Renee' asked me the following question:

"I know this is personal, but curious if you would answer.  Do you have a candidate in mind to vote for?  I am very confused about my decision of who to vote for.  Just like last time, I find myself looking at the people running for office, and I am tormented to make the right choice.  Would respect your input!!"  

My response:


Ron Paul is the most constitutional, (which I really like) but the least political.  Some may say that is an asset, but I'm afraid he would have a difficult time getting things done with all the obstacles he would face in Washington.  

Each of the other candidates have something of value and something that makes me doubt.  I keep having debates with my son about voting for Ron Paul.  We talk about the issues of Iran, abortion, illegal immigration.  If I lined up each candidate based on how they meet my personal ideals, Paul is first.  But then there is the argument: is the goal to vote based on ideals or to vote to "remove" Obama and begin the process of reviving our country?  I think Paul may only get the strongly conservative voters.  

When all is said and done, I will vote based on my conscious.

I would be interested in any strong arguments why I should vote for any particular candidate.  This I know...Obama must be voted out of office!


  1. Big fan of your work. I support Ron Paul whole heartedly and earnestly feel he is the only guy who will begin real repairs on the system. Everyone else seems to agree with the Federal Reserve, our ever expanding empire and inervention, and our isolationist ideas of tarifs embargos and sanctions.. which will only further weaken our countrys diplomatic options. Hes also the best shot at pulling Independant and even many democratic votes this cycle! I think that his fight for the nomination will be harder than defeating Obama next year. I could go on and on, but I'm sure your sons covered the rest :]

  2. I agree with you , but the sad thing is people today don't sit down and really think about the pros and cons of each candidate. Here is hoping, but since God is in Control.. He will put who He wants in there according to HIS plans.. so we rest in HIM>

  3. If I could vote on this here is my order of choice:

    1) Santorum
    2) Gingrich
    3) Paul
    4) Romney

    The first three are great from a conservative point of view IMHO... Paul would be at the top of that list if it wasn't for his blame America first bias, because everything else he says is pure genius, spot on.

    Can't stand Romney... gets my back up. I see him as a wolf in sheeps clothing, a weathervane politician. He cannot advance on his record so he has to try and tear down the conservative achievements of the people he is running against, just like the left and MSM does, and try to lie like crazy about his record, which is abysmal.

    1. I guess it's hard to face up to the fact that our foreign policy isn't infallible. America has made mistakes, and we shouldn't be in the business of pretending to be perfect, and we should correct mistakes when we make them.

      Ron Paul is for repenting for America's mistakes.

    2. Truth can be a bitter pill to swallow. In your mind, who should take the blame for pre emptive wars of aggression? Who should we blame for the billions of foreign aid that strengthens dictatorships? Take a glimpse into the dark side of American power, whose consequences all over the world are all to often ignored.

  4. please watch :] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

  5. God looks at our heart when He judges our actions. Our votes do not put the man or woman into office, He does. You must vote with your good Christian conscience and trust the results to Him who holds the world in His hands.

    And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding...Daniel 2:21

  6. While I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say and what he stands for, I can't get around the fact that he would make America stand apart from Israel and I hold God's word to a higher standard than Ron Paul's and believe that God will bless those who bless Israel. So while he's correct on many things, on the issues that are at the foundation of who I am, he and I differ greatly. I figure if it's a choice of doing it God's way or Ron Paul's I'd rather take God's way any day even if it means we get someone less Constitutional than Paul.

    That being said, I can't envision ever voting for Romney for the same reasons that I diverge from Paul. We may like to believe that faith isn't a part of politics, but the Mormon faith is a big stumbling block for me. They would like us to believe it's another form of Christianity, but it is not. It is a cult.

    Gingrich has too much baggage and has made too many impetuous decisions that have led to poor choices.

    Santorum is the best of those running. I don't know if he can beat Obama, but Santorum would be better for America than any of those currently running.

