Quicktime of the previous letter being delivered to the Assembly. (around 20 MB)

Poof that I actually delivered it.

Members of the Assembly, Acting Mayor.

My name is Peter Giessel. I was first moved to Anchorage when I was 6 weeks old.

I hope you are all here to do good.

This begs the question, "What is good and what is evil?"

Just as "legal" and "illegal" have no meaning apart from the law, "good" and "evil" lose all meaning apart from moral law. Just as no law exists without a law giving authority (such this assembly), there can be no moral law without a moral law giver. This nation's founding father's recognized this when they wrote that they were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Our founding fathers weren't appealing to British law, but to a higher law, a moral law. Laws of man, if they are just, are subservient to and in support of this moral law. Thus laws protecting property rights are in support of the moral law against theft. Laws against physically harming another are in support of the moral law which forbids murder and calls on us to love one another.

The same moral law giver who condemns murder and theft also condemns the practice of homosexuality.

In Romans Chapter 1, the Apostle Paul writes, "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Clearly the behavior described by Paul is contrary to the moral law given by God. Mandating acceptance of this behavior is therefore also clearly contrary to the moral law given by God. Laws that contradict the moral law can only be described as evil. Therefore, this proposed law can only be described as evil. As it is written in Job, "Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.”

On the day of Judgment, God will judge all of us for our actions. However, you will be judged by the voters before that day comes. In a mere 287 days, the voters will judge if you have done evil or good here tonight. If you pass these changes, there will almost certainly be a ballot initiative to undo what you have done. It will drive many to the polls that will not have forgotten how you voted.

I hope you will vote wisely and see you in 287 days.

I've been seeing this more and more, and its been bugging me, but these two in the same weekend has brought it to the point where I'm ready to rant.

By the way, if you haven't seen either of the subject items and don't want spoilers, go away now.

One of the things that I've seen more and more is the premise that humans are basically good, but get corrupted by the civilization they create. One of the places this was evident was in the Battlestar series finale. Humans once again "started over", just the clothes on their back and a few supplies. The idea was that humanity was worth saving but their culture, their history, their civilization was not. In Knowing, the angel aliens or whatever they were saved a few of the children, but no sign of saving adults, presumably to save those who were uncorrupted. It seemed to me that like in Battlestar, although not stated quite a blatantly, the idea was to save humanity, but not human culture, history, or civilization.

The truth on the other hand, is exactly the opposite.

Romans 3 (KJV):

9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17And the way of peace have they not known:

18There is no fear of God before their eyes.

19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 5:

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Paul makes it clear that through the law, we can know our sin and therefore know that we need a savior. Without the law there is no knowledge of sin. Sin is still present, but we do not know how offensive we are to God. So, by leaving behind the history and law of our civilization (which is still at its core based on the morality given by God), we would be giving up the only stabilizing influence to the lusts of the flesh (Romans 1:28-32). Rather than having a chance at a Utopian society as portrayed, the Bible makes it quite clear that the exact opposite would occur. This elevation of the goodness of man and the de-elevation of the importance of our true history and the law really rubs me the wrong way. While I enjoyed Battlestar as it had much to like (the entire show highlighted the depravity of man over and over, it annoyed me that they made an attempt to deny the depravity of man in the finale, although one could argue that they showed that their attempt to deny the depravity of man was unsuccessful based on the results of their experiment), I couldn't find anything redeeming in Knowing and in the end did not enjoy it.

Enough said.

Reading (spying on) what T-Rex has been writing while I'm out of town, I've come to realize that nobody understands anything about engineering. The contractor who was arguing with me about following the procedure certainly doesn't understand, and its clear that T-Rex doesn't understand either. So, without further setup, here is how post-tensioned concrete works:

