of Federalism. These nit-picky gripes conservatives make at Paul keep him from gaining attention as the strongest upholder of the Constitution.
An interesting topic is the gold standard of money. Hardly any politician today would claim to want to go to the gold standard. But Ron Paul does. Many people consider this too radical or too "out there," but Ron Paul has good points. If we base our money currency standard off of nothing but meaningless paper, then it is essentially as if the Government can buy anything on a credit card. Our next generation must pay for that credit card bill. If we base our money currency policy off of gold- something that is scarce and has real value in and of itself- then we have a real backing for anything anyone- especially the government itself- buys and trades for.
Perhaps the biggest concern conservatives and Republicans have toward Paul is his stance on the war. I have questioned it myself. I have never considered myself anti-war, even in regards to this war. But Paul has, and given the fact that there are lives on the line in the war, I have considered carefully the war as in issue to help determine who wins my votes. But I do not think that Paul is against catching terrorists who do harm to our country. He simply holds the foreign policy held by none other than our founders: to stay out of foreign entanglements when at all possible. Catching the enemy is one thing, and an important thing- being a moral police to the entire world is quite another. In the past we have given money and/or support to those who seemed to be our friends, but turned against us (such as Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). Ron Paul also defends his beliefs on the war not on political benefits as many Democrats, but on the Constitution. War should be declared by Congress Constitutionally. In this case, it was mostly the President who declared war. Furthermore, Ron Paul is for national security- even if not in an all-out war on Iraq. The first step to national security is to secure your borders- something Ron Paul is a strong advocate of. War comes only after that. Ron Paul would be for catching the terrorists- just not making an all-out war on nearly every nation in all of the Middle East or Eastern Civilization. But beyond all of this, war (certainly this war) is a complicated issue. I do not think that any one person who will be reading this could give me a definite account of what we should do. If you have been to war, then God bless you, and you probably know more than many people. But even those who have gone to war have different opinions. I might have to place my trust in a politician on the matter- because I do not know the full details of the war. I only have to go by my philosophy to war, and the little I can see of it. I do not like placing my trust in politicians, but Ron Paul is probably the most trustworthy of those who are running for President.
I have considered other candidates. Fred Thompson might be the best of those who actually stand a good shot at winning (the chances of Paul winning are small). His speech on Federalism seemed like a breath of fresh air compared to what I hear many politicians say. Mike Huckabee brings forth a good traditional conservative Christian approach, which is missing in politics today. Giuliani may be one of the best leaders who will be running (although some of this may be stereotype and not completely true). Tom Tancredo is for tough immigration laws, and seems to be in favor of school choice. Sam Brownback made some speeches on morality in politics that seemed pretty good and fair to say, and consistent within my views. But Ron Paul seems to be the most honest, fair, and Constitutional person running for President.
Until any further notice, Ryan Hampton, and his blog, From The Mind of Ryan Hampton, will be a supporter of Republican Congressmen Ron Paul of Texas, as the next President of the United States of America.
Check out my blog at http://www.ryanhampton.blogspot.com/
Check out Ron Paul's website at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Thank you.
What do you think?
August 28, 2007
God Bless America
Ryan
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Elections of 2008
The Elections of 2008
The elections of 2008 are quickly approaching us, and it is time we consider the candidates running and who we may vote for. I myself will be a first-time voter, and I will just make the primaries by about five days (I turn 18 about five days before the primaries). I am trying to pay close attention the candidates, to know who seems most trustworthy, and who seems to be the best leader for this nation. Soon, I will be issuing my official support for one of the candidates.
It seems weird that a year and a half from now, our President will not be a Bush. However it might be a Clinton. Hillary Clinton is certainly one of the leaders in the race for President, but does she have what it takes to pull of the election? Or will she even be able to make it out of the primaries?
The election, with still several more months until even the primaries begin, has already been one filled with action, and change from original speculations. Barack Obama was not considered a serious candidate until about the beginning of the campaign trail. He soon jumped up into a dead-heat race with none other than Hillary Clinton. Two and a half years ago, it was John McCain who thought to have a pretty comfortable victory for the Republican Party. Rudy Giuliani was given a shot, but only behind Senator McCain. Now, Giuliani is the "sure favorite" to win, and John McCain has fallen behind dramatically.