    1. Tammy, just an FYI: Mormons study the King James version of the Bible, Old & New Testaments, plus the Book of Mormon.
      It's not the "Mormon" church - Mormon was a prophet just as Isaiah was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is written by prophets - the correct name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
      I'd just like you to know that I have a special closeness to my Savior, Jesus Christ, just as most Latter Day Saints do. Most of us are honest, law abiding, hard working, non-drinking members of this wonderful country.
      It's my hope that you'll be interested in learning more about our beliefs instead of judging us from hearsay.
      Best of luck in your decision - there are four good men running for this nomination, only one will win. No matter which one it is, we MUST vote Obama out of office!
      Thanks for your attention!

    2. I would like to respectfully debate your understanding that Ron Paul wants to 'stand apart' from Israel. This is simply not true. How is America currently supporting Israel? We attempt to usurp their national sovereignty by telling them where there borders should be, who their friends should be, and then we send more than double the foreign aid dollars to their enemies.

      If you have time, take a look at this short interview concerning Dr. Paul and Israel (7 minutes) and let me know if with this understanding, you still feel the same way.


    3. Tammy, read this article by Voddie Baucham that mentions that topic of countries that support Israel. I think that his viewpoint may give you another perspective if that's a big issue for you. http://www.patriot-newswire.com/2012/01/voddie-baucham-answers-why-ron-paul/

      God bless you.

    4. @tammy- A cult doesn't give you free agency...us Mormons have exactly that!

  7. I'm still undecided. I think Newt is dishonest and a conniver and it shows in his countenance. I also feel that integrity in the Oval Office is a requirement, not a choice.
    So far, I'm leaning towards Mitt but still have doubts.
    One of my thoughts: Rick Santorum could be a sleeping giant and come from behind to take all of us by surprise. He seems to have strong family values and high integrity. My fear is that he might not do well against Obama.
    So, it's still a toss-up for me. I'm getting tired of the negativity but I'm going to have to bear with it and keep watching.
    I love your work, Jon.
    God bless you!!!

  8. I fear that whomever we nominate will be just another McCain, especially if Romney is the winner. We will unfortunately have our first official dictatorship commencing in 2013 under the person especially groomed for the job, Barak Hussein Obama. I calls them as I sees them, and that is my prediction.

  9. Hi - This is in response to Raymond For what it is worth, I am a former Democrat and do not consider myself "strongly conservative" in any way. I voted for Ron Paul in 08 Primary and will do so again this year. Furthermore, I strongly believe that only Ron Paul can defeat Obama in a general election because he appeals to all sides of ther political spectrum - he has very conservative votes, independents and Deomcrats on board, not to mention the younger people who have not even participated in the voting process, let alone alligned themselves within a party.. How can we explain this except to say freedom is popular? evolution!

    1. Freedom is popular! :] I can thank Dr.Paul for saving me from the Neocon party. I am greatful for his tutalige :]

  10. I prefer Santorum, he is a Christian who walks the walk and is not ashamed of it. That to me, follows through with all your decisions, so it is the most important for me. I do think he will end up leaving the race, either for family reasons for financial. My second choice is Gingrich. I agree he has flipped but I feel it has been as the result of personal and spiritual growth not flip flopping. Romney is the bottom of the pack just above Obama. He is a true flip-flopper to me. He changes his mind based on the political winds. If he is the GOP candidate, I will vote for him, but only to get rid of Obama. Ron Paul I like a lot of what he stands for, but other parts of what he says make me too nervous to vote for him. I do not think he would be able to accomplish much as our president. Unfortunately.

  11. Christians need to STOP watching the lies of mainstream news, ALL channels, which are ALL bought & lie to both sides.....and vote based on INTEGRITY, NOT party, not fear. Ron Paul is the ONLY person running with ANY integrity..we are supposed to pick the best GODLY man & then TRUST God to do the rest..WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THAT? Now we are fearful of choosing the Godly man in fear he can't get things done?? IF MY PEOPLE..IF MY PEOPLE...