First you form up the shape of the thing that you are going to make out of concrete. In this current case, its a 5 foot tall, 13 foot diameter circle. Next you put the required rebar into in. In this case, its #8 bars (1" diameter rebar). You put in ducts or sleeved post-tensioning strands as well. Then you pour the concrete. This is where the waiting game comes into play. When you pour the concrete, you take samples. You test these samples at various times to try to find out when the concrete gains enough strength to tension the rods. In this case, the specifications said that the concrete should obtain a strength of at least 6000 psi in 28 days. It also said that the concrete should obtain a strength of 5000 psi before you tension the rods. They screwed up the mix big time, so it will only obtain maybe 4500 psi in 28 days, meaning that it will probably never get to 5000 psi. At 5 days, the concrete had only obtained 3600 psi. So, we went back to the engineer who did the calcs, and asked, "what is the bare minimum you NEED, not how much you WANT". He said, the bare minimum he could accept is 4500 psi (OK) and the minimum we need for tensioning is 3000 psi.

Basically, as soon as we heard that, we realize that we could tension as soon as we could mobilize out there to do so. So, it was first available plane out there to tension the rods.

Tensioning the rods is VERY critical to the overall strength of the final product, so they needed an engineer's representative to be on-site to make sure they followed procedure. The tension on each rod (rock anchor in this case) is 240,000 pounds for this project. That is a lot of force on each rod.

The procedure for tensioning is very specific. The first rod should undergo the following: Tension to 45,000 pounds, measure the elongation, release to zero pounds, measure any residual elongation, tension to 45,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 90,000 pounds, measure the elongation, release to zero pounds, measure any residual elongation, tension to 45,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 90,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 135,000 pounds, measure the elongation, release to zero pounds, measure any residual elongation, tension to 45,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 90,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 135,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 180,000 pounds, measure the elongation, release to zero pounds, measure any residual elongation, tension to 45,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 90,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 135,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 180,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 217,000 pounds, measure the elongation, release to zero pounds, measure any residual elongation, tension to 45,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 90,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 135,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 180,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 217,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 240,000 pounds, measure the elongation, hold for 10 minutes, measuring the elongation every minute. If there is no additional elongation after ten minutes, lock off the load.

For every additional rod, tension to 45,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 90,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 135,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 180,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 217,000 pounds, measure the elongation, release to zero pounds, measure any residual elongation, tension to 45,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 90,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 135,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 180,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 217,000 pounds, measure the elongation, tension to 240,000 pounds, measure the elongation, hold for 10 minutes, measuring the elongation every minute. If there is no additional elongation after ten minutes, lock off the load.

The first rod then takes about an hour. The process of setting up the jack on each rod, then going through the loading, measuring, and locking off process on each additional rod takes more than 20 minutes per rod. The jack alone weighs something like 150 pounds, and is not the easiest thing to move.

Anyway, it takes time. Its not "waiting for concrete to cure", its tensioning rods. If I were waiting for concrete to cure, I would be there for days. Also if the concrete isn't strong enough, putting these kinds of loads onto the concrete would split it. That would be very dangerous to anyone within, I don't know... half a mile? When a one and three quarters inch rod that is holding 240,000 pounds lets go, lets just say that you don't want to be in the same zip code.

That isn't the only danger involved. There is also the crane over your head that they use to move the stupid jack around. There is also the danger of dropping one of the 50 pound wrenches on your toe. Ever seen a one and three quarter inch rod's nut? It ain't small. Not to mention flying around on dirt runways in a Cessna Caravan.

Well, enough ranting. Everyone should understand the basics of prestressing, and trust your engineers. And pay them more money. And pay them on time (GDM Architects, I'm looking in your direction).

I must say I'm pleased. Despite his annoying e-mails, and his pleas ("On Monday, November 5th, Ron Paul's supporters attempt to raise $10 million -- in a single day -- to show support for Ron Paul's campaign and to open the eyes of the media about the strength of his candidacy. Beth and I will be part of it. [NO, he actually wasn't... liar!] And we urge you to be as well. Visit his web site to make a donation to his campaign."), my loser unemployed brother-in-law (of who I am tempted to go Genesis 34 on him) did not give any money to the loser (mo)Ron Paul. According to the FEC:

MURPHY, WILLIAM
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49506
THIRD DISTRICT

  MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITEE
    01/07/1997 250.00 97032280300
    05/06/1997 250.00 97032280300

MURPHY, WILLIAM W
LANSING, MI 48910
SELF/CUSTODIAN

  AMERICA COMING TOGETHER
    09/25/2004 241.00 24962495624

Those are the only William or Bill Murphys in Michigan.