But this puts Giuliani in a "no win" situation. Sure, he is the favorite to win. But that puts him in more media spotlight, and has more room for sensibility to his opinions. The best that can happen is that he gains more votes and wins anyway. For a lesser candidate, the worst is that he loses votes, and loses anyway. Giuliani is in the position that McCain was in, Hillary Clinton is in, and the position Howard Dean was in about four years ago- before he blew it.
McCain, when in second behind Giuliani, was also in a no-win situation. He was in worse of a situation that Giuliani is in now. At least now, Giuliani can hold on to his lead and win. McCain was being cancelled out by Giuliani. Giuliani’s tough character, and McCain’s small chances of beating Clinton, would make it nearly impossible for McCain to beat Giuliani. He might could cancel out Giuliani, but that would cancel him out too, giving rise to another person- likely Mitt Romney.
Now McCain has gone down hill severely. He is not even in the position to beat cancel out Giuliani. Now, that role has been placed on Romney- the slick, tough, Mormon carrying much momentum. Does this put Mitt Romney in the same ‘‘no win’’ position as McCain was in? I think that Mitt Romney can handle this better than McCain. He might could pull out and beat Guiliani. However if these two get put in heated debates, don’t be surprised to see the election fall into an all-out up for grabs amongst nearly all of the candidates. You could see someone like Sam Brownback, Ron Paul, or Mike Huckabee come make a surprise run into the primaries, similar to how John Kerry did in 2004.
The Democratic race is very similar. Hillary Clinton is in the same position as Giuliani is in. She has held her ground for much longer, but is now under great pressure from Obama. Is she going to be able to hold on to the lead, or will she give it up to Obama? Or, could they both cancel each other out giving rise to a John Edwards?
Barack Obama, though maybe a little better, is in a similar situation to what John McCain was in. Barack Obama’s bright young face, and slick rhetoric is what is keeping him in longer than John McCain. However Clinton has one thing that Obama does not have. As journalist Josh Rutledge points out, "She [Hillary Clinton] can get away with acting like a jerk and trying to smear him [Barack Obama]. Obama can’t." Hillary Clinton might could use this to her advantage. This could probably take away Barack Obama’s changes. However it is a chance for Clinton as well. She could mess up and cancel both her and Obama out, or, Obama could come back with a counter attack and cancel out Clinton. It may already be a lost cause for Obama, but this could put John Edwards in as sure of a position as ever to win the Democratic primaries. He is slick, and has "been there done that" unlike both Obama and Clinton. For Obama to stand a chance, he must continue to be slick, and careful. Furthermore, he probably needs a mistake or two from Hillary Clinton. Both are very possible, but for them both to happen is unlikely.
It is possible that both of these candidates, Clinton and Obama, could beat their way down to the level of John Edwards, or, that Edwards could meet somewhere in the middle with Clinton and Obama. This could turn into a dead-heated race between the three of them. If they then all cancelled each other out, though, the Democratic primaries could turn into a dead-heat between all of the candidates. Candidates such as Joe Biden, Chris Dodden, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich, who once thought to have no chance, may have a chance after all.
Any of the candidates, really, still hold a shot at winning- just in their own way. Each candidate brings something that the other candidates are lacking, and thus, will receive some votes. A year ago, many people, including myself to a degree, thought that this could be the year that a third party candidate makes a run- maybe not winning, but perhaps deciding the election, or gains a considerable number of votes in consideration of being a third party candidate. That is still possible, but it is probably next to irrelevant in the primaries. It is probably a little more noticeable from the Republican side, where the candidates are a little more spread out. The moderate Republicans will probably take Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney; the conservative, fundamental Republicans will probably take Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, or Fred Thompson; the more Libertarian Republicans will probably take Ron Paul. Once again, McCain, who was once the leader, is more or less left out.
Ron Paul himself is an interesting candidate. If you look on the internet, you might think that he is the leading candidate. However if you watch the news, you may hear Guiliani’s name one hundred times before you hear "Ron Paul." Ron Paul calls himself the "True Republican." But yet many Republican’s disown him. He is against the war, he is not for a Federal drug war, and he is not for the Federal banning of abortion. He wants to return the gold standard, which is something too radical and "out there" for both Democrats and Republicans. He is not for a national ID card, and he is not for regulating the internet. Looking at these things, it is easy to see why modern-day Republicans, conservative and moderate, disown him.