  12. addendum to my post....supposed to say "Revolution" not "evolution" lol my bad

  13. Ron Paul!!! I love it. I say we fight for Ron Paul, he ties with Obama on national polls too. He can win as long as there is optimisim and hecan get enough delegates. Santorum is clueless to foreign policy and Gingrich is so mainstream and Washington insider it makes me sick. Everyone who thinks Ron Paul is anti-American needs to Youtube 'Blowback' by Chalmers Johnson. It explains that the people over there are angry with our years and years of interference and also in 1953 we installed a dictator in Iran that killed thousands, thats why they hate us, not because we 'were' free. Stay strong with your gut feeling and thank you for your grey blog. RON PAUL 2012

  14. I like Santorum, as he seems the most REAL, R.Paul is correct on many things, but incorrect on others and has a history of voting against pork at the same time he stacks his own in a bill that will pass either way, and he has some grey ties to associates of Soros.. not sure about him. There is no 100% good person running, thats the problem, Gingrich well he comes and goes, is a insider DC type, Paul is as well, Now I liked Bachmann however not gonna happen. too bad we cant take the good in each of them and make a new candidate. After what Rep. Lt.Col. West said this week end, he would make a good stand for America sad he is not running. Problem is most are soft liberals, history each with social stuff. But all in all right now Santorum. Some say "who winable?" doesnt matter, Obama's unions & pals will most likely rig many elections like Reids, vote machines are very very fallible, hackable, the paper vote was safer and more accurate. But when so many DEAD, Imagined, made up people vote for the Progressive liberal leftists its going to be a hard fight whom ever the Republicans choose to go against Obama. The power, control is stacked in his (Obama's) favor. So Whom ever gets the nomination for the people, Republicans, I say maybe its best to pinch our noses and vote (even if our best candidate is no longer there) make sure to vote Obama Out, and hope the new President deletes Obama's messes asap. I guarantee 4 more yrs of Obama and America will be fundamentally changed into a Socialist European state, since Obama Ignores the laws, his oath of office and gets away with Treasonous acts all the time. He must go, such is the term O.M.G. = Obama Must Go! I wish there was a Reagan style candidate running but we are not so fortunate. Check them each out, their History of what they have done, not what they say now, the promises they make to get our votes. Actions speak louder than words. God Bless all, and God Save the Republic of America.

    1. Your concerns with Dr. Paul are immaterial.

      Concerning earmarks, listen to Dr. Paul explain this himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY (1:40)

      Anyone who brings up the Ron Paul / Soros connection makes me cringe. Stop listening to Glenn Beck, and consider what you're inferring. He tries to argue that because the only people willing to look into military spending cuts are democrats who are all somehow connected to Soros, that by association, Dr. Paul must also be tied to Soros.

      Use your own brain, and consider just how illogical that is.

    2. Thank you Bradenator! The following is a quote from Stephen Huls "R.Paul is correct on many things, but incorrect on others and has a history of voting against pork at the same time he stacks his own in a bill that will pass either way, and he has some grey ties to associates of Soros". All I have to say is that there is no credibility to linking Ron Paul with Soros...Obama is his boy!

  15. Last election I voted for Chuck Baldwin...

    I am not sure who I will vote for this time around. So far Ron Paul looks good but will he run after he loses the GOP nomination? Time will tell. No one else in the GOP is getting my vote. Really though in my mind it does not matter who wins.

    Why? Because of 2 Nephi 1: 7

    Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

    I feel repentance is needed first before any real change and saving happens. Besides, I do not believe in political saviors. Obey and serving Christ is the only way out of this mess. The politicians are not the root of this country problems. In my view the people are.

    Preach repentance and help point people to Christ. That is my main focus.

    Watch this awesome video that sums up my feelings. It is call One Way Out: An Invitation to America

    1. Your post sums up what I've discovered in my own personal studies. This isn't a problem with our government. It's an iniquity problem. Until we accept this and campaign for the church as zealously as we campaign for candidates, we should expect things to get worse.

      Your selection from 2nd Nephi should humble anyone who can look objectively on our current situation. Personal righteousness is the solution.

  16. Rick Santorum, for his ethics, beliefs, and quite simply, because the Left is terrified of him and his calm assertiveness when on the floor. The media hates him for pretty much the same reasons. But over all, I believe he can really turn this country around to Conservative values and Rule of Law again.

    Just saying.

