After Barr's campaign pushing Ron Paul to endorse Barr for President, Ron Paul was pushed to support Chuck Baldwin after wishing to remain neutral. Ron Paul had expressed desire to not have to choose between the Libertarian and Constitution parties. I believe that the change of heart came mostly from the fact that Barr cancelled on Ron Paul's liberty press conference on the 10th.

You can tell that Ron Paul is still stinging from the last minute withdrawl of Barr at the conference. Ron Paul did not mention Barr's name once in the blog post. He repeatedly used "the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate" or "the Libertarian Party Candidate" in place of Bob Barr's name while he would name other third parties' candidates by name, like Cynthia McKinney (Green) and Ralph Nader (Independent).

Ron Paul also references Barr's repeated attempts to get him to endorse a single candidate for this election as he wanted to remain neutral out of respect for the Libertarian and Constitution Party members.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.  I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

Again, this is just further proof that Russ Verney and Shane Cory have been taking Barr's campaign down. They wanted their campaign to be the ONLY campaign that Ron Paul endorsed. They completely missed the point of the rEVOLution, and now Barr's campaign is suffering as a result of their incredible arrogance. The Libertarian Party was not created to split the country into three instead of two. It was to bring back liberty to America, just like Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty is trying to achieve. They could have rode the wave by having Barr supporting the Campaign for Liberty. Instead, they expected the Campaign for Liberty to support Bob Barr.

It may be late in the season, but I believe that since there is no chance of a Barr presidency in 2008, Bob Barr should fire Shane Cory and Russ Verney for being terrible campaign managers and apologize by taking full responsibility for the actions that he took thanks to those two nitwits. At the very least, it would regain some credibilty that he lost thanks to the recent actions of his campaign.

I still support Bob Barr and the Campaign for Liberty. Though, I am highly disappointed in how Barr's campaign has been acting as of late, and I feel that I'm in danger of changing my vote to Baldwin, as well. We'll see what happens over the course of the next few weeks. Baldwin is on Michigan's ballot under the U.S. Taxpayer Party, so regardless of what happens, I will still be able to vote for my candidate.

There seems to be too many people feeling betrayed by Ron Paul's decision to end his campaign, but wars are not won by single battles. Wars are long, drawn out, and costly. Putting effort into a losing battle when you can count your losses and mount a new, stronger, and more efficient attack is a stupid thing to do and can even cost you the war. Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty is this new, stronger, efficient attack on the big government politics that we continue to see with the Republican and Democrat parties. We may not get to win back the White House in 2008, but we can damn sure make our presence known even more than we did with the presidential primaries.

Don't fool yourselves, the two major parties are very very powerful. They have the media in their pockets and deep-pocketed corporate sponsors. They can't be defeated in the course of 18 months or two years. We can't reach everybody and change their minds instantly. We have the cunning and we have the truth behind us. We won't be defeated if we continue to work to bring America back to the way it was meant to be.

The argument for liberty is much stronger than the argument for an invasive government. The American people have liberty in their bloods. It just needs to be awoken and brought out. This revolution is just the thing to do it. Once the beast is woken, there's no stopping it. The beast is awake. It's time for us to be a part of that beast and take back what's rightfully ours.

Reading further into the book, I came across a quote by Henry Hyde. Paul doesn't mention him by name, but after a little searching, I discovered that it was Mr. Hyde who said the following, in reference to Ron Paul's "radical" idea that Congress be the one to declare war: "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time, Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. We are saying to the president, use your judgment. [What you have proposed is] inappropriate, anachronistic; it isn't done any more."

I share Paul's sentiment, in the next paragraph, which mentions how it's such a relief [note: sarcasm] that we have politicians who are keeping us updated on what's "relevant" in our Constitution. One question, though, isn't it up to the people to decide what's relevant? That question then begs the following: are we really losing this much control of our government? The sad answer is a resounding "YES!"

It bugs me how overgrown our government has become and all in the name of freedom. It really creates an oxymoron out of "government protection". Yes, by giving up our liberties, we may be more likely protected from poverty and foreign governments, but those are the things that should worry us least. The thing that we should be protected from the most is the one thing that our government can't and won't protect us from... itself. I'll admit, it'd be foolish for the government to want to relinquish the power it has.

As individuals, we must give up power in order to gain order and protection from external threats, but a government has no such threats and need for protection, so the idea of giving up its power doesn't make much sense. That's why it was important that our government's powers be limited in the Constitution. The Constitution wasn't written relevant to those specific times. It was written because they knew what a government would do with no restraints. They saw it with England, and we get to see the same thing with our ever-growing government.

We, as Americans, are no safer from terrorism than we were pre-9/11. Our government has its agenda to uphold, so they're going to make all of these claims that the eroding of our civil liberties is working to protect us. Sadly, people are wiling to buy into this propaganda. There is no doubt that our government has thwarted terrorist attacks since 9/11. I, just, don't believe that the Patriot Act and similar legislation has had anything to do with that. We thwarted terrorist attacks prior to 9/11, as well. We can't all be naive to believe that the only terrorist attacks planned were successful ones. The extra protection given to us, if any, is not worth the civil liberties that we are continuing to lose.

