DOMA Is Appealed To The Supreme Court

My most recent article from Examiner.com:


Given the landmark ruling yesterday on Obamacare, it might seem difficult to fathom that there is a case of greater import making its way to the Court. That case is the defense of DOMA. DOMA is the Defense of Marriage Act signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton and supported by overwhelming majority in both Houses of Congress.

DOMA set off multiple law suits since its signing and the Department of Justice had, until last year, been defending the law. One of the roles of the DOJ is to defend the laws of the country. This is true whether the current administration agrees with the law or not. However, in another abuse of presidential power, President Obama decided that he no longer supported DOMA, and directed the Department of Justice to stop defending DOMA in the courts. This occurred early in 2011.

Given this extraordinary and unilateral decision by the President, the House of Representatives chose to move forward defending the law. Speaker Boehner hired topSupreme Court Attorney and former Solicitor General Paul Clement to represent the House of Representatives in court cases involving the law. Paul Clement is becoming more of a household name as he represented two especially notable cases this term: he represented Arizona in its battle against the government to defend its immigration law, and he represented the 26 states that sued the government for passing Obamacare. Clement’s success in these two cases is mixed given that much of the Arizona immigration law was found to be preempted by Federal law and therefore struck down, though the most controversial portion of Arizona’s law was upheld. As for Obamacare, as is well known at this point, the Court agreed with many of his arguments while still upholding the law by re-defining the mandate as a tax. Regardless of the result of these two cases, Clement is considered a top-notch attorney who is well-trusted to defend conservative cases at the highest court.

The decision of House Speaker Boehner to hire Clement was met with much opposition at the time. LGBT groups that oppose DOMA lobbied Clement’s firm, King and Spalding, to drop the case. In an extraordinary move, they did drop the case, and Clement immediately resigned. Clement joined Bancroft PLLC and continued his defense of the law. It should be stated here that Clement asserted in his resignation that his decision to continue with DOMA and leave King and Spalding was not due to his personal support of the DOMA, but he felt obligated to continue with representing the House given that he already agreed to do so as a matter of principle It is unknown if he actually supports DOMA.

Either way, Clement and Bancroft have been defending DOMA ever since. This has been met with losses at the appellate level. In fact, so far, Clement is losing on DOMA far more than he is winning. However, from the beginning, the intention was to take this case to the Supreme Court.

And, now Boehner and the House have done so. On Friday, the appeal was made to the Supreme Court. The Court will decide early next term if it will take on the case (it is very unlikely that it would not take the case). The petition to the Court can be read here.

This battle is more important even then the Obamacare case because it gets at the very issue of who we are as a society. Those who oppose DOMA want to re-design the basic family structure from the way it was established by God. This decision will have ramifications that go beyond healthcare, or taxes, or states’ rights, or Constitutionalism, or any other topic that has been the headline over the past few days. This case involves who we are as a people. One can only hope that Chief Justice John Roberts and others get this one right.

What Really Happened Behind The Scenes At The Supreme Court?

Now that the blockbuster case has been decided by the country's highest court, the speculation has begun to attempt to understand what happened behind the scenes.

I spent a couple of hours reading most of the court's opinion yesterday (I have to admit that I only skimmed Ginsberg's opinion).  I found a few things to be very interesting.

1) Chief Justice Roberts continually references Justice Ginsberg's writings to refute her assertions.  This is not by itself unusual.  As regularly occurs, the majority opinion is written, then it is sent to all Justices so they can write their dissent or other concurrences.  Those opinions are then sent back to the majority opinion writer so he or she can reference the other opinions in the majority opinion.  However, in this case, Roberts' strenuously refutes Ginsberg's opinions throughout the text of his own opinion.  He seemed determined to ensure that there was no confusion about why his opinion is different than hers (and those who joined her).  

Meanwhile, the Roberts opinion barely references the dissenting opinion of the conservative justices.  This is unusual given how often Roberts references the Ginsberg decision.  Typically the majority opinion goes into great effort to explain why it is right and the minority is wrong.  This is especially true in a landmark decision like this one where Ginsberg rattles on for 61 pages.  It is highly expected that Roberts would have wanted to address several of her assertions (especially since many are non-sequiter) if his opinion was going to be supported by the conservative justices and her 61 pages were going to be the dissent.  Roberts would have wanted to be explicit why she and the other liberal justices were wrong.  