  17. Each of them has good ideas that are unique to them, but I strenuously disagree that each is equally as fit for office as the other. In order of least wanted to most:

    Gingrich - Newt had a long and troubled political career with a few bright streaks, but generally appearing as one big decline, though he later described it in far more positive terms - e.g., having opposed and excoriated Reagan, he later claimed to have been supportive if not partially responsible for Reagan's successes. Newt is very imaginative with clever policy solutions, though they're not always practical; and his history background helps him interpret issues. He has experience as a teacher and a consultant; he had his own company, helping him learn a bit of management. His stumbling-block is his personality: conflict-prone privately and professionally; blameful and consistently hypocritical toward his enemies; both Nixonian and Clintonian in his dodging skills; bad with money; narcissistic. Before I knew Newt as a man, he seemed experienced, and was my 2nd/3rd choice; now, I can't consider voting for him at all, as he seems to encapsulate most of what I've disliked about the other side.

    Paul - I've frequently sympathised with the Paul campaign. Some of his less-practical foreign policy has merit, but the principles of restraint attributed to him are actually not distinctive for him. His movement has a deep sense of superiority that any interpretation of Constitutionality but theirs is wrong by default, and they endlessly repeat a "true Constitutional" mantra that wouldn't really hold up in court. Paul's spent a long time in Washington and on the campaign trail, and has been a doctor; he apparently lacks the kinds of leadership experiences that would have probably helped him to moderate his unyielding stances - attracting a lot of like-minded voters (unfortunately stuck last election at between 5 and 10%, and between 10 and 15% so far in this race). Probably Paul's last run (we haven't really seen a strong age debate like last time, but it would come), he's done extremely well. Despite the fervour of younger voters, most older Republicans are strongly averse to him. He gives the strong impression of policy absolutism and refusal to reconsider. Though it's not plausible that he could push through very much of his "dangerous" platform (making him much less scary than he's taken to be), the reforms themselves are simply more radical than living Americans have ever experienced; perhaps more radical than our country has seen, and it's concerning how intensely the views are held by Paul and his people. He may do surprisingly well with congressional controls, but few actually hope for him to fully enact his plans.

    Concerns aside, he resonates on the big issue of limited government more than he annoys with other issues, and the GOP could back him if not for his other habit: continual, wrathful denigration of his own party. By quantity, intensity, and level of whole-hearted acceptance by his base, he has been the single most negative force I've ever seen or known in an election. Even more than Gingrich (who turned in favour of Democrat socialist arguments against the wealthy), it's almost guaranteed that the Paul campaign's advertising will be assimilated by Obama; Paul has spent tremendous energy alienating Republicans. Only on rare occasions has he been neutral or even respectful to his opponents. In a backward attempt to ingratiate himself to voters, he has viciously (and worst of all, often without total accuracy) misconstrued every candidate. More than any of his well-meaning and perhaps salvageable policies, it's Paul's lone-wolf negativity that has endeared him to his highly vocal fans who disallow his faults and his enemies' strengths, while utterly destroying him to others. Once a potential supporter against Obama, I could now still possibly drag myself to the polls to vote for Paul in November, but only after scrutinising third-parties.

    1. Santorum - Rick was an early 2nd-choice of mine. He connects on social issues, and unabashedly so. He worked as a lawyer and later as a consultant, but doesn't appear to have carried much responsibility beyond that. Many appreciate his “humility” and “decency”, though he's fallen out of harmony with the current anti-spending crowd on the right. Leaning frequently toward the fiscal middle, if not for a lack of alternatives, he wouldn't be seen by conservatives as a proper standard-bearer. His deficit to me is more that he's too green of a campaigner; unripe in politics; not sufficiently distinctive from either his competitors or Obama; lacking signature strengths that may have given him notoriety. Though his policies might have predicted it, when he recently rode Gingrich's coat-tails in his attack on wealth, he also gave the sense of being a wavering follower. I would still readily vote for him if I had too.

