Friday, August 31, 2007



by Noah

We live in a soundbyte age. It is an age where what we know, presume to know, or, are misled to know about someone is neatly encapsulated in a phrase or a brief moment in time preserved on film. A tiny fragment of a person's life is recorded, inserted into the news cycle and looped hypnotically over and over again before our eyeballs, or, passed from inbox to inbox thanks to YouTube and its like. It is drilled into our brains.

A few words that a person utters can be the entire image of that person, IF we are not careful and we don't dig deeper. A few words can become the slogan of a campaign, whether the campaigner wishes it so or not. John Kerry's "I actually did vote for the $87 Billion before I voted against it" was used against him. So-called President Bush's "I'm a uniter not a divider" was used for him. Millions of naive Americans believed an obvious lie and the rest is a nightmare of history. Hell, the BIG LIE worked for a failed Asutrian painter in Germany; why shouldn't it have worked for an AWOL brain damaged thug who has failed at everything he's touched in his entire life, including trading Sammy Sosa and not even being able to find oil in Texas.

And now we have Rep. Ron Paul (14th District, TX), running for President. The thought of Ron Paul as President brings various thoughts to my mind. The frivolous ones are: Do we really need more leaders from Texas and should Texas even be considered part of The United States? Weren't Tom Delay and Dubya afflictions enough? Is this some twisted gods' way of telling us to pay more attention before we go into the voting booth and touch the screen on the big rigged machine? OK, with that out of the way, let's get into some of what sets off alarm bells when I hear the name of Ron Paul, and it isn't just the idea of having someone with three first names sitting in the Oval Office.

Here's the Ron Paul soundbyte: The scene is the first Repug debate of the current campaign season. Of all the pathetic pygmies™ on stage, Ron Paul pointed out that 50 years of interventionist U.S. foreign policy has led to an extremely negative opinion of America throughout the Middle East and that that contributed to the 9/11 attacks. He stated his view that neither The Constitution nor the founding fathers had such policies in mind for our country. He also discussed at some length how his party had lost its way by attempting nation building and interventionist foreign policies in spite of  Chimpy's campaign promises to the contrary. I'm certain that most Repugs expected a flaming pit to open up under him and swallow him up, never to be seen again. Didn't happen. What did happen is exactly what any ad exec or campaign manager would wish for from any soundbyte moment. Ron Paul stood out. He alone wasn't the "mayor of 9/11"/married his cousin guy, or the guy who strapped the family dog to the roof of the car and drove down the highway at 70mph (Michael Vick ain't got much on Romney, although, judging by the lack of media attention to the incident, you'd never know it). He certainly wasn't the senile "straight talk out of both sides of his mouth" guy, and, he wasn't one of the propeller beanie clowns that said they don't believe in evolution. 

So, consider the context. Ron Paul said something he actually believes. On a stage of  steaming green puss for brains, demon possessed oozing slimebags, Ron Paul said something relatively honest and correct. He not only dared to go against the grain of current Repug doctrine, he even got attacked for it by the volatile and highly unstable Rudy Julieandrews. Rudy puffed himself up and claimed he'd never heard of such concepts and demanded that Paul take back his sacrilege. In so doing, he inadvertently made Ron Paul famous, even if the corporate media ignored Paul's soaring post debate poll numbers. But, is it enough to point out something that led to 9/ll, something so obvious for so long? Is it enough to say we shouldn't be in Iraq? Is that enough to get someone to vote for him? More importantly, is that all there is to Rep. Ron Paul? 

Are we so focused on the war that we are willing to hear what we want to hear, ignore all else, and gloss over the bad parts of a candidate? As you dig into who Ron Paul is, you see that he actually has a very mixed voting record on the war. What Paul said, in the context of his voting record, sounds great but it is not the same as actually being against the war, and it's not nitpicking to say so. His words contradict his voting record. That contradiction gets to the core of who this candidate is. Haven't we had enough deception and doublespeak?

Ron Paul seems like a pretty affable, charming guy. It hardly bothers me that he looks like and has a voice that sounds like the "Purple Shroud Guy" (Marshall Applewhite, late Heaven's Gate Cult leader) who was able to convince his naive all too willing followers that they could all go see Jesus or whomever it was on the Hale Bopp Comet as it approached Earth, if only they would join him in wrapping themselves in some spiffy purple shroud duds and join him in committing suicide in one big happy display of togetherness. But, politics has now also become cultism. If you only pay attention to the superficial soundbyte or sloganeering when you decide who to vote for, you may be acting like a lemming heading for a cliff.