It is telling that Roberts barely references the conservative dissent.  He mentions it a few times, but not convincingly and not with the zeal that he attacks Ginsberg's dissent.  Why?  It is possible the conservative dissent was written later?  Is it possible that Roberts agreed with that opinion before he disagreed with it?

2)  The conservative dissent does not state who wrote it.  This is also unusual.  As with the Ginsberg opinion, typically an opinion is written by one justice and then "joined" by others who agree.  However, the 4 conservative justices (in this case) present their opinion as a union and not as the opinion of one in which the others concur.  This suggests that they felt they needed to present their opinion in great solidarity with each other.  This was an opinion of one mind-set, shared by all four.  It also could be construed as a punching back after they learned that Roberts changed his vote (if that did actually happen).

3)  The conservative dissent goes through topics Roberts already agreed to in his majority opinion.  I found it odd that the dissent re-hashed arguments already agreed to by Roberts and therefore are the majority opinion of the court.  For instance, the dissent opens up the discussion on the limits of the commerce clause and the fact that the government cannot mandate citizens engage in commerce so they can regulate it.  In fact, it spends considerable time re-explaining concepts Roberts already asserted.  Roberts, in speaking for the Court, already agreed with this view. Dissenting views usually explain why they dissent; they usually don't spend time on areas where they agree.  I'm not sure what this means, except that maybe these words were written as part of the majority opinion and Roberts' section was written later.  However, this is just a guess.

4)  As has been reported now by many who were in the courtroom yesterday for the reading, Justice Kennedy was clearly upset.  He was visibly unhappy with the ruling.  Now, I don't know what his normal disposition is, and I don't know if he would have been visibly upset being in the minority regardless of when he found out he was in the minority.  However, the speculation is now that Roberts changed his mind, which, as one might imagine, would upset those Justices who thought they were in the majority and then found out that they were in the minority.

Many of these behind-the-scenes speculations may never be known.  It is unlike any justice on the Supreme Court to spill these details even years after the fact.  However, it does seem as though Justice Roberts' opinion was not only a shock to the nation, but to his own conservative counterparts on the Court.

And Obama Laughs And Laughs

As Dick Morris said on Hannity today: Obama won a battle but lost the war.  He has woken a sleeping giant.

November is our last chance, we can't lose!

Romney Fundraising Skyrockets!

Romney has now raised $2 mil with 20,000 ind. donations since the SCOTUS ruling earlier today, in May, he had 27,000 ind. donations. Sending a message- and it's loud and clear!  Obama must go!


Obama announces he won't be releasing today's fundraising results.

https://twitter.com/andreamsaul

Obamacare Mandate Is Not A Tax

Here is the lawyer who represented the 26 states (Paul Clement) who sued the government as he clearly explains why the mandate is not a tax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsoOcaoWZ1U

When Congress and the President don't call it a tax when they pass the bill into law, it lacks accountability.  This was forced on the American people in a sneaky way and then completely misrepresented in court as a tax.

Justice Roberts Defects - Obamacare Stands

Very disappointing decision by the Supreme Court today.  Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberal justices and upheld the law as a tax, which it was not.


From SCOTUSBLOG:

10:32

Amy Howe:  In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

Immigration: Lou Dobbs talks with Jose Antonio Vargas

Perhaps you remember Jose Antonio Vargas, he's the journalist, writer who admitted that he's in the country illegally a year ago.

This past weekend he was on Lou Dobbs talking about his Time Magazine article that talks about illegal immigrants and immigration issues.  I found it interesting that Vargas has a blind adoration and loyalty towards Obama, even though Obama had complete and utter control the first two years of his term and failed to do anything in regards to immigration.  Throwing a bone yet again to a voting segment without any real intention to provide a long term solution.

Towards the end of the time, Vargas says he'd like to meet half way to come up with a immigration solution... and that's really what I wanted to talk about in this article.  I found the wording interesting..... and frustrating because what I want to know is, why?  Why should the United States meet illegal immigrants halfway? (Which, by the way, he has issues with the word illegal and would prefer that we sugar coat it and say undocumented.)  It may not seem fair, but illegal immigrants have no claim towards the country, so why should the U.S. feel obligated to meet anywhere in the middle?  I don't understand the logic of someone who comes into the country and feels like they have some sort of claim or right to the land or the resources.  I keep thinking how if I were to go to another country, I would expect to learn the language, I would expect to learn the customs and I would expect to do it legally- and if I couldn't, I wouldn't go.