But he does offer many conservative ideologies that other Republican candidates are not willing to offer- many things that would be a conservative’s dream. He is a proclaimed Christian. Sure, any candidate could say that, but this goes for all candidates. If you question Paul (who by the way, as we’ll see is the most consistent voter), then you must question every other proclaimed Christian running for President (and every one in the world as well). He is for tougher border security, which is something many Republicans do not like about Bush at the moment. He is for low taxes, and has never voted to raise taxes. He has been called the "tax-payers best friend." He says he will protect your rights to bear arms. He is perhaps the most consistent candidates in voting, as far as not "flip-flopping." He is pro-life. (He is not so much for a Federal ban on abortion, but he would support the ban at the state level). As far as returning to the gold standard, he simply wants to be able to back up any money in circulation with gold- something with true value in itself. This would reduce inflation, help get America out of debt, and probably lower the prices on many goods. None of these things are bad. When gold does not back up money, the government spends money like a credit card. The next generation must pay that credit card bill. He is a strict constructionist in viewing the Constitution, and pledges to uphold it. He would probably be the most Libertarian of conservatives, but also probably the most conservative of the Libertarians. Conservative hero Ronald Reagan said that "The very heart and soul of conservatism is Libertarianism."
Paul probably should campaign on the conservative issues more if wants any chance at winning. He probably needs a lot of help by other candidate’s mistakes, but plenty can happen in five or six months. If nothing else, he might affect the way other candidates run and campaign, and might bring a little different twist to the Republican Party. I also think out of the lesser candidates, Ron Paul is probably the most underrated. He has raised more money than a lot of candidates, but has not spent all that much of it. The internet is also serving as a big help to Paul.
As of to date, Fred Thompson has not made his campaign official, but most people believe it is definite that he will run. Many people consider him real conservative. However after comparing voting records, Ron Paul seems more fiscally conservative than Fred Thompson is. Still out of those who have a good chance to win the Republican nomination, Fred Thompson is probably the most conservative.
There are still many more of the "lesser" candidates from both sides- Tom Tacnredo, Bill Richardson, Mike Huckabee, etc. Tom Tancredo is conservative from the standpoint of tougher immigration laws. He also shows support for school choice. But his main issue is tougher immigration, and as a result, many people view him as a "one-sided candidate." Mike Huckabee, being a former Baptist Minister, might gain some Christian votes. But he has not made as much of a name for himself as someone like Fred Thompson. The Democratic race is pretty uniform compared to the Republican side, but every of the lesser candidates should be ready to take the leading position if Clinton, Obama, and Edwards cancelled each other out.
In the bottom line, both the Republican and Democratic races are open. Sure, the chances of the general election being between Ron Paul and Bill Richardson is slimmer than a sheet of paper. However every candidate on both sides brings something that others are missing. Overall, I continue to give the edge of Giuliani over McCain (I have said this for a while, and it seems to be coming true). I still give the edge to Clinton over Obama, although Obama will probably make more of a run than McCain could on Giuliani. I’m not so sure if Obama’s bright face and slick rhetoric can carry him past Clinton. It would take a Clinton mistake. Obama’s mistake may have been running this year in the first place. Four or eight years from now, he could be nearly unbeatable. For some, such as McCain, and Ron Paul, this may be their last chance, given their old ages. Also, another question to be asked that has not been asked in this article, is "Who are potential running mates?" Probably most of the people running for President would be, as well as others such as Jeb Bush of Florida, former Vice President Al Gore, or possibly even Bob Riley of Alabama. It’s also never too early to ask, "Who could be running in 2012?" Could we see Condoleezza Rice run? Jeff Sessions? Al Gore? Dick Durbin? Or even Roy Moore? Only time will tell, and for now, it is probably best to focus on this election.
As for my prediction, I predict that Rudy Giuliani will carry home the Republican nomination. I do not see McCain catching back up. I do not see Mitt Romney able to pull it off either- being Mormon may get him the mid-west, but Giuliani will probably take a lot of the Southeast, as well as most of the Northeast. I also do not see any other lesser candidate such as Paul, Huckabee, or Tancredo making a strong enough move in to win. As for the Democrats, I must pick also the front runner, Hillary Clinton. I do not see Barack Obama beating Clinton, nor do I see Edwards able to hang on long enough to beat Clinton. Furthermore, I am not sure if another candidate could come in and make a surprise move on her either. I can see Giuliani picking Fred Thompson as his running mate, and I can see Clinton either picking Obama or Al Gore for hers. Don’t take my word as definite, though, because in the world of politics, anything can happen.