      Romney - Highly educated, highly successful, highly experienced in unity-building and leadership, very respectful to opponents, ready to smile, and old-fashioned in style and vocabulary, I liked him from the first time I learned about him. Romney seems custom-ordered for dealing with fiscal crises, but, curiously, has been rejected by the splinter of the GOP most vocal about fiscal disaster. His greatest weakness in the race is that he's LDS - obviously a stupid argument to me as an LDS voter, who have grown up thinking that I too am allowed to run for president. Religious distaste, in my view, has underlain and fueled much of the policy complaints of the further-right, all of which have rebuttals. Romney is considered pro-abortion, pro-man-marriage, and anti-gun-control by many, when everything I've learned says he advanced no such causes in office, in fact opposing them. Throughout his law/business education and responsibility-heavy business career, Romney seems to have learnt the impossibility of successfully pushing one-sided views on diverse people, and the necessity of questioning failing policies even if they are dearly held. He exudes diplomacy and practicality that opposite parties can both live with. His stances on the issues tend to make it difficult to consider him an extremist. He has been combative before, but he tends to clothe criticism in such civil phrasing that, if he loses and endorses an opponent, you won't be at all surprised by it.

      The concerns I've had about Romney came from headlines or articles describing his actions or views in a non-objective way (interestingly, Romney was found to be the recipient by a large margin of the most negative media coverage in the race, since both the left and the right have fought him). Nearly always, I find him easily justified and exonerated from my doubts. On a few occasions, I found accusatory descriptions of him to be accurate and against my views: he favoured ethanol subsidies, for example. That particular black mark in my book was erased when I saw him a few months later trying to persuade industrymen in Iowa that he actually supported them only in a temporary manner, dependent on their own competitive and profitable evolution - my view precisely on new energy, which cannot compete in its incipience. One or two small black marks still remain that are difficult to notice against my broad white list.

    2. Most attacks on Romney have seemed so foolish that it's become difficult to take any of them seriously. Romney once took his dog on a trip rather than penning him up at home, and strapped him atop the vehicle, since dogs love to have access to the outside during road trips - a meaningless complaint. Romney once fired a company with repeated illegal yard workers at his house, after forgiving them for the first offense - meaningless. Romney is LDS - good for him. Romney learned French as a missionary - great. Romney grew up rich - of course he did; his dad grew up poor, but did very well. Romney is much richer than his dad - of course he is; he's excellent in his field, and is a philanthropist too. Romney "hurt businesses" in his career - not believable at all; businesses must profit to survive, and Romney helped most of them profit toward later growth, with a stunning success record in his particular niche of the industry. Romney changed his views since running in MA - interesting; demonstrative of both his leadership, and his deference to voters, but less relevant than either his commitment to campaign promises, or his actual governance, which earned plaudits from his conservative allies in the state. Romney won't give his tax returns - ah, it turns out he actually slightly over-paid; and even at his legally lower rate, he gave millions more to the goverment than probably 99% of Americans did, getting less in return than any of them, when socialism would have taken a majority of his income instead, driving him right out of the country, along with his market-boosting spending and his history of business-building from the country. Romney talks too quickly - meaningless; I understand him perfectly. Romney looks too good - lucky for his wife and kids. Romney doesn't inflame the base - good, he's not a demagogue.

      Clearly, it's not just me who sees the balance of Romney's positives and negatives slammed down immovably on the positive side. His list of party endorsements is ponderous for length, many of which endorsers rejected him for McCain last time. Unsurprisingly, Romney's self-oriented opponents choose, Gingrich/Paul-style, to disown, condemn, and rage against all those "party leaders" as enemies of conservativism - the very people they would need to befriend to not go down in flames in the White House. As well, for the entire race, more national voters have preferred Romney to Obama than any other GOP candidate. Most GOP voters (that is, those who have kept the Constitutional demand for no religious tests) have sided with Romney in the primaries. His base has been the largest by far. The block of those who refuse Romney, on the contrary, are petty enough that throughout 2011, they stood behind, but then entirely abandoned, nearly every other candidate, admitting that the alternatives lacked quality, and showing no loyalty of any kind to their picks, instead motivated mainly by a lust for personal destruction of the single most electable and qualified leader in the race - again, the chief reason being religious hatred, of the kind admitted by pastoral groups that ballooned Santorum's support just days before Iowa, and that exposed itself again in exit polls as accounting for the South Carolina results. Also, though not always ahead, Romney's long-term average in GOP polls shows him to be the least-disliked by a significant margin. I conclude that most intelligent, reasonable conservatives share my preference of Romney, and those who vow to oppose him are obeying their passions, aroused by fanatical and power-craving opinion-shapers in the party, rather than their best judgment.