My opinion isn't popular, and yes, I realize that these are real people, wives, husbands, kids, brothers, sisters.  I get that there are grey areas where perhaps the child was born here, but the parents were not.  I agree that we should be compassionate and understanding- but let's call a spade a spade- if you're here illegally you're in the wrong.  And more than that- the United States has no obligation to change the law so that you can be here more comfortably.

Justice Scalia Rebukes Obama

The news of the day is that the Supreme Court struck down most of the Arizona law but upheld its most controversial provision, a ruling that made both sides happy and both sides frustrated.  The most interesting part of the lengthy ruling was Justice Scalia's scathing response.  He would have upheld the entire Arizona law and very effectively expressed solidarity with what the people of Arizona were trying to do in passing the law in the first place.  Here are some juicy quotes from his opinion (you can find the whole thing on SupremeCourt.gov):

The Government complains that state officials might not heed “federal priorities.” Indeed they might not, particularly if those priorities include willful blindness or deliberate inattention to the presence of removable aliens in Arizona. The State’s whole complaint—the reason this law was passed and this case has arisen—is that the citizens of Arizona believe federal priorities are too lax. The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition.  The Executive’s policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute such a prohibition.

It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate “scarce enforcement resources”—is not the problem here. After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immi

gration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants 

under the age of 30.4  If an individual unlawfully present in the United States 

• came to the United States under the age of sixteen; 

• has continuously resided in the United States for at least five years . . . , 

• is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education 

veteran . . . ,  certificate, or is an honorably discharged 

• has not been convicted of a [serious crime]; and
• is not above the age of thirty,”5
then U. S. immigration officials have been directed to “defe[r] action” against such individual “for a period of two 

years, subject to renewal.”6

 The husbanding of scarce 

enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for 

this, since the considerable administrative cost of 

conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling 

on the biennial requests for dispensation that the nonen­

forcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement.  

The President said at a news conference that the new program is "the right thing to do" in light of Congress's failure to pass the Administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7

Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so.  But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

The Court opinion's looming specter of unutterable 

horror

“[i]f §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State 

could give itself independent  authority to prosecute federal

 registration violations,” ante, at 10—seems to me not a

so horrible and even less looming.  But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it prediction: 

 A Federal 

Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws

 written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude.  So the issue is a stark one.  

Rubio - The Great Communicator?

Marco Rubio is truly an amazing speaker.  I had the honor of hearing him speak at CPAC this last year and it was an inspired speech.  His words have passion behind them, but not just passion - thought.  They are not "zealous" words, they are intellectual while also being inspring.  He is not one-dimensional, but the whole package.

The American Spectator has a really good peice out on Rubio now that provides a great example of this:

As millions of NPR listeners made their way home in Thursday afternoon's oppressive heat, their windows rolled up and AC on (incidentally allowing them to hear the radio more clearly), Florida Sen. Marco Rubio managed to achieve three important goals: 1. Sound simultaneously intelligent, principled, and likeable; 2. Make a principled case against raising taxes; 3. Make an equally principled case for compromising with the opposition to fix the nation's federal budget mess before it becomes an irreversible disaster.
NPR obviously is not a hotbed of potential Republican votes. But that is not the point. If Rubio can effortlessly articulate a strong conservative message that sounds reasonable and maybe even slightly appealing to your average NPR listener, what might he be able to do with independent voters who are genuinely conflicted about which oval to fill in this November (or Novembers after that)?
First, the compromise question. Rubio was of course asked about his willingness to compromise. Republicans are always asked this, as though it is a character flaw unique to members of their party. Rubio gave not just a strong answer, but the politically and constitutionally correct one:

"I think we should always remind ourselves that while we should never compromise our principles, particularly the principles we were elected on, there's always room to compromise on ideas about how to put those principles into practice. I think that's where the debate has to happen.
"And I constantly remind people that our Constitution that enshrines freedoms on paper also gave us a system of government that requires us to find solutions to our problems by working with people we disagree with."

That one is over the fence and not coming back.
As expected, the next question was the subtle, "then are you willing to raise taxes?" question.

ROBERT SIEGEL: You're facing a fiscal crisis at the end of this year, for example. You just assume you're going to have to vote for something that's going to include big elements you don't like. And Democrats are going to have to vote for things they don't like. 