Here are some interesting articles on the election (these may be outdated, and may seem somewhat irrelevant at certain points):
An Obama Mistake by Josh Rutledge- http://daygrind.blogspot.com/2007/01/obama-mistake.html
Santa Obama by Josh Rutledge- http://daygrind.blogspot.com/2006/12/santa-obama.html
The Race for 2008 by Ryan Hampton- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=77069405&blogID=272410164
UPCOMING BLOGS: In my next blog, we will take a different and unique look at evolution. How could Charles Darwin’s theories be applied to Christian theology, and make the Christian faith stronger? My next blog will take an interesting look at that. I also plan to post a blog showing my official support for a candidate. I already have a good idea who it is- I just need a little more time to make sure I want to make this support official. Harry Potter- is this a book of wickedness, satanic worship, and magic? Is this a good book that can give us a new way of approaching the Bible? Or is it somewhere in between? I plan to post a blog on this popular book and movie series sometime soon. Also, with college football quickly approaching, I would like to post a blog on my thoughts of this upcoming college football season. I don’t have long to do that either! Check in, if you’d like, to these upcoming posts!
Thanks! In Christ,
Ryan
The elections of 2008 are quickly approaching us, and it is time we consider the candidates running and who we may vote for. I myself will be a first-time voter, and I will just make the primaries by about five days (I turn 18 about five days before the primaries). I am trying to pay close attention the candidates, to know who seems most trustworthy, and who seems to be the best leader for this nation. Soon, I will be issuing my official support for one of the candidates.
It seems weird that a year and a half from now, our President will not be a Bush. However it might be a Clinton. Hillary Clinton is certainly one of the leaders in the race for President, but does she have what it takes to pull of the election? Or will she even be able to make it out of the primaries?
The election, with still several more months until even the primaries begin, has already been one filled with action, and change from original speculations. Barack Obama was not considered a serious candidate until about the beginning of the campaign trail. He soon jumped up into a dead-heat race with none other than Hillary Clinton. Two and a half years ago, it was John McCain who thought to have a pretty comfortable victory for the Republican Party. Rudy Giuliani was given a shot, but only behind Senator McCain. Now, Giuliani is the "sure favorite" to win, and John McCain has fallen behind dramatically.
But this puts Giuliani in a "no win" situation. Sure, he is the favorite to win. But that puts him in more media spotlight, and has more room for sensibility to his opinions. The best that can happen is that he gains more votes and wins anyway. For a lesser candidate, the worst is that he loses votes, and loses anyway. Giuliani is in the position that McCain was in, Hillary Clinton is in, and the position Howard Dean was in about four years ago- before he blew it.
McCain, when in second behind Giuliani, was also in a no-win situation. He was in worse of a situation that Giuliani is in now. At least now, Giuliani can hold on to his lead and win. McCain was being cancelled out by Giuliani. Giuliani’s tough character, and McCain’s small chances of beating Clinton, would make it nearly impossible for McCain to beat Giuliani. He might could cancel out Giuliani, but that would cancel him out too, giving rise to another person- likely Mitt Romney.
Now McCain has gone down hill severely. He is not even in the position to beat cancel out Giuliani. Now, that role has been placed on Romney- the slick, tough, Mormon carrying much momentum. Does this put Mitt Romney in the same ‘‘no win’’ position as McCain was in? I think that Mitt Romney can handle this better than McCain. He might could pull out and beat Guiliani. However if these two get put in heated debates, don’t be surprised to see the election fall into an all-out up for grabs amongst nearly all of the candidates. You could see someone like Sam Brownback, Ron Paul, or Mike Huckabee come make a surprise run into the primaries, similar to how John Kerry did in 2004.
The Democratic race is very similar. Hillary Clinton is in the same position as Giuliani is in. She has held her ground for much longer, but is now under great pressure from Obama. Is she going to be able to hold on to the lead, or will she give it up to Obama? Or, could they both cancel each other out giving rise to a John Edwards?