      But I wholly agree with Sugarfoot8's comment above.

    3. Case in point about the Paul camp... Watch this video of Romney singing a patriotic song with old veterans, and then check out the 95% of the comments screaming about how stupid, blind, and mislead those elderly are, how evil Romney is, how he'll destroy the world, how awful it is to sing in praise of this country, how evil capitalism is, and on and on (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEdIjZN2Wms).

      It almost doesn't matter what Paul says, since you can't ever get near him without him being drowned out by the demonic frenzy of his child soldiers, who still have at least decade of life to spend before they begin admitting they don't know everything.

      This video has single-handedly returned me to my earlier, almost-forgotten vow to never support Paul's revolution of the few hateful against the many normal, and move him back to the top of my list above.

  18. I live in pennsylvania and am very familiar with Santorum. He is anti-freedom, pro Big Government. PA voters ousted Rick in a landslide election. He screwed over Pa taxpayers and made lots of money for himself through his lobbying. He would make a horrible President.

    Newt and Mitt, I don't see much of a difference between the two. They have both benefited from croney capitalism.

    That leaves Ron paul. I challenge everyone to spend some time reading his archived congressional speeches and statements. Allow him to explain his positions and see if you don't find yourself agreeing with him. There also many videos posted on youtube, dating all the way back to the 70's.

    Don't let the mainstream media pick our President, do your own research.

    1. Thank you samakya! I agree with you, Ron Paul has a great track record of voting to keep our freedoms, voted against the bailouts that are stifling our economy and all the bad things that the mainstream media try to present about him are pure lies! Look at the record and what Paul has stood for...he has not wavered and wants to bring back our freedoms that are constantly being taken away! Read up on Rona Paul and vote for him before it's too late!

    2. Thanks for the reply. Yes, the media is extremely biased. All of our mainstream media is owned by 5-6 mega corporations. I do not expect GE military contracters to give us an accurate report on the wars, just as I don't rely on Disney to give us an accurate account of our economy. There is a reason that our media ranks 47th on the worldwide report on fairness and accuracy.

      Our media used to be corporate watch dogs, but have evolved into corporate lap dogs.

      People are catching on, the Intellectual r3VOLution continues! Stay vigilant friend.

  19. Jon,

    Thanks for sharing your art with the rest of the world. It is beautiful and poignant. Straight to the point.

    Being that I am blessed with living among the cornfields of Iowa, I am also cursed with having to be one of the first in the nation to deal with who to vote for. When I went to the caucuses in January, I was clueless (but leaning toward Newt) as there were no really outstanding candidates as I saw it. I went armed with lists of pros and cons for each of the serious candidates. Asking myself if I could live with the cons of each, there was only one that I could vote for - Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul seems - more times than not - to consistently vote not necessarily along party lines, but in agreement with the Constitution. While there are some views that Dr. Paul has that are in direct contradiction to my own views, being one that sides with the founding document of this nation far outweighs the consequences of those views that detract from my core beliefs.

    Unfortunately it is always the case of choosing the lesser of the evils, because we are all individuals instead of mindless robots.

    Good luck on your choice at the polls. Keep up the great work with paints and thanks again for sharing your vision and talents. God Bless.

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

  21. (sorry.. had too many typos above..should have hit the preview.. I'll try this again)

    Thanks for taking the stand! I'm a little bit of an artist too and your work is very inspiring!