Rubio did not even wait for the word "tax" to come up. He preempted it with this:

"I think we're going to have to vote for something that solves the problem. Just to say we voted on something for the sake of saying we compromised, that doesn't solve the problem — doesn't make any sense to me. We have to find a solution. And whatever we vote on has to solve things.
"And I think some of the things that people on the left propose when it comes to our economy doesn't solve the problem. For example, I don't have a moral, religious objection to tax increases. I just think they hurt growth and job creation. And that's why I don't think any solution should have tax increases. Not because I'm trying to, because I have some sort of orthodoxy on tax increases. It's because I believe by raising taxes we hurt growth, which is the only way out of this predicament."

Maybe you think that sounds squishy. Rubio could have argued that high taxes are immoral, that it is wrong for government to take by force that which it does not absolutely need, or to punish those who have more simply because they have more. Fair points.
But rather than get into all of that, Rubio focused on "raising taxes," not on "high taxes." And his argument -- that the goal we all share is growth and that raising taxes impedes our progress toward that goal rather than accelerates it -- speaks to independents and moderates in the same language Barack Obama used to win them over four years ago.
Rubio turns the tables on Obama. The President always presents himself as the lone pragmatist in politics. If only everyone else were as willing as he is to put aside ideology and approach our problems pragmatically, why, we could balance that budget tomorrow. Rubio in two paragraphs made Obama into the ideologue and himself into the pragmatist.
Raising taxes is ideological, not practical, because it slows growth, and growth is our shared goal, said Rubio. There was no accepting of Obama's terms -- Wall Street, the rich, the 1 percent, fairness -- this is a debate about balancing the budget and restoring economic growth, and although we must compromise to reach those goals, we would be foolish to try to do so by raising taxes.
It was a terrific performance, delivered effortlessly. Vice-presidential candidate or not, this guy has a real future as a shaper of the conservative message.

NBC Doctors Romney Video

The MSM will go to any length to make Romney look awkward.  There is no integrity in journalism anymore. 

The first video splices a Romney speech together to make it look like Romney is talking about a fast food joint and in the second video you can clarly see that he is talking about the private sector.

Cartoons From Dick Morris Site

Good stuff:

Jon Stewart is an Idiot

I often get frustrated reading what celebrities say about politics, especially when they mock wealthy people- considering they are a far cry from destitute.  Which is why I was amused reading this article where Jon Stewart mocks Mitt Romney for his wealth... while he is currently outpacing him and will be richer than Romney when Stewart is 65 (which is how old Romney is).  It's embarrassing that people listen to these people and get soundbites from them, but clearly know nothing.  Hidden agendas?  I think so.

Though Stewart distances himself from the “one-percenters” and bellows over their extravagance, his bank accounts bear all the marks of the “multi, multi, multi, multi millionaires” he mocks. The 49-year-old Stewart, born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz, makes more than 300 times the median American salary, owns three luxury homes and sometimes doesn’t pay his taxes.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/17/jon-stewart-mocks-rich-romney-while-outpacing-him-in-wealth/#ixzz1yBUdalIW

A Great Compilation of Obama's Character

I stumbled upon this post which does a great job of summarizing Obama's character, policies, and failures.  Here are a few highlights:

3) Has an administration full of lobbyistsWhile running for President, Obama had promised that, unlike Bush, he would not have any lobbyists working in his administration. However, by February 2010, he had more than 40 lobbyists working in his administration.

8) Looked the other way at tax cheatersObama nominated Timothy Geithner, a repeat tax cheater, to head the government agency that enforces the tax laws.

17) Ordered private company to fire 1,000 employeesIn 2011, after Boeing had hired 1,000 new employees to work at its new factory in South Carolina, the Obama administration ordered Boeing to shut down the factory, because the factory was non-union.

19) Supported release of convicted serial killerIn 2010, Obama  supported releasing Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi (who had been convicted of murdering 270 people) from prison. 

 

Ron Paul Supporters Need To Watch: Why Rand Paul Endorsed Romney

This is why Rand Paul will go further than his dad ever did.  He understands the need to work within the structure.

Romney Ad Pounces On Obama Comment

Obama really stepped in it (again) when he said that the private sector is "doing just fine" a few days ago.  He again demonstrated how out of touch he is with the real world.  Here's the Romney response.

Liberals and Evangelicals Still Don't Like Mormons

This will certainly be a hurdle for Romney this fall, unfortunately.  While they come from different angles, it seems that the lack of support for a Mormon candidate come from two distinct groups for very different reasons.