Barack Obama, though maybe a little better, is in a similar situation to what John McCain was in. Barack Obama’s bright young face, and slick rhetoric is what is keeping him in longer than John McCain. However Clinton has one thing that Obama does not have. As journalist Josh Rutledge points out, "She [Hillary Clinton] can get away with acting like a jerk and trying to smear him [Barack Obama]. Obama can’t." Hillary Clinton might could use this to her advantage. This could probably take away Barack Obama’s changes. However it is a chance for Clinton as well. She could mess up and cancel both her and Obama out, or, Obama could come back with a counter attack and cancel out Clinton. It may already be a lost cause for Obama, but this could put John Edwards in as sure of a position as ever to win the Democratic primaries. He is slick, and has "been there done that" unlike both Obama and Clinton. For Obama to stand a chance, he must continue to be slick, and careful. Furthermore, he probably needs a mistake or two from Hillary Clinton. Both are very possible, but for them both to happen is unlikely.
It is possible that both of these candidates, Clinton and Obama, could beat their way down to the level of John Edwards, or, that Edwards could meet somewhere in the middle with Clinton and Obama. This could turn into a dead-heated race between the three of them. If they then all cancelled each other out, though, the Democratic primaries could turn into a dead-heat between all of the candidates. Candidates such as Joe Biden, Chris Dodden, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich, who once thought to have no chance, may have a chance after all.
Any of the candidates, really, still hold a shot at winning- just in their own way. Each candidate brings something that the other candidates are lacking, and thus, will receive some votes. A year ago, many people, including myself to a degree, thought that this could be the year that a third party candidate makes a run- maybe not winning, but perhaps deciding the election, or gains a considerable number of votes in consideration of being a third party candidate. That is still possible, but it is probably next to irrelevant in the primaries. It is probably a little more noticeable from the Republican side, where the candidates are a little more spread out. The moderate Republicans will probably take Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney; the conservative, fundamental Republicans will probably take Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, or Fred Thompson; the more Libertarian Republicans will probably take Ron Paul. Once again, McCain, who was once the leader, is more or less left out.
Ron Paul himself is an interesting candidate. If you look on the internet, you might think that he is the leading candidate. However if you watch the news, you may hear Guiliani’s name one hundred times before you hear "Ron Paul." Ron Paul calls himself the "True Republican." But yet many Republican’s disown him. He is against the war, he is not for a Federal drug war, and he is not for the Federal banning of abortion. He wants to return the gold standard, which is something too radical and "out there" for both Democrats and Republicans. He is not for a national ID card, and he is not for regulating the internet. Looking at these things, it is easy to see why modern-day Republicans, conservative and moderate, disown him.
But he does offer many conservative ideologies that other Republican candidates are not willing to offer- many things that would be a conservative’s dream. He is a proclaimed Christian. Sure, any candidate could say that, but this goes for all candidates. If you question Paul (who by the way, as we’ll see is the most consistent voter), then you must question every other proclaimed Christian running for President (and every one in the world as well). He is for tougher border security, which is something many Republicans do not like about Bush at the moment. He is for low taxes, and has never voted to raise taxes. He has been called the "tax-payers best friend." He says he will protect your rights to bear arms. He is perhaps the most consistent candidates in voting, as far as not "flip-flopping." He is pro-life. (He is not so much for a Federal ban on abortion, but he would support the ban at the state level). As far as returning to the gold standard, he simply wants to be able to back up any money in circulation with gold- something with true value in itself. This would reduce inflation, help get America out of debt, and probably lower the prices on many goods. None of these things are bad. When gold does not back up money, the government spends money like a credit card. The next generation must pay that credit card bill. He is a strict constructionist in viewing the Constitution, and pledges to uphold it. He would probably be the most Libertarian of conservatives, but also probably the most conservative of the Libertarians. Conservative hero Ronald Reagan said that "The very heart and soul of conservatism is Libertarianism."
Paul probably should campaign on the conservative issues more if wants any chance at winning. He probably needs a lot of help by other candidate’s mistakes, but plenty can happen in five or six months. If nothing else, he might affect the way other candidates run and campaign, and might bring a little different twist to the Republican Party. I also think out of the lesser candidates, Ron Paul is probably the most underrated. He has raised more money than a lot of candidates, but has not spent all that much of it. The internet is also serving as a big help to Paul.