In 2004 I had the extreme honor to meet Tony Snow in person at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City. From that short time meeting him, I can tell you that he was in person exactly the person you see on TV. As Rush Limbaugh said today on the radio, "He had the ability, be it from behind the microphone or from behind the camera, he was consistently genuine, he was totally authentic. There were no airs about the guy, and when you met Tony Snow from one day to the next, he was Tony Snow. He was never Tony Snow on television. He was never Tony Snow on radio. He was never Tony Snow at the White House briefing room and podium. He was just Tony Snow." Rush also said that Tony Snow "looked at death as a promotion." From what of his life I could see, I certainly believe that is true, and I will not be at all surprised when I get to Heaven to be able to shake his hand once again. This weekend we lost a truly great man and he will be missed.

Hehehe, hash. So appropriate for the convention. You see, only one candidate PAID people to go to convention. The Mor(e )Ron. Thus a lot of Mor(e )Rons were there. About a quarter of people showing up were paid to be there by Ron Paul. There agenda consisted of the following:

- Legalize "hemp" (Marijuana)

- Repeal the: Patriot Act, Real ID act, and/or any other act used to fight terrorism

- Condemn the U.S. Military for participating in an "illegal" war

- Repeal the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution (which they contended was illegal anyway)

- Remove the party chair

The legalize "hemp" arguments were especially interesting. We were told the following:

- Genesis 1 requires the use of hemp (as it is a green plant - totally ignoring Genesis 3 where weed is the result of sin).

- The oil industry is repressing hemp because they know that:

(A) its biomass is so much higher than corn it would replace oil if it could be used for ethanol production

(B) cars can be powered by water (zero point energy - like in Stargate Atlantis)

- Would you deny his grandmother the only relief that works for him? (yes)

The removal of the party chair was interesting too, especially when they started trying to shout down the parliamentarian and tell him he was wrong. That was especially entertaining, and drove more people away from their cause(s) than anything else that they did.

It turns out that they thought (for some unknown reason) that I was one of their supporters, so about the fourth time that I voted against one of their stupid pet causes in the judiciary committee that I was a part of, they started shouting at me, "Way to go Ron Paul supporter! What do you think you are doing voting that way? I'll have to tell our guy that you are opposing us!" To which I replied, "What makes you think I'm a Ron Paul supporter?" They replied, "Our guy told us you were." I told them Ron Paul was my last choice, so they started taunting me as a McCain supporter, to which I shrugged and said that I support him more than Paul, so they flipped me off repeatedly the rest of convention. The level of maturity was overwhelming.

All in all, rather entertaining, but annoying at the same time.

Check out the Flat Tax. Its a far superior, far easier to implement replacement for the IRS than the so called "Fair Tax" which is really just an internet commerce tax that would have everyone filing tax returns or having their PURCHASES audited.

So, I'm starting to besieged with a new phenomena. People who think they know something (but don't) who support Ron Paul. Just remember, you can't spell "moron" without Ron (Paul).

Here is a recent example, from my brother-in-law, who I've never met because he's probably afraid that I'd go Genesis 34 on his ass:

Good morning,

If you're anything like us, you've probably wondered what happened to America. Why aren't we as strong and proud as we once were?

The answer lies is the old interrogation game "Good Cop, Bad Cop."

We've had this suspicion for years, quietly creeping up on us, gradually clearing away the fog and media-induced separations. But it wasn't until this year that we realized just how band things have gotten in our country. That's when we discovered there's no difference between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, or between Barrack Obama and Rudy Giuliani, or between John Edwards and John McCain. They're all "cops"!

But there is one candidate who's different: Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is philosophically 180 degrees from any other candidate. He speaks a language of freedom unheard in this nation in many, many decades. Set aside 30 minutes watching the video clips below. Visit his web site, MySpace page, and YouTube page. Is any other candidate saying what Ron Paul is saying? No. Not one. He's totally different from all of them. He's just what our country needs.