    I've also gone back and forth on who to vote for. I live in PA and there is time before the voting gets around to us, but I have pretty much made my decision to vote for Newt. It was not an easy one. I also like Ron Paul to a degree... but I am suspicious of him and think his view of foreign policy naive. Our oceans are no longer the protection they once were and ICBM's have the effect of making every enemy a border enemy.
    Now.. as for choice.. how we conduct our personal lives is certainly a factor to consider in leadership. But when you are at war on the battlefield, it is no time to worry about whether your Captain had a divorce or an affair at one time... all that matters is defeating the enemy in front of you. Newt at least has a track record of conservatism. He brought the GOP to a majority in 94. He balanced the budget first time on 40 years. He stopped HillaryCare, exposed the House banking scandal, made congress have to abide by the same laws they pass for everyone else just to name a few. Romney supported gun control, supported Planned Parenthood, supported abortion, called Ted Kennedy his collaborator and friend while creating RomneyCare, is distancing himself now from conservatives and I am convinced, if he is elected, will go far left working with Democrats and RINO's to further the Democrat agenda. He refuses to call Obama a socialist. He appeases the media.
    I like Santorum, he is a nice guy, but he is a big government type Rep. He supported SOPA during the debates and supported Arlen Spector during a primary. He doesn't have a chance right now.
    Well, that is my reasoning as brief as I can make it here. Newt, for all of his flaws, I believe, is still far better than Romney. Newt is a patriot and has a love for America and is ready to go after activist judges and the media. He is a fighter.. and I should say.. did not resign in disgrace from the House. Romney's ads were false on this. Newt was exonerated, but was thrown under the bus by the GOP. Which is often what they do with their most effective leaders. This is why they are out to destroy him... they know what he is capable of.
    Thanks again for your work and your stand. God bless you!

  22. Jon,
    Your work is incredible - thank you!
    Things never seem to change for the better in Washington, regardless of what party has control in the house, the senate or lives in the White House. Our debt increased every year from Carter to Obama... The debt nearly tripled under our Reagan, whom I like, but must laugh when our candidates all talk about being a Reagan fiscal conservative. The debt went up under Bush 41, under Clinton (despite having a budget surplus for 6 months), jumped big under Bush 43 and is on fire under Obama. Our liberties, both economic and personal liberties, have been rapidly vanishing - again regardless of what party or person is in office. The Constitution was built and framed by men inspired by God; and it was meant for a moral, religious and righteous people. Unfortunately, we often times fall short of that description. I am not sure we are truly worthy of the greatness of the Constitution - I hope we are or can at least return to being. I choked down voting for Bush 43 and can honestly say I have regretted it completely. I almost didn't vote last time, but in the end, I "fell in line" with the Republican bosses and voted for McCain (in the general). This time I will vote for Ron Paul in both the primary and write him in for the general. I will no longer vote for someone I think is bad. I do not agree with everything Ron Paul says, however I do find that most of the time that I disagree with him, is sadly because I disagree with that part of the Constitution. Yes, I need repentance :) I sometimes become fearful that we may need more laws. Luckily I didn't vote that way before I came to this earth. Jefferson warned us that our governement should be chained down by the Constitution. I choose liberty. If we fail, we should fail under our own decision making and not on the decision making (massive laws) of others.
    Thanks again for all you do - definitely inspiring!

  23. Wow, finally even the Ron Paul and all republican style Austrian economists are admitting that their model was wrong and that the Stimulus worked.


    Again, the number one reason not to vote for Ron Paul. Only democrats support Keynesian economics.

    1. Yet 86% of economists have agreed since 1936 that the Federal Reserve should be dismantled (Ron Paul ideology) and would have avoided many financial setbacks set upon us currently. Also, read this article and it does not rave of great success, just says it might not have been as bad as we thought! Also, keep in mind that Obama continued on with the bailouts, which has hurt our economy greatly. In addition Obama lied about the signing of the Patriot Act and the NDAA! If we don't learn from history then we are doomed to repeat our mistakes!

    2. I wish you had given a hyper-link. It made it difficult to even find what you were talking about.
      You're talking about the "Chicago plan."


      A group of economists in the 30's basically wanted to go back to the gold standard and get rid of the federal reserve.

      The proposal was sent to 1000 economists in 1933, of which 320 responded. Of those 320, 73% were in full agreement and 12.5% in partial agreement with 14% disagreeing. Hence, the 86% number. What about the 680 who didn't respond? And furthermore, this was not even sent to all the economists in the world. The "86%" who respond favorably were already Austrian economists.


      We now have the terms "fresh water economists" (Austrians) and "salt water economists" (Keynesian), because most of the Austrians come out of The University of Chicago (next to fresh water lakes) and most of the Keynesians come out of the Ivy League Universities (next to an ocean).


      So your statement that "86% of economists have agreed since 1936 that the Federal Reserve should be dismantled" is just false.