As of to date, Fred Thompson has not made his campaign official, but most people believe it is definite that he will run. Many people consider him real conservative. However after comparing voting records, Ron Paul seems more fiscally conservative than Fred Thompson is. Still out of those who have a good chance to win the Republican nomination, Fred Thompson is probably the most conservative.
There are still many more of the "lesser" candidates from both sides- Tom Tacnredo, Bill Richardson, Mike Huckabee, etc. Tom Tancredo is conservative from the standpoint of tougher immigration laws. He also shows support for school choice. But his main issue is tougher immigration, and as a result, many people view him as a "one-sided candidate." Mike Huckabee, being a former Baptist Minister, might gain some Christian votes. But he has not made as much of a name for himself as someone like Fred Thompson. The Democratic race is pretty uniform compared to the Republican side, but every of the lesser candidates should be ready to take the leading position if Clinton, Obama, and Edwards cancelled each other out.
In the bottom line, both the Republican and Democratic races are open. Sure, the chances of the general election being between Ron Paul and Bill Richardson is slimmer than a sheet of paper. However every candidate on both sides brings something that others are missing. Overall, I continue to give the edge of Giuliani over McCain (I have said this for a while, and it seems to be coming true). I still give the edge to Clinton over Obama, although Obama will probably make more of a run than McCain could on Giuliani. I’m not so sure if Obama’s bright face and slick rhetoric can carry him past Clinton. It would take a Clinton mistake. Obama’s mistake may have been running this year in the first place. Four or eight years from now, he could be nearly unbeatable. For some, such as McCain, and Ron Paul, this may be their last chance, given their old ages. Also, another question to be asked that has not been asked in this article, is "Who are potential running mates?" Probably most of the people running for President would be, as well as others such as Jeb Bush of Florida, former Vice President Al Gore, or possibly even Bob Riley of Alabama. It’s also never too early to ask, "Who could be running in 2012?" Could we see Condoleezza Rice run? Jeff Sessions? Al Gore? Dick Durbin? Or even Roy Moore? Only time will tell, and for now, it is probably best to focus on this election.
As for my prediction, I predict that Rudy Giuliani will carry home the Republican nomination. I do not see McCain catching back up. I do not see Mitt Romney able to pull it off either- being Mormon may get him the mid-west, but Giuliani will probably take a lot of the Southeast, as well as most of the Northeast. I also do not see any other lesser candidate such as Paul, Huckabee, or Tancredo making a strong enough move in to win. As for the Democrats, I must pick also the front runner, Hillary Clinton. I do not see Barack Obama beating Clinton, nor do I see Edwards able to hang on long enough to beat Clinton. Furthermore, I am not sure if another candidate could come in and make a surprise move on her either. I can see Giuliani picking Fred Thompson as his running mate, and I can see Clinton either picking Obama or Al Gore for hers. Don’t take my word as definite, though, because in the world of politics, anything can happen.
Here are some interesting articles on the election (these may be outdated, and may seem somewhat irrelevant at certain points):
An Obama Mistake by Josh Rutledge- http://daygrind.blogspot.com/2007/01/obama-mistake.html
Santa Obama by Josh Rutledge- http://daygrind.blogspot.com/2006/12/santa-obama.html
The Race for 2008 by Ryan Hampton- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=77069405&blogID=272410164
UPCOMING BLOGS: In my next blog, we will take a different and unique look at evolution. How could Charles Darwin’s theories be applied to Christian theology, and make the Christian faith stronger? My next blog will take an interesting look at that. I also plan to post a blog showing my official support for a candidate. I already have a good idea who it is- I just need a little more time to make sure I want to make this support official. Harry Potter- is this a book of wickedness, satanic worship, and magic? Is this a good book that can give us a new way of approaching the Bible? Or is it somewhere in between? I plan to post a blog on this popular book and movie series sometime soon. Also, with college football quickly approaching, I would like to post a blog on my thoughts of this upcoming college football season. I don’t have long to do that either! Check in, if you’d like, to these upcoming posts!
Thanks! In Christ,
Ryan
Thursday, August 2, 2007
An Election Speech I'd Love to Hear
Ladies and Gentlemen of these United States of America, I am running for the office of President of these United States, and I ask for your vote this election year.
As your President, I will place a stronger emphasis on our Constitution, as our founders so well had in mind. Many Presidents in the past have sworn on the very Word of God to uphold our Constitution, and many of them then forgot about our Constitution. I will hold a strict view in interpreting this document, limiting my power to what it says.