The reason why America isn't what it used to be is because our system is broken. And our people are sick.

Here are just a few of the issues that alarm/sadden us:

Illegal immigration -- Our borders are overrun with people who enter our country, take our jobs, abuse our health care and education systems, and clog our jails A crushing tax burden -- We pay more taxes now than we ever have before, yet it's still not enough for (a) Democrat candidates, and (b) the insatiable federal government Unemployment -- Michigan's unemployment is the highest in the nation at 7.5%, but we're just the beginning...the rest of the nation will catch up with us because our high-paying jobs have moved overseas Unfair trade -- When was the last time you picked up an item in a store that didn't say "Made in China" on it? What happened to America- made goods? Political correctness -- Christmas has become the "winter holiday"...Easter is no more...In God We Trust was just "accidentally" omitted from the new $1 coins (and quickly replaced along the edge), the Ten Commandments can no longer be displayed in public places...anyone who attempts to speak his/her mind is sued by the ACLU and/or powerful lobby groups...we can't even pass a law to make English is official language! (A nation is defined by its borders, its culture and its language. Today, all three are in grave peril, which begs the question, "How long will America last as a nation?") The Constitution -- Our liberties haven't been this precariously balanced since our nation was founded. New challenges face our Bill of Rights and our Amendments every day. Recent court rulings have virtually eliminated property rights. Now, any government body can take away a person's land for any reason merely by claiming the land could be better used in other ways (like raising more taxes for government) Social Security -- Our government lied to us. There is no "account" with everyone's social security waiting for them in it. Our government spent that long ago. Our Social Security system is bankrupt and will create unconscionable burdens on working adults in the years ahead...it can't be patched; it must be scrapped and replaced Abortion -- Especially "partial-birth" abortions War -- We are involved in too many countries; we simply cannot afford to fund wars and save America at the same time...our foreign policy is a shambles...we need to bring our troops home NOW! Freedom -- How can we say we're a free people when our land is taxed, our work is taxed, our inheritance is taxed, our goods and services are taxed, and we must apply for a permit or a license to do anything at all? Morale -- Have you ever known of a time when everyone was more tense, depressed, stressed-out, and feeling powerless? That's because there hasn't been a time like this. Not in recent memory, anyway. Americans feel impotent to affect change, even though they know it's desperately needed.

We could go on and on. But why? You probably feel the same way about some of these issues, maybe even all of them.

There has never been a more critical time in America's history. The upcoming election could very well make or break us as a nation. Ron Paul represents our best, and perhaps our last, hope.

Can he win? Of course -- but NOT if everyone sits around doing nothing or saying, "Ron Paul can't win." The media downplays him. Conservative talk show hosts like Sean Hannity (someone I used to respect) proclaim him a spoiler who will only take votes from what he considers the frontrunners (Romney and Giuliani). Yet, the people have spoken. There is a groundswell of support for Ron Paul sweeping the United States. College students are behind him. People of all races, genders, and ages are behind him. Despite enormous odds, a media that wishes he would disappear, and fellow Republicans who wish he'd shut up, Ron Paul has emerged a solid contender.

Ron Paul could win the nomination.

This isn't a Republican issue. It's not a Democrat issue. It's not a liberal issue or a conservative one. Ron Paul's message isn't bound by a party. He's only a Republican because our nation has a two-party system. If he ran as anything else, he'd get nowhere. So if you're a Democrat, take a look at Ron Paul. He's not like any Republican you've ever known.

On Monday, November 5th, Ron Paul's supporters attempt to raise $10 million -- in a single day -- to show support for Ron Paul's campaign and to open the eyes of the media about the strength of his candidacy. Beth and I will be part of it. And we urge you to be as well. Visit his web site to make a donation to his campaign.

All is not lost. We still have hope. We have Ron Paul and his simple message of freedom. So if you want things to change, you need to support someone who represents change: Ron Paul.

