Going into the New Hampshire primaries, polls showed that Barack Obama would win again for the Democrats, and Ron Paul was posed to finish third or fourth for the Republicans and improve his showing in the Iowa caucuses. It has been reported that both may have been cheated in NH by voting machines and hand count fraud. As a result there, will be a recount for both parties. Many fear that if no problems are found, it could further legitimize the electronic voting machines and hurt future recounts. Ron Paul does not endorse a recount, and instead has chosen to focus on the primaries to come. It was disappointing to finish in fifth place in NH, and I would have felt a lot better if he had finished ahead of Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. The good news is that there still isn't a Republican front runner. Giuliani failed to break into double digits in NH, finishing with 9%, only one percent more than Paul. Regardless of what happens, Paul is the true candidate for change. Others like Obama talk about it, but what are they saying would really change? There is a difference between calling for change and actually having a proposed plan to bring it about.
First I'd like to say that I have no axe to grind with Obama, and find some of the allegations brought against him petty and ridiculous. That having been said, for someone whose campaign is based on change, he is pretty vague on exactly what and how he would change things. Saying you are going to change things is mere words and empty promises. Real change requires plotting an entirely new course with ideas, specifics, firm policy initiatives, and it doesn't always come quickly. The truth is that behind all the rhetoric, Obama represents the status quo, and there is very little difference between himself and Hillary Clinton. Obama's two years in the Senate and thin resume means that he doesn't have that much political baggage. One can hardly dispute the fact that he lacks experience, is unproven, untested, and lacks critical wisdom and policy knowledge. Paul, on the other hand, has been advocating real change to our foreign policy, monetary policy, and the corporate welfare state for thirty years. He is well read, and there is no other candidate who studies political philosophy and economics more than he does. He has a distinguished voting record, upholds the constitution, and has been likened to the founding fathers. One's gender or race does not mark significant change, and I believe that Paul is the only candidate who can restore America.
There are definitely some similarities between Paul and Obama. Both are promising change, enjoy huge support on the Internet, have grassroots appeal, and have struck a chord with young voters. After that, most of the similarities end. Obama is young, charismatic, smooth, and a great communicator whose words are captivating and intoxicating. He makes you feel good about yourself. For the most part, he has been a media darling, and some reporters have admitted bias on reporting about him objectively. It will take more than a certain look, an image cute phrases and catchy slogans to change things. The contrast is that Paul is a humble 72 year old constitutionalist, and is a model of consistency. He admits that he has limitations, but his message of freedom does not. For the most part, the mainstream media has tried to ignore and misrepresent Paul, his message, and his supporters. Paul has always championed civil liberties and voted against the Patriot and the Real ID Act. Meanwhile, Obama voted for the Real ID and to renew provisions of the Patriot Act. Paul doesn't sugarcoat things, and is one of the few politicians who acknowledges our overspending, the weak dollar, and the evils of the Federal Reserve. He also wants to eliminate income taxes and abolish the IRS. There is little doubt that there is an appetite for change. Ron Paul addressed this issue and said, “To me that means the only significant change we ought to have is get enough people in Washington that read the constitution, obey the constitution, do only things that we are allowed to do.”
Ron Paul admits that there is very little difference between the mainstream candidates, Democrat or Republican. He said, “Foreign policy never changed. Domestic fiscal policy, the welfare entitlement system never changes.” For years, both parties have been double teaming the American people. One gets in power and further advances the New World Order agenda, and then falls out of favor and passes the baton to the other. Both parties are supported by special interest groups, and many are waking up to the fact that the Democrats aren't going to save us either. Paul's support is diverse and transcends party lines. We don't have to choose the lesser of the evils, because with Paul we have the right man with the right message. He is shattering the fake left-right paradigm and dismantling the establishment. While most candidates including Obama grovel to AIPAC, Paul is not bought and paid for by any special interest groups, corporations, or countries. He is the only one of the top candidates in either party that doesn't have any connections or affiliation to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Obama gives speeches to CFR members and at CFR sponsored events. His top foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has intimate ties to both the CFR and co-founded the Trilateral Commission. Obama has tried to paint himself as an outsider, but has surrounded himself with consummate insiders and political heavy weights. It's always the same people behind the scenes.
Both Obama and Paul are receiving the most contributions from military personnel for their respective parties. Out of the two, only Paul can be considered an anti-war candidate. Paul was against the Iraq war from the beginning, and wants to pull our troops out of Iraq and the whole middle east almost immediately. He advocates a foreign policy of non-intervention. Obama says he would have voted against the Iraq war if he were in the Senate at the time, but has voted for continued funding of the war. He talks about a timetable for withdrawing main-combat forces in Iraq, but would then send more to Afghanistan. He has talked about possible missile strikes against Iran and military action against Pakistan. He would continue to expand the war on terror, and he supports preemptive strikes, increasing the size of our armed forces, and further militarization of the middle east. It is impossible to label Obama as an anti-war candidate, but it might be unfair to say that he is a warmonger. He is pro-military, and has demonstrated his willingness to maintain the U.S. as the world's police force. Obama as president would not bring about any radical shift in foreign policy.
Barack Obama would bring about artificial change, and he is like window dressing to make something old and broken appear new and fixed. Ron Paul is like a big wrecking ball, with the words change on it. He understands the role of government, and would limit its size and scope. Limited government would bring about more liberty, and that is what America was founded on. We would return a more constitutionally-sound monetary and foreign policy. There would be no more nation building, foreign entanglements, and trying to police the world. Hillary Clinton is still the anointed one, and will probably win the presidential nomination for the Democrats. There is a good chance that Obama will be on her ticket. A woman president and a black vice-president, with the Democrats back in power, that might be the only change we get. Maybe Obama is the insurance policy in case Paul wins the Republican nomination, or runs as a third-party candidate. Ron Paul is the real candidate for change, and Barack Obama is a tool of the elite.