As your President, I will reduce the size of the Central Government. I will not raise taxes on you. As your President, I will abolish the Federal minimum wage. The minimum wage helps some people, but hurts far more than it helps. Besides just this, the Central Government has no Constitutional authority to issue a minimum wage. I will put no price caps on our goods, but rather allow the free market to flourish in this great nation. In all ways, I will support capitalism over communism for this nation.
Education. Education is a great part of our nation, and the future of our nation depends on the education of our children. However in the past we have seen more and more Federal money budgeted towards our public schools, and our schools have not improved much at all. I believe in making education more local, rather than central. I do not believe our founders had in mind to have a nation-wide school program for everyone. For these reasons and for the sake of our children, I will take away the role of the U.S. Central Government in education, leaving states to decide for themselves whether they want a school system similar to the way it is now, a school voucher program, or the privatization of education altogether.
Abortion. Abortion, I believe, is the killing of an unborn baby. As a Christian, I believe that an unborn baby is a life and that that life is sacred. For this, I will support the outlawing of abortion in this nation, and at the least support allowing our states the rights on the matter itself. Currently, we keep the states from passing laws against abortion. I would love nothing better, than whether through Federal Law, or the law of all fifty states, the nationwide outlawing of this horrible act of murder, abortion.
Homosexual marriage. As a Christian, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I believe that marriage is sacred, and even religious in its very nature. For these reasons, I am opposed to homosexual marriage, or to polygamous marriages. However for the sake of upholding the Constitution, I will not favor a Constitutional law against this act. Rather, I will leave it up to the states, giving more power to the states, as our founders so clearly and so rightfully had in mind. I would hope that these states, even to the final fiftieth of them, would make laws against this false version of marriage. However as your Commander in Chief, I do not believe I have the authority to make that decision for them myself.
This war. We are currently in the middle of a long, ongoing war. I am depressed seeing my nation in this war. What I am more depressed about, though, is that both Democrats and Republicans are making this a political issue, even at the expense of innocent American lives. I wish every person in this nation would remember how it felt on September 11, 2001. If we remember how most of us felt that day, we would remember that there was an enemy. We wanted to secure ourselves at home, and go on the offense against our enemy. This enemy is still out there. For this reason, I am not against this war in and of itself. However we first went to war to win; we are now in the war for political purposes. I am for the destruction of our enemies, while saving as many American lives as possible. As your President, I would make this war a war against them- the terrorists, our enemies. Our founders were very skeptical, and rightfully so, of us getting involved in foreign affairs. I will try to make this war as short as possible, but as helpful as possible. I will not go into remote areas in the world simply out of curiosity. I will go only where I need to go in order to make us safer at home.
Foreign aid. Today, we see many third-world countries suffering from poor economies, poverty, and crime. I believe that as a nation we should help other nations. This belief is Biblical, and even Constitutional. However, we should be very careful in getting into foreign affairs. Many of these third-world countries are in this poverty because of their own mistakes, involving a government damaging their economy with many government regulations. As a result many brilliant people from third-world countries come to better places such as America. Therefore, we should be very careful in helping these nations. Often, we give money to greedy politicians who squander the money to their own personal benefit.
Immigration. As your President, I desire to be tougher on immigration. I do not want one person in this nation here illegally. Those who desire to come here and take advantage of us, or those who desire to come here as terrorists, should not be here, and I desire the prosecuting of such individuals. Whether it be our Northern border, or our Southern border, I, as your Commander in Chief, desire to protect these borders from illegal aliens. As a nation, we will be open to immigration, but only those who come here legally, wanting to partake in the American dream.
As your President, I will fight for you, in all these ways. I will limit the Central Government to its Constitutional authorities: to protect your rights, and protect our land. I will not take away the guns of law-abiding citizens, nor raise taxes on these citizens; I plan to give you more choice on your education, and give states more choices on their laws. I will protect our borders, and fight against terrorism overseas, but not for any purposes that are merely political. As your President I will fight for you. I believe that my administration can be remembered by what I don’t do, rather than what I actually do. My administration will be one that brings peace and freedom to the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
Ladies and Gentlemen of these United States of America, I ask for your vote this election year!