      Specifically, Austrians have been absolutely wrong over the last five years on many critical predictions.

      They said printing money (Quanitative Easing) would put us in hyperinflation. Conservatively, hyperinflation is defined as a rate of at least 26% per year. We are currently at 2.4%.

      They said not practicing Austerity would raise the interest rate on our federal borrowing. As of today our rate is 2.04%. It hit 1.695% on September 22, 2011 - the lowest in American history. Spain was at a budget surplus before the financial crisis but since has practiced full austerity. They were paying 6.7% before the European Central Bank started printing money. Now Spain is paying 5%.

      The two big scares of the Austrian economists - hyperinflation and high interest rates - were both wrong.

      Can you say epic fail?

  24. So Ron Paul thinks a flat tax or sales tax is better.


    Ron Paul would raise taxes on anyone who is paying no income taxes or who gets tax credits. So under Ron Paul at least 46% (according to the Tax Policy Center) of Americans will pay more in taxes than they do now.


    So let's look at the Americans that pay no income tax now.

    So at Ron Paul's 5% sales tax, this is what you can expect:

    If you're single and make $8,700 or less you will be taxed up to $435 more per year.

    Married and earning $17,400 or less you pay up to $870 more.

    Married with two children and earning $27,000 or less you're taxed up to $1350 more.

    HOWEVER if you earn $1,000,000 per year, even if you spend 100% of what you earn, you will still pay $300,000 less in taxes.


  25. You must have read it wrong Troy!

    But there is a better way. Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans.

    Taken directly from the reading/link you posted!

    1. Exactly Patriot! Taxes are NOT the problem. Out of control spending IS the problem!

  26. @Patriot

    I said "sales tax" not income tax. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the income tax like you said, but will replace it with a flat tax or sales tax. (Elsewhere he said a 5% sales tax. My numbers are based on that.)

    As I showed, this will raise taxes on the poorest of the poor. I showed areas where no matter what, their taxes will go up. But in higher incomes it works out to:

    Single making less than $18,000 a year will pay more taxes under Ron Paul's plan.
    Married making less than $35,000 will pay more.
    And Married with two kids making less that $50,000 a year will pay more.

    These variables change, though. The more money a person spends of their income, the higher their taxes will be (because they have to pay sales tax on those purchases). Poor people spend their money and rich people save their money, so the poor will be taxed higher as a percent of their income. Under the current income tax, the very poor are not taxed at all.

    The point is, Ron Paul would raise taxes on many people. And, worst of all, mainly on the poor while the middle class and upper class get huge tax breaks.

  27. Inflation and the endless process of printing money coupled with endless wars will hurt poor folks moreso than a flat tax or sales tax. With Paul's economic plan, corporations will have major incentive to insource jobs to America. Currently, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world! Which means, the only companies that can effectively compete are the GIANT corporations who can afford to outsource their jobs.

  28. @samakya

    Wow you brought up a lot of stuff. First, inflation.

    Average inflation under:
    Reagan 4.26%
    Bush Sr. 4.18%
    Clinton 2.58%
    Bush Jr. 2.41%
    Obama 2.40%


    Yeah, I see what you mean. The lowest inflation rate in 75 years. God help us.

  29. Regarding corporate taxes:

    First, we don't have the highest - Japan does. We are the second-highest, about tied with Germany.


    Obama is trying to lower the corporate tax rate.


    Republicans controlled the house, senate, and presidency from 2003 to 2006, yet they left the corporate tax rate at a record high. It takes a Democrat to lower it.

    Also, the fact that you bring this up shows that you know that to compete we need to undersell the competition. Then why do Republicans - especially Ron Paul - support a strong (higher) dollar? The higher our dollar, the higher our prices. If we want to undersell, our dollar needs to be lower so we can sell cheaper than other countries.


  30. You are a piece of shit! how dare you to play with religion for Political reasons!
    Classic! OBAMA 2012!

  31. So Jon, banned me from your Facebook page. LOL. You really are an intellectual coward and a megalomaniac. I never cursed you, just presented a different opinion. You just want toadies who fawn all over you and think you're a great painter. You are more delusional than I thought originally.