We sent this e-mail to people we've known over the years -- family members, of course, but also friends, co-workers, and business associates. We've never sent an e-mail like this before because, frankly, we've never felt moved to do so before.

Thank you for reading this. And many thanks for spending time watching Ron Paul's video clips and researching his stand on the issues.

Please forward this e-mail to as many people as you can as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Bill and Beth Murphy

Ron Paul clips on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9GkpwFY5Mw

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuzMYIXhTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl1VIhdpl4c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhqGwHWJQ-M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoaFYQ-YO64

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30yxHqSUva8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay4vXZWxeuU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WsTSjJBCB4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQP5KVM5tB8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvY7KzPTdfE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU614yBacV4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgF-s1voM_Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4

Ron Paul's Website:

www.RonPaul2008.com

Ron Paul's MySpace page:

http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008

Ron Paul Clips on MySpace:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm? fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=9533545

Ron Paul's WIkipedia Page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

--

"The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked." - Ron Paul

Official Website www.RonPaul2008.com

Official YouTube page: www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom

Official MySpace Page: www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008

To which I replied:

You have got to be kidding me.

*** QUOTE Ron Paul *** We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law.

That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. *** END QUOTE ***

The only two candidates that are identical are Ron Paul and Dennis "I saw a UFO" Kucinich. They are both nutjobs that don't realize the threat that radical islam poses for the civilized world.

_________________________________________________________________

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1755

"Tyrants and would be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent until the day that free men and women defeat them" - George W. Bush, 2005

Here is his reply (moRONic formatting fixed):

Hi Peter,

Many thanks for your reply. It's great to hear from you!

Sadly, you're incorrectly characterizing Ron Paul and his position. In so doing, you insult his intelligence as well as mine.

You have intelligence? I'm shocked! But I digress:

Did you watch the YouTube clips? Did you visit his official web site, MySpace page, or YouTube page?

Why would I need to watch some YouTube clips of someone who has 17 years of public service? Don't you think I could have formed an opinion of him based on 17 years of public voting records? Nah, I'm only 5 years old you see, that is how old (mentally) all his supporters are, so that is how old the rest of the population must be, but again, I digress:

Ron Paul is the most Constitutional, pro-American candidate running. He is the only one who wishes -- and is able -- to return America to its proper foundations.

A. Because running as the least Constitutional, most anti-American candidate is something everyone else is doing.... B. That is quite a claim. Why don't you throw in "He is able to leap tall buildings in a single jump too...

If you only get your information about Ron Paul from Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, or the Washington Post, then I could see how you'd have a skewed view. But if you watch the clips, read his stand on the issues (found on his web site), and go back to the documents to which he refers (the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc.) you'll quickly discover he's the only candidate with such pro-American views.

All I did was quote who? Why Ron Paul, in his own words, uttered during a Republican Presidential Debate... How does the candidates own words: A. Give me a mistaken view of the moRON? B. Come from Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, or the Washington Post?

It's not possible to argue with his stands on illegal immigration and border security, home schooling, deficit spending at the federal level, abortion, the Federal Reserve, foreign policy, Social Security, and personal freedom and liberty.

So, he took every issue I didn't mention, lumped them all together, and made a blanket statement that is is "not possible to argue with his stands" on any of the issues (quite a claim there too). But I digress:

In fact, I challenge you to find anything in any of those issues that contradicts what you stand for and believe in. Ronald Reagan -- whom all the current Republican candidates are attempting to be -- endorsed Ron Paul fully and stated publicly that Ron Paul knew what he was talking about.

Yeah, as a congressman, who was only in office for Ronald Reagan's first term, not as a potential commander and chief of the U.S. Military. Again, I digress:

Ron Paul knows full well the threat radical islam poses to the U.S. and to the world. However, his solution is to (a) secure our borders -- NOW -- because the enemy is already here, (b) strengthen our military by bringing it back here to safeguard Americans, (c) take a non-interventionist stand with the world and stop policing it, and (d) restore a Constitutionally-based government that eliminates the tax burden, gets the federal government off our backs, and allows more personal freedom than we've known in decades, perhaps centuries.