Let's take a look at Rep. Paul's Iraq vote record first. Yes. It's a fact that his voting record on Iraq is better than any of the Repugs he shared the stage with at their debate, but is that so hard? That, together with his words on the subject are a big part of what has excited many people of all political persuasions about him. If only they took the time to find out another few facts: 1) Each of the 11 Democrats who are running for President has a far better record on the issue than Ron Paul does, even Shillary Clinton, who I also don't plan on voting for. 2) He has voted WITH BUSH/CHENEY on the matter close to 20 TIMES! 3) In addition, he has voted neither yes or no but "present" (or absented himself numerous other times). It's real easy to say you voted against the war when you don't have to get specific about what the specific bills were actually about. It's also real easy to say you voted against a war bill when you don't mention that you also voted for so many others, or even fail to mention that you cowardly decided not to even show up, just so you can say you didn't vote for something. Talk about your cynical, disingenuous politicians! Not only that, but Paul believers claim to love him for being a man who stands on principle. Too bad he's so damn selective and part time about it.

A comparative examination of the Iraq-related votes of every House member shows that Paul voted against Bush's toxic agenda more than any other Repug. However, every Democrat with the exception of 4 arch reactionaries (and the now converted John Murtha) have better Iraq voting records than Paul. The other 4 Democratic congressmen with worse, though very similar, voting records than Paul are Chris Carney (PA), Bud Cramer (AL), Gene Taylor (MS) and Jim Marshall (GA), each widely considered a traitor to the Democratic caucus and each most Democrats at least silently wish would lose the next election.

It's also too bad that Paul gets away with it because people accept him and his words at face value, and it's also too bad that none of the traditional media morons have the desire to ask any follow up questions; so much for an informed public. Against the war? Doesn't look so! Ron Paul's fans claim he would bring transparency to government by rolling it back, but how is a deceptive man who refuses to be transparent himself going to achieve that?

But wait! There's more! Paul gets a 100% rating from the John Birch Society (Higher than they give such wonderful humans as KKK fave Sen.Trent Lott (66%, highest in the Senate), Sen. Norm "Fratboy" Coleman, Sen. Susan "How do I love thee GWB? I can't count the ways" Collins, and uber-crackpot Sen. Tom Coburn). Robert Welch, the JBS founder once referred to the last acceptable Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, as "a dedicated conscious agent of the communist conspiracy." Uh, huh. What a nice way to say thank you for winning WWII, creating the Interstate Highway system and shepherding a system of government that, among other things, provided for a growing, strong, successful middle class that built so much until one of our worst presidents, Ronald Reagan, declared war on it upon his election in 1980.                                                                             
Paul's JBS admirers aren't big on Civil Rights. They'll tell you it says nothing about rights for Blacks, gays, and women in The Constitution. I guess the JBS was mighty pissed when Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock so that some African-American kids could go to school. How un-American of him! What a commie pinko! How un-constitional! You see, the John Birch Society advocates the repeal of civil rights legislation. Paul ain't for it either but probably doesn't say too much because that might not go over with the majority of Americans in this century, outside of a few of our most backward states. He doesn't mention his massive support from the JBS on his website either. Why not Ron? Aren't you proud of the endorsement? Such a much bigger endorsement than even a well known quantity like Trent Lott gets? Hey, it's very easy to say you oppose civil rights or the war on Constitutional grounds. It's also very easy to hide behind the Constitution, even when your party's current "president" is taking every copy he can find to the shredder as fast as he can have one of his slobbering lapdog minions carry it. You can say or not say whatever you want, but, once again, do your words match up with your voting record? I seriously doubt that the John Birch Society followers dwell on the fine points anyway. The JBS had its big day in the 60s, during the civil rights movement. The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the JBS as a group that "advocates or adheres to extreme antigovernment doctrines." Oh, and just who was John Birch? Answer: An early funda-MENTAL-ist Christian goon. I don't know if he was ever found with a stack of porno mags in his car or a young boy in the trunk. Probably not. They didnít have cars back in his time.