From Breitbart.com:

American liberals are the new face of anti-Mormonism, according to a new study by American National Election Studies (ANES). According to ANES, 35 percent of Americans in February said they weren’t inclined to vote for a Mormon, an upswing of 9 percent from 2007. But while the press has suggested that anti-Mormon sentiment springs largely from the Evangelical Christian community, the study shows something different: while 36 percent of Evangelicals don’t like Mormonism, 41 percent of liberals don’t like it, up  20 percent form 2007. Moderates also swung up 10 percent in terms of dislike for Mormons.

According to the study, these statistics will be important come November – feelings about Mormonism are the best predictor of whether someone will vote for Mitt Romney. The study does suggest that anti-Mormon Republicans will stay home in November.

Liberal tolerance is a popular catchphrase among the press opinion-makers. Increasingly, it’s also a myth when it comes to Mormons.

Read more here.

Ron Paul Followers: It's Over.

Ron Paul has finally admitted defeat.  He will have about 200 delegates at the Tampa convention- and admits that other delegates are bound to Romney.  So Paulers.... does this put the issue to rest yet?

I wanted you to get an update from me personally, since we have some great news! 

Due to the smart planning of our campaign and the hard work and diligence of supporters like you, we stand to send nearly 200 bound delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. This number shatters the predictions of the pundits and talking heads and shows the seriousness of our movement. 

What's more, we will send several hundred additional supporters to Tampa who, while bound to Romney, believe in our ideas of liberty, constitutional government, and a common-sense foreign policy. 

When it is all said and done, we will likely have as many as 500 supporters as delegates on the Convention floor. That is just over 20 percent! 

And while this total is not enough to win the nomination, it puts us in a tremendous position to grow our movement and shape the future of the GOP! 

I hope every one of you continues the fight we have advanced so well this year. I hope you will finish your local and state conventions, and, if you were selected as a national delegate, that you will head to Tampa in August to force the Republican Party to listen to the voice of liberty.
We have never had this kind of opportunity. There will be hundreds of your fellow supporters in Tampa who will be ready and willing to push the Republican Party back to its limited government, liberty roots. 

There are many issues to fight for in Tampa. Also, candidates like Justin Amash, Kurt Bills, and Thomas Massie need your support as we move into the fall. Across the country, supporters of liberty have won local office and leadership positions in the GOP, and we need to keep working. 

Our delegates’ presence must be felt both in Tampa and in years to come.
Stand up for what we believe in. Be respectful. And let the establishment know that we are the future of the Party and of the country. 

Our Revolution is just getting started. You'll be hearing plenty from me as we approach Tampa and the fall elections. You'll also be hearing of important developments on Audit the Fed and Campaign for Liberty. 

I hope you'll continue to stand with me as we go forward. Our Revolution could not have come this far without you. 

For Liberty,
Ron Paul

Mitt Romney Comes to Fort Worth

I headed down to Fort Worth today to get listen to our next President of the United States, Mitt Romney... parked, stood in line... but unfortunately, there were too many people!  The venue held about 800 people, I was probably about 200 people from the door when they told us there was no more room.  The officer I spoke to said he turned away at least 1000 people from entering and getting in line.  And there were several hundred behind me!  I was sad to miss Mitt Romney, but I DID catch a glimpse of his bus and spoke to numerous supporters, and even a secret service agent. :-)

Here are a few pictures from the event... you know, in case you were wondering what his bus looks like.  

This is where I got in line when I got there.  The line goes up and loops around, then goes in the building, and goes through various loops until you get to security.  

 The news vans.

 Awesome signs!  This mom is for Mitt too!

 A whole crowd (yes, that's sarcasm) of protesters.  They got there late.

 Mitt's bus turning the corner.  For my fellow Texans, that's 360 in the background.

 Yep, still coming.

 I didn't get to see him, so I had to take lots of bus pictures!

 Making the turn.

 Thank you FWPD for taking care of our next President!

More turning. :)

 So stinkin' close!

 So excited.  At this point the crowd outside went CRAZY!  Cheers and clapping for Mitt.

 Cool bus.

A Message For Ron Paul Supporters

I have been composing an open letter to Ron Paul supporters for some time. It usually gets added to after I have had a frustrating interaction and is in response to that frustration. I have waited to write this until I had time to step back.

I want to start off by saying I think there are different types of Ron Paul supporters (just like there are different types of Obama supporters, etc.). There are the folks who fundamentally believe the government has overstepped its reach and that libertarian principles can restore our country. I think my grandfather fell into this category. He was a responsible, hard-working, independent man who worked hard for his family. Pro-gun and pro-freedom, he supported the power of the people.