A. So, he will beat the terrorist over there by running away. Great plan. B. So, you strengthen a military by refusing to use it.... how is this power useful again? C. Ours is a world governed by the agressive use of force. Taking a non-interventionist stand means that we lose the free world. America could stand alone if it had to, but it would not be a comfortable position to be in. D. So, "El Presidente" will suddenly have power to do all that? Wow, I always thought Congress had the power of the purse, and to "eliminate the tax burden", it would take a Constitutional amendment, of which the President of the United States of America has NO ROLE. Ammending the Constitution is PURELY a legislative function. States can do it without the Congress, but the President NEVER has a role in ammending the Constitution. How exactly is a one term long shot candidate going to do all this again? But I digress:

I believe you're thinking myopically, Peter. Study the man. Do some research of your own. Investigate. Challenge your current opinion. Give it a week. Devote a week to studying who Ron Paul is. I'm confident that if you do, you'll come away with a completely different opinion.

Devote a week to studying Ron Paul? Are you insane? Oh wait, he's an unemployed loser, so yes. Hell, if I had a week to devote to studying something, there are several books of the Bible that I should spend more time reading. I don't have the time to waste on someone who consitently polls at 3%. But I digress:

But make no mistake. I stand by what I wrote in my initial e-mail. There is no difference between Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama or Rudy Giuliani, John Edwards or John McClain. They are all way off base Constitutionally. They start from a faulty premise. They will spend America into the ground, destroy the morale of its people, and further entrench us in overseas wars. Our personal freedoms will not grow under their watch; they will erode -- more quickly with Hillary, of course. But erode nonetheless under all of them. When you start with a faulty premise, you will always arrive at a faulty conclusion.

Hmm, Hillary Clinton wants to socialize 1/7th of the U.S. economy. Romney doesn't. Rudy Giuliani has executive experience and would agressively pursue the war on radical islam. Barrak Hussain Obama has no executive experience and IS a radical muslim. No difference. Right..... But I digress:

I stand by my support of Ron Paul. I maintain he is the only candidate able to restore America to the strong, proud country it once was.

I look forward to hearing from you again.

Wonderful, he insists on being a moRON. But I digress:

Cheers,

Bill

P.S. If you think I'm not a hardcore conservative, please think again. I'm about as far right as right can be. But that doesn't mean I have to check my mind at the door and believe the rhetoric I hear from the candidates. I question everything, believe nothing until I can prove it with my own eyes. Once you realize that American politics is a game of "Good Cop, Bad Cop" your eyes will be opened -- wide.

Right............ Politics is a battle in the arena of ideas. Nothing more. I don't have a clue where this "good cop, bad cop" stuff comes from, but its a battle in the arena of ideas. Sometimes our ideas win, sometimes our ideas loose. But I digress:

-- "The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked." - Ron Paul

Official Website www.RonPaul2008.com

Official YouTube page: www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom

Official MySpace Page: www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008

Oh, look... the mandatory three different websites, because he's too much of a leech to use his own bandwidth...

Here was my reply:

On Monday, November 05, 2007, at 04:53AM, "Will & Elisabeth Murphy" wrote: >Hi Peter, > >Many thanks for your reply. It's great to hear from you! > >Sadly, you're incorrectly characterizing Ron Paul and his position. >In so doing, you insult his intelligence as well as mine.

Those are his words, not mine.

>Did you watch the YouTube clips? Did you visit his official web site, >MySpace page, or YouTube page?

No, but I watched every single Republican Presidential Debate. Have you?

>Ron Paul is the most Constitutional, pro-American candidate running. >He is the only one who wishes -- and is able -- to return America to >its proper foundations.

No, he's a nutcase who refuses to acknowledge the threat that radical islam poses to America.

>If you only get your information about Ron Paul from Sean Hannity, >Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, or the Washington Post, then I could >see how you'd have a skewed view.

