I read on a forum today that Ron Paul cannot get elected and if he does, they'll kill him or have a coup.

I don't agree that he can't get elected. I do agree that the established parties will do pretty much anything in their power to prevent it, and it isn't really inconceivable that he could have an accident or something if it came to that. But it would sure take some brass nerve to actually kill him. Sure, these are the people that have set up election laws and ballot access laws to keep themselves in power, unchallenged. And you know, things happen. But let's not prophecy doom.

Oh, they might have the Supreme court find something we hadn't noticed before, that says you can't be president if you were born in a certain month with the moon in a certain phase. Kind of a Roe v Wade for election abortions.

Everybody in America seems to think that unrestrained power is a good thing, as long as it's in the hands of the party they voted for. We Libertarians are alone in our belief that it's a bad thing no matter who holds the gavel. (There's a good quote line, eh?)

When Hillary takes office after beating Rudy, the Republicans may regret having established all those tools to fight terrorism with. The Clinton family has a well-earned reputation for using such power very creatively - how long will it be before Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh are accused of inciting terrorism? Oh, wait - they did that already, didn't they? Oklahoma City Bombings, I think it was. All that "hate speech" on talk radio.

And now that you can be jailed for that sort of thing, without habeas corpus, some of us may be reminded the hard way what those safe guards were for.

I plan to send more money to the campaign. I don't think it's wasted - people have given their lives for freedom in this country, I guess I can give a little money.

Ron Paul and the what pistols??

OK, I'm officially old.

I watched Jay Leno just now, mostly because my hero Ron Paul was appearing. It was a good interview, and can't hurt him, but he was immediately followed by musical guests the Sex Pistols.

Now, the Sex Pistols are sort of nostalgic. They began their sporadic and notorious career in 1975, and I thought they had disappeared for good. But here they were on Leno, singing what sounded like "Anarchy in the UK," a song whose lyrics - were they lyrics? - were unintelligible to these old ears. They gestured in a friendly way to Dr. Paul and I heard the words "Mr. Paul" emerging from the cacophony of sound filling the studio audience. I think it was a show of support, but I'm not sure.

Now, I'm not in favor of anarchy by any means. I am for less government, and so I suppose given the huge beast that government has become these days, an anarchist would favor the candidate who wants to govern the least. Some even think it may be a sign.

But who do the Sex Pistols influence today? Do the young folk look up to a three-decades old band whose trademark is revolt against the music popular in 1975? If so, why? Do the current 40-year-olds remember them fondly? And here I am, fondly remembering tearing off the plastic shrink wrap from my new copy of the White Album.

So here I am, supporting a 72 year old man for president because he stays loyal to a 220 year old document that everyone else ignores, and watching him share a stage with an aging, arthritic punk rock band who also seems to like him, and feeling glad that my 86 year old father who fought the Japanese in WWII never stays up late enough to have seen anything like the Sex Pistols singing about anarchy.

Well, shoot - I'm going to send another $17.76 to Ron Paul on November 5 just to add to the money bomb scheduled for that day. That ought to make me feel younger.

My choice for president

And my choice is...
Ron Paul.

Yes, I said Ron Paul. Follow the link to read more about him, but my reasons are that he votes and acts on his principles, and that he obeys the Constitution. Those are things - important things! - that no other candidate running on the two major parties can come close to saying, without having to turn around to hide some seriously cynical laughter.

Here are reasons not to vote for him, and I keep seeing them over and over.

• He can't win. This is the most common reason, and perhaps the most irrelevant. Besides the fact that it isn't true, it is no reason to withdraw support from your candidate, especially during the primary stage of the election process. You should support the candidate you want, not someone more likely to win. What are you, some animal in the herd? Think about it - if the other guy is going to win anyway, why support him? Conserve your energy, relax, go take in a movie. He'll win without your help.
  
• His views are... out there. Oh, but if his views are the same as yours, or close, then you must be out there, too. All the more reason to vote for him. Besides, the mainstream of thought has become so far from the founding principles of this country, so far from what actually works, I think we should be getting away from them as soon as possible. As for "staying the course..." as Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working for you?" You may just find that your views are more in the majority than they want you to think.
  
• One of his policies doesn't match mine! Does any candidate match your thought in every way? You aren't going to find anyone that does. Decide what is most important to you in terms of government, and find someone to match that, or get close. For me, that's Dr. Ron Paul.