The second group is what I like to call the new age Ron Paulers. This is a crew that has really come out over the past few years and is primarily comprised of college students and young adults. They are fed up with the war, paying too high of taxes, maybe facing employment problems and want a revolution. It is this group that is vocal on websites, blogs, and forums. They are unbending in their opinions and espouse thoughts that if the rest of America was informed enough, we would be in their camp.

I'll call the third group zealots. Every political group has them; these are the people who will do whatever it takes to get their voice heard, even if it means violence, rigging voting, etc. When I went to Occupy Dallas, I met many Ron Paul supporters (and no, they weren't disguised as Paul supporters). Some of them belong in the second group...they wanted a change and were curious about how Occupy could help with this. Others definitely belong in this third category. Because this is an extremist faction, I don't even think it's worth commenting on.

The group that I want to address is the second group. People who may not have always been politically active but are finding excitement in this political cycle. People who believe the government is so large, it needs to not just be shrunk but an amputation of power needs to occur. People who read/watch Infowars as their primary source of news.

My friends, I have a bone to pick with you. In your enthusiasm for you candidate and excitement over him being the closest he has ever come to being president in his years of running, you seem to have forgotten a few things.

1) I have researched all the candidates. I have great respect for Ron Paul and believe his emphasis on the constitution and freedom is a message that needs to be shared. In my heart of hearts, having researched and weighed the options, I cannot vote for him. This does not mean that I am misguided or unlearned. When you tell me I need to study and pray more and I'll come to the same conclusion as you, I find it insulting and condescending. It is possible to see the same facts and come to different conclusions. I respect your right to believe Ron Paul is the answer right now and should be the GOP nominee for president. I disagree with this but I am not running around slandering you and calling you names (like "sheeple"). Please show me and other supporters of other candidates the same respect.

2) Getting Obama out of office is the objective. If you truly love your freedoms they way you claim, I don't see how you can support having Obama in office 4 more years. Do you have any idea how much additional damage he will do to our freedoms if he doesn't have to worry about being reelected?!? When you say you're going to vote Obama instead so that Ron Paul will win in 4 years, I question your resolve to protecting our freedoms. As an aside, there are RP supporters who have said that if RP is not selected as the nominee, they will work mightily to defeat Obama. These are the Ron Paul supporters I find I have something in common with. While I have supported Romney for years, this election cycle, I really did carefully consider if he was the best candidate. I looked into Ron Paul, Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, and others. I read, studied, watched debates, videos, talked with people, etc. I did my due diligence. I chose Romney. Had Romney dropped out or been beaten by Santorum or Gingrich, I would have mourned the loss and then jumped right in to supporting that candidate to defeat Obama. I appreciate the RP supporters who have experienced similar feelings and are willing to support whatever GOP candidate is selected to defeat Obama as they realize how awful his policies are for our country.

3) Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have a great deal of overlap. If you watched the debates, you could see as Ron Paul supported positions of other candidates. And he did support many positions of other candidates. When you say that Obama and Romney are the same, you're also saying that anyone that has overlap with someone else is the same. So we should call RP Obaul?? No, any reasonable person recognizes the differences. I ask you to be reasonable.

4) This is a recent trend that has started and probably what is most disconcerting to me. I have been told by Ron Paul supporters over the last few weeks that Americans have become too stupid and lazy, they cannot vote for themselves. They need people to step in and do what's best for the people even if it is against the will of the people. (If you're asking if you read that sentence correctly, you did. And yes, it's scary.) They promise a revolution and acting as "wolves in sheep's clothing." This reminds me of a Ron Paul supporter I met who when I labeled him as such at a convention said "How did you know? You're not supposed to be able to tell."   Any time a group of people believes they need supercede the process the Constitution lays out, it is in direct violation of concepts upon which this country was founded. Obama was a bad pick for this country. BUT the people elected him. I will fight, blog, vote, contribute time and money to help the people make a different choice this election, but I respect the process by which he was elected.

I think again about my grandfather. What a force he was. And while he was the kind of man who wanted government out of his life, he did support Ronald Reagan as president. My goal in writing this blog is not to squash enthusiasm but to promote flexibility. An unbending tree breaks in the harsh winds. If one is so stuck on Ron Paul and so rigid in thinking to assume that Romney is truly no better than Obama so it's Paul or bust, they will be responsible to 4 more years of lost freedoms. You may be able to live with that but I am not sure our country can.