As long as neocons and liberals continue to see an increasing need in government intervention whether it be at home or in a foreign nation, our liberties will continue to dwindle while we see no reasonable increase in security, but a decline in protection from a tyrannical state that our Constitution was meant to prevent. If we allow our politicians to continue to shit on the document that has given us the ability to stand up and fight, then we have turned our backs on founding fathers and on what it means to be free. We have turned our backs on what it means to be American. We weren't meant to be free of hardship and pain. We were meant to be free of a government that offers us no protection while actively working to take away what liberties that we are willing to give up before fighting back. We need to restore our Constitution. We need our elected politicians to respect the document that our nation was founded on, that they took an oath to uphold, and that millions of Americans have fought and died to protect.

There's not a whole lot else to be said on this matter. As far as I'm concerned, Bob Barr is the best man for the job. He is trying to garner the same support that Ron Paul has while going for the GOP's nomination. My first choice would have been Ron Paul for president, and I was disappointed when he stated, a few months ago, that he would only seek the Republican nomination and no third party nomination. That being the case, Bob Barr and Wayne Root are the two best choices for the job, as far as I'm concerned.

Please show your support for the ticket that will bring America back to where it belongs, operating as it did when our nation was first founded on the principles of liberty and limited government. Patriots did not shed their blood for a new tyranny to be born, so to honor the sacrifices they and the patriots that followed gave, we must elect a candidate who would make them proud. Make Barr/Root your 2008 presidential choice, and bring America back from whence it came.

Bob Barr 2008

If you don't know what I'm ranting about, I'm talking about the clip cut from the Fox Republican debate just recently that showcases Ron Paul dishing out a whole truckload of whoopass on the idiotic idea that he is not electable as if he's not a real conservative. He rips into the hypocrisy that is the neo-con ideology of borrowing money from China to fund wars and dictatorships all in the best interest of the acquisition of foreign oil for corporate benefits.

I am beyond livid with the obvious slant that Faux News takes and claims to be "fair and balanced". Not that this is a new revelation, but I didn't think they'd be out to try and censor a TRUE conservative candidate. I guess this just goes to show you how fucking pathetic "journalism" is today and just how much people are afraid of a genuine ideology that is spoken about by Ron Paul. If you don't like his message, get the fuck out of my country because you don't belong here. My opinion will be heard at the election booth, and idiot neo-cons WILL regret the day that they wrote off Dr. Ron Paul.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

The rest of the debate was mainly Guiliani, Romney, McCain, and Thompson entangled in a cat fight between the lot of them. It really was kind of pathetic, and they always managed to squeeze in how they are all "conservatives" and how they "respect" each other. It was quite pathetic, and I really couldn't get behind anything the four of them said. They all tried to justify bs, and they were all trying to pull some shit out of their asses saying that we need to preserve "marriage" as being between man and a woman for our children's sake. Right, because homosexuals and bisexuals are COMPLETELY incapable of raising children. I mean, they're not human, right? How could they POSSIBLY know how to raise a kid? Oh, wait...

Ron Paul got the most boos out of everybody else there. It was quite sickening. I mean, he was just being honest about how 70% of America wants our war in Iraq to end. He got boos from that, even though it's clearly statistically correct. Just because they didn't want to hear it, they were booing the man. The truth hurts, I know. He was also booed for pointing out that previous presidents have ran against being invasive in foreign policy. He mentioned that even Bush supported staying out of international affairs, and that's the way the party needs to go back to. The truth yet again? Boos for the truth? Yup, that's the Repugnant Party for you (not that the Democraps are any better).

I'm not going to go through everything that everybody was talking about. Truthfully, I only paid attention to a quarter of the debate because most of it was just stupid bullshit between the four front-runners. I tried to listen to them, but it was just so... pointless and arrogant and off in a stupid direction for America. As I said, the only two that were any impressive were Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee; the candidates that actually want change, and not just votes (though, they do, else they wouldn't be running).

One thing that I found hilarious was how the candidates (read: front-runners) were milking the audience for applauses by mentioning "Hillary" and "Hillary-care". Some of it was relevant, but for the most part it was just pointless to bring up. They were just trying to get positive reactions from the people for being against Hillary. Well, no shit. Every other candidate besides Hillary, herself, is running against Hillary. Let's try to focus on the issues, shall we

As far as the "winner" of the debate, hands down it was Ron Paul. That's not just me talking, either. Out of the text message votes that the candidates received, Ron Paul received 34%, Mike Huckabee received 25%, and the next was one of the idiot front-runners, Rudy Guiliani. I'll admit that most of the people who know how to text message aren't exactly the older generation, who probably would have sided more with Guiliani and the front-runners, but still... 34% is pretty impressive when there were 7 or more candidates debating, and he received over 1/3? That's a decisive victory.

In conclusion, Republicans suck complete ass, and Democrats are just that much worse. Vote Ron Paul or vote Libertarian. Either way, you're going with a viewpoint that's right for America and WILL bring about the change that's needed. Neither the Republicans or Democrats can do what a Libertarian could do, and that's promote respect and compassion WITHOUT the invasiveness of an overbearing and tyrannical government.