Paul defines himself as a constitutionalist. Sounds great. After all, we Progressives find that very appealing, especially when we see the Constitution viciously assaulted every day. For Libertarians, and that's what Paul really is, the Constitution is something else. They believe Bush is a criminal. Fine, so do I. No argument there. What Libertarians mean when they say they want a strict interpretation of The Constitution is what the most extreme conservative Repugs think; the Constitution as it was originally written. For instance, the Constitution, as originally written, grants voting rights to all men of property. That leaves out a lot of people, half the human race in this country, without even getting into color, for starters. Renters need not go to the polls, and, any of you female Ron Paul supporters who want to vote for him better do so quickly. If he gets his way, and his followers come along to Washington with him, you might not be able to vote for him a second time. Oh, I'm sure he wouldn't say that... yet.

But, if you've read this far, why would you believe him anyway? Strict Constitutionalistas want all power to go back to the states; let each individual state decide. That's what George Wallace was fighting for when he stood in the door way at U. Alabama and said "Segregation then. Segregation now, and segregation forever." Think it couldnít happen again? Some states are still fighting the Civil War. Why encourage them? Paul will tell you, as he has, that he has a lot of friends in the JBS. He will go on to imply that that doesnít mean he agrees with them. Some bothersome little factoids, though: Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote against a medal for Rosa Parks. He was one of two congresscreeps who voted against the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. In 2004 he was the only congresscreep to vote no to a commemoration of the anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Time for a quote from Ron, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of Blacks have sensible political opinions!" I just have a feeling about where he stands. Just a feeling. Oh, and one more thing related to the subject; David Duke is a big fan. That's right-- the Grand Wizard of the KKK who the Repugs ran for Senator in Louisiana. Great pal to have! Paul's disagreements with "his friends" must be about something else. Not to worry though, if you think the troops should come home and you're a racist, you can still be consistent in voting for Ron Paul!

Church and State? Should there be a wall between the two? Not according to constitutionalista Ron Paul-- "the notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of the founding fathers." That's Ron Paul writing in a little paranoid diatribe, in December 2003, on the alleged war on Christmas and religion in general. Now, let us hear from a man who may have also had his faults but still did some great things in his life, Thomas Jefferson. "In every country in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." Sounds like a man who believed in that wall. I also believe he qualifies as a Founding Father! He wrote your Constitution, Ronnie! Well, maybe not your Constitution, but he did write mine.

Ron Paul also doesn't believe in the IRS. All of us joke about the IRS and paying taxes but Paul and his friends at the JBS want to actually abolish the IRS. Me, I don't like paying taxes, but, I do like things like the Center For Disease Control, educational grants, an air defense system, the FDA and FEMA (the way they used to be structured, before Dubya), riding on the interstates, park rangers who help combat forest fires, etc. Taxes pay for those things. Have you noticed how bad the highways have gotten since Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy? That's right-- lots of potholes, lots of damaged cars which the owners now have to pay for, couple of collapsed bridges.. Yep. Taxes for the wealthy are down but car damage and traffic fines are up and you have to pay for it. The cost of highway travel has been passed on to you, the sucker. Rather than repair the roads, you have to repair your car. Is that Repugly, or what? Our infrastructure is collapsing...    literally. Are you about to get on a bridge that's ready to fall into the drink due to a lack of funds to keep up repairs? Expect even more of such things under a Ron Paul "government." "Hey, if youíre not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear." Drive on! Isn't this brand of repug extremism grand?

What else? On the Daily Show, Rep. Paul indicated that he was not only against the IRS, but also the Patriot Act. There ya go; something I can agree with him on. Same with NAFTA and the WTO. Don't like gun control? You can easily find a Democratic candidate you can agree with on that one; at the very least, most of 'em wonít touch it, and, as I said before, you'll like their stance on the war better. Paul would also abolish the Department of Energy. Is it possible for Big Oil to have even more control over our lives? You bet. Bush is merely paving the way for someone, maybe a fellow Texan like Ron Paul who might push the envelope even further. Medicare? Gone. Let the market decide who lives and who dies! Clean Air Act? Voted no. Minimum wage hike? Voted no three times. Campaign Finance Reform? Voted no three times. This guy's terrific! Department of Education? Gone. Dumb 'em down some more. We don't need no stinking literacy. You thinks it's bad now when all some people can read or even want to read is US magazine or STAR?  Wait 'til they can't even make sense of the pictures!