The information I get about Ron Paul comes from: (A) Watching him in Congress over the last DECADE. I've been watching him closely in congress for a DECADE now. How long have you been watching him? Hmmm? (B) Listening to HIS OWN FUCKING WORDS in EVERY single presidential debate. How many have you watched?

I have not listened to a single candidates cherry picked clips of themselves on their websites. I've listen to them in the debates, and I've read their position papers on the issues.

>It's not possible to argue with his stands on illegal immigration and >border security, home schooling, deficit spending at the federal >level, abortion, the Federal Reserve, foreign policy, Social >Security, and personal freedom and liberty.

9/11 changed nothing for the Democrats. 9/11 changed everything for the Republicans.

Which are you?

Because 9/11 changed everything, Republicans woke up to the realization that Radical Islam is the most dangerous threat we've faced since World War II.

They don't just want to conquer us. They want us all, even Ron Paul, dead. Not enslaved. DEAD. We have two choices: A) Take the war to them and teach them the fear of God (not Allah/Satan that they worship) B) Die in our homes.

I am unwilling to vote for anyone who fails to wake up to the biggest threat our country has faced in our lives. Anyone who doesn't see this threat and is willing to take agressive action to combat it, is an idiot. And yes, I'm talking about Ron Paul.

> In fact, I challenge you >to find anything in any of those issues that contradicts what you >stand for and believe in. Ronald Reagan -- whom all the current >Republican candidates are attempting to be -- endorsed Ron Paul fully >and stated publicly that Ron Paul knew what he was talking about.

The number one issue of our time. NATIONAL DEFENSE.

Ronald Reagan knew that the only way to stop tyrants is with the aggressive use of force. It wasn't going home and hiding our collective heads in the sand, it was preparing for war and being willing to project our power around the world to defend our liberties at home.

All the military might in the world is useless unless you are willing to project it at America's enemies, and that is what Ronald Reagan was willing to do, and what Ron Paul is not willing to do.

Burying our collective heads in the sand worked great until 1801 when we had to project our military might to protect America against the Barbary Pirates. It worked great for a whole 25 years. Since then, America has had to realize that the only way that we will stay safe is a recognition that our is a world governed by the aggressive use of force, and that the only way to protect our country is to project our will through our military onto those who would do use harm. Ron Paul is stuck in a pre-1801 mindset and would be more dangerous than Hillary Clinton in the White House.

>I believe you're thinking myopically, Peter. Study the man. Do some >research of your own. Investigate. Challenge your current opinion. >Give it a week. Devote a week to studying who Ron Paul is. I'm >confident that if you do, you'll come away with a completely >different opinion.

I've studied him for a DECADE. How long have you studied him?

There is no difference between Ron Paul and Dennis "I saw a UFO" Kucinich.

Here is his reply (with my annotations:

Hey Peter,

Thankfully, I can say I've studied Ron Paul since about 1982. I became aware of his pro-America, pro-Constitution philosophy around that time. What is that -- hmmm, let me see...TWO AND A HALF DECADES? I had great respect for Ronald Reagan. I saw in lecture on a convention in Atlanta around '82 or so. And if Ronnie says Ron Paul knows his stuff, I believe him.

What did he see in a lecture in a convention in Atlanta? Lets dissect that sentence: "I saw in lecture on a convention in Atlanta around '82 or so. "

I think the correct term is that there is no object in that sentence. Logical like Ron Paul himself.

Ron Paul's position on the Federal Reserve, hard money, and deficit spending is unassailable. He's pro-life. He's pro-freedom. He's anti- illegal immigrant. He's pro-home schooling. He's anti-IRS and burdensome taxation. I'm not sure how you can argue with any of those positions and call yourself a conservative.

For the record, his position is that all the money in your wallet is counterfeit. While technically true, its practically irrelevant. At the end of the day, what is money? It is a representation of your contribution to society. As long as the person you are attempting to trade with recognizes what you offer as a representation of your contribution for society, it doesn't matter who produces that currency.

As for anti-illegal immigration, there is not a single Republican candidate that is pro-illegal immigration. Its irrelevant.