As your President, I will place a stronger emphasis on our Constitution, as our founders so well had in mind. Many Presidents in the past have sworn on the very Word of God to uphold our Constitution, and many of them then forgot about our Constitution. I will hold a strict view in interpreting this document, limiting my power to what it says.
As your President, I will reduce the size of the Central Government. I will not raise taxes on you. As your President, I will abolish the Federal minimum wage. The minimum wage helps some people, but hurts far more than it helps. Besides just this, the Central Government has no Constitutional authority to issue a minimum wage. I will put no price caps on our goods, but rather allow the free market to flourish in this great nation. In all ways, I will support capitalism over communism for this nation.
Education. Education is a great part of our nation, and the future of our nation depends on the education of our children. However in the past we have seen more and more Federal money budgeted towards our public schools, and our schools have not improved much at all. I believe in making education more local, rather than central. I do not believe our founders had in mind to have a nation-wide school program for everyone. For these reasons and for the sake of our children, I will take away the role of the U.S. Central Government in education, leaving states to decide for themselves whether they want a school system similar to the way it is now, a school voucher program, or the privatization of education altogether.
Abortion. Abortion, I believe, is the killing of an unborn baby. As a Christian, I believe that an unborn baby is a life and that that life is sacred. For this, I will support the outlawing of abortion in this nation, and at the least support allowing our states the rights on the matter itself. Currently, we keep the states from passing laws against abortion. I would love nothing better, than whether through Federal Law, or the law of all fifty states, the nationwide outlawing of this horrible act of murder, abortion.
Homosexual marriage. As a Christian, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I believe that marriage is sacred, and even religious in its very nature. For these reasons, I am opposed to homosexual marriage, or to polygamous marriages. However for the sake of upholding the Constitution, I will not favor a Constitutional law against this act. Rather, I will leave it up to the states, giving more power to the states, as our founders so clearly and so rightfully had in mind. I would hope that these states, even to the final fiftieth of them, would make laws against this false version of marriage. However as your Commander in Chief, I do not believe I have the authority to make that decision for them myself.
This war. We are currently in the middle of a long, ongoing war. I am depressed seeing my nation in this war. What I am more depressed about, though, is that both Democrats and Republicans are making this a political issue, even at the expense of innocent American lives. I wish every person in this nation would remember how it felt on September 11, 2001. If we remember how most of us felt that day, we would remember that there was an enemy. We wanted to secure ourselves at home, and go on the offense against our enemy. This enemy is still out there. For this reason, I am not against this war in and of itself. However we first went to war to win; we are now in the war for political purposes. I am for the destruction of our enemies, while saving as many American lives as possible. As your President, I would make this war a war against them- the terrorists, our enemies. Our founders were very skeptical, and rightfully so, of us getting involved in foreign affairs. I will try to make this war as short as possible, but as helpful as possible. I will not go into remote areas in the world simply out of curiosity. I will go only where I need to go in order to make us safer at home.
Foreign aid. Today, we see many third-world countries suffering from poor economies, poverty, and crime. I believe that as a nation we should help other nations. This belief is Biblical, and even Constitutional. However, we should be very careful in getting into foreign affairs. Many of these third-world countries are in this poverty because of their own mistakes, involving a government damaging their economy with many government regulations. As a result many brilliant people from third-world countries come to better places such as America. Therefore, we should be very careful in helping these nations. Often, we give money to greedy politicians who squander the money to their own personal benefit.
Immigration. As your President, I desire to be tougher on immigration. I do not want one person in this nation here illegally. Those who desire to come here and take advantage of us, or those who desire to come here as terrorists, should not be here, and I desire the prosecuting of such individuals. Whether it be our Northern border, or our Southern border, I, as your Commander in Chief, desire to protect these borders from illegal aliens. As a nation, we will be open to immigration, but only those who come here legally, wanting to partake in the American dream.
As your President, I will fight for you, in all these ways. I will limit the Central Government to its Constitutional authorities: to protect your rights, and protect our land. I will not take away the guns of law-abiding citizens, nor raise taxes on these citizens; I plan to give you more choice on your education, and give states more choices on their laws. I will protect our borders, and fight against terrorism overseas, but not for any purposes that are merely political. As your President I will fight for you. I believe that my administration can be remembered by what I don’t do, rather than what I actually do. My administration will be one that brings peace and freedom to the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
Ladies and Gentlemen of these United States of America, I ask for your vote this election year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