I can certainly see why any sentient human on Earth would completely despise George or any other Bush. Dubya has an exceedingly bad character and no redeeming qualities. He is an utter, complete failure as a human being and as a president, but replace him with Ron Paul just because you think he's against Bush's war for oil and Halliburton money? Would you vote for Ron Paul even though he'd attempt to take the deregulation started under Reagan that has led to jobs going overseas, lack of enforcement of mine safety laws, food that makes us sick, bridges that collapse while bridges to nowhere are built in Alaska, etc. further? Ron Paul says things that, on the surface, don't sound too looney and may even sound great. He has mastered vagueness. There's something in most people that makes them want to trust and believe. His website ignores the things he'd rather we didn't know or think about. It's "don't look behind the curtain." His campaign is pretty net savvy. He's just another packaged candidate. The bad signs and indicators are there but the naive ignore them to the peril of all. That's how we ended up with the lowlife that we currently see wrecking our nation.
I recently heard Ron Paul being interviewed by Stacy Taylor on AirAmerica. Paul went on the show apparently just expecting to be asked about his stance on Iraq. He was caught off guard when Taylor started asking him about his positions on various social and economic issues. Taylor asked the very same questions that he would ask and has asked any other candidate. Paul, however, felt ambushed. He has said very loudly that he will never go on AirAmerica again. I guess he felt uncomfortable. So where on the radio does Ron Paul feel comfortable? Try the self-described "8 lanes to the right" Larry Pratt. Paul has been on his show many times. Pratt is known for his connections to the White Supremacist, Anti-Semitic, Christian Identity movement. So were the folks who brought down the federal building in Oklahoma. Pratt has endorsed Paul's campaigns and Paul has accepted his endorsements. Out of the other side of his moth, Paul claims he opposes racism, but, at some point the company you keep begins to reveal something about your character. Again, Paul will claim that he merely opposes Civil Rights on Constitutional grounds. Again, whose Constitution? It's not a constitution for the select few. Jefferson didn't write it as something to hide behind. At some point, the potential Paul supporter has to look at Larry Pratt, Trent Lott, and the likes of David Duke and ask where does it end? At some point, you have to say to yourself, if it walks like a duck... (even if it decides to not really talk like a duck).

Yes, he likes Larry Pratt; feels damn comfy with him. With Stacy Taylor, he had an aide call up a give Taylor a new one as soon as he left the air. Stacy Taylor, very professionally, looked behind the curtain into the forbidden closet. The aide ranted big time and then hung up. Is this a man who is honest about his positions and isn't trying to hide anything? If you're so damn principled and forthright, just answer the questions and move on. Some of Taylor's listeners called up to defend Rep. Paul. How dare Taylor ask Ron Paul questions that might inform the listeners! Such actions point to a budding fanaticism. This is the cult of Ron. It's: we love the guy. Try on the Purple Shroud! The hell with the truth. The hell with reality. Well, Bush has said it best when he has accused those who disagree with him as being "part of the reality-based community." President Paul? Meet the new boss. Same lame as the old boss. Crazier? Hard to beat but time will tell. Paul is what you get when you don't impeach. If you let Bush get away with his evil, someone else will come along and try to keep pushing the envelope. If it isn't Ron Paul, it will be some other clown in the future, if there is a future.

Labels: , ,


At 6:15 PM, Blogger khughes1963 said...

About John Birch. Birch was an American officer in China after the Second World War. Birch was killed after a run-in with a Red Army commander after Birch caused the commander to lose face before his own men. Some on the American Right viewed Birch as an anti-Communist hero when in actuality he made a stupid mistake that cost him his life.

You are right to be concerned about Ron Paul and his endorsement from the John Birchers. The late and now largely forgotten novelist Taylor Caldwell (nee Janet Miriam Taylor Caldwell, 1900-1985) was a Bircher, and Rev. Tim LaHaye has a Bircher background.

At 7:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great Rundown.

It is frightening to hear so many uniformed types hop onto the RonPaulCrazyTrain just because of his stance against the Iraq War.

Truth is, anytime you hear any Repunklican speak a modicum of truth when next to their pals, it certainly does stand out.

At 7:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi khughes,
True enough, although some just say he was a spy and extremely zealous missionary working mostly in the then underdeveloped regions of China. Regardless, he was a martyr of sorts to the JBS. I guess he didn't blend in to his surroundings very well. It's perfect that the JBS would name itself after a bull in a china shop.

At 7:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is also a Gold Bug, he wants to return our money to the Gold Standard which was abandoned in 1933, if memory serves. Hey, back to the future!

At 6:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It certainly does speak volumes about the Republican, and perhaps even the Democratic choices when you consider Ron Paul's popularity, and "record".

At 7:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have long wondered where that mistranslation came from. The enemy of my enemy can be my ally.
The USA