I agree national defense is an important issue. However, I think what's happening internally to our nation will end us long before the Islamists do. We have strayed so far from our nation's foundation that we are almost unrecognizable as a nation these days. Going to war all over the world while Americans lose jobs, lose money through taxation, and lose hope because of a failed two-party system is going to destroy us just as surely as an islamic attack.

Americans lose jobs? According to the United States Department of Labor, "Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 166,000 in October, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.7 percent". 4.7 percent is basically frictional unemployment. If you want a job in America, you can get one. And lets face it, we have jobs that "American's are unwilling to do" according to the pro-illegal immigrant people. What they are really saying is that there are more jobs than workers, because with fixed levels of workers and jobs that must be done, wages will adjust to the point where they find people to do the work.

You're arguing with emotion. You're not backing up what you're writing with facts. You sound like a Sean Hannity talking points brochure.

I listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, and others every single day. Literally. Every day. I know what they stand for, and what they say. I disagree with Hannity some of the time, Savage most of the time, and Limbaugh rarely.

Your argument about 9/11 is a straw man. You set up a premise in which you make that all important and then you argue for it. I disagree with your statement. 9/11 didn't change everything. Things have been changing all along and people just weren't aware of it.

Pot, Kettle. More on that later.

Your argument about "the biggest threat" is also straw man. You create the premise and argue for it. But I disagree with your premise. "The biggest threat" to our nation is our nation's leaders. We have been sold down the road, Dude. We're off our constitutional moorings. We're adrift. It won't matter how many nations we take on, how much we stop radical islam overseas, if our system of government is collapsing from within, our enemy over there will have won without firing a shot over here.

According to the latest Newsweek Poll the number one issue among Republicans was: Terrorism and national security 27%

Is the number one issue according to a national poll being suggested as "the most important issue" a straw man? You decide.

Ronald Regan's use of the military was larger threat. He threatened to use force. He wasn't known for using is often.

But our nation has changed dramatically since Ronnie was in office. We no longer have the will behind us. The public is polarized -- all have lost faith in government, all distrust government, all think something is broken even if they can't articulate what it is.

Ronald Reagan was willing to use force, and the Soviet Union was always afraid that Ronald Reagan was mere moment away from pressing the button. That is why they didn't mess with him.

Everyone knows Ron Paul is NOT WILLING TO USE FORCE, thus there is no reason to fear him.

Liberalism has been and is our nation's biggest threat. Liberals have deficit spent us into the ground, sucked our jobs from us, and weakened our resolve. They have undermined the Constitution, taxed us at rates higher than ever before, and have misused our money. They have caused America to be weak, not because we aren't strong overseas; but because we are sick within our own borders.

So, to answer your questions, yes. I've been aware of Ron Paul for 2.5 times longer than you have. I've studied history for 30 years. I've read more books than most libraries offer. And I read and listen to conservative information and programming virtually round the clock.

You may think you have the answer, but I can assure you that you do not. You bought into the Sean Hannity line of reasoning. I don't. I think Hannity is dead wrong and is, in fact, part of the problem. He's no more telling us the truth than a liberal talk show host would. It's Good Cop, Bad Cop. He's just one of the good cops.

Hmm, ok... So, I bought into Sean Hannity without listening to Sean Hannity... Wow... I'm like psychic or something.

Spend some time watching the video clips. Spend some time reading Ron Paul's stand on the issues (from his web site). I can guarantee you that once you put down the Hannity Talking Points brochure, you'll see things in an entirely different way.

I look forward to hearing from you again. [snipping the worthless sigs and stuff]

There it is again! The straw man of "Hannity Talking Points", that I somehow receive without listening to Sean Hannity or reading Sean Hannity.... Magic! Its what Ron Paul supporters believe it, which is the only thing that might propel him into the oval office, as it certainly not the American people... In the last Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, Ron Paul is sitting at 1%... In other words, irrelevant.

I stumbled upon this great parable of the sheep (while investigating fetchmail documentation). Check it out, its pretty good.

I'm trying to revamp and bring content into all these pages. Hopefully you'll start to see some content over the next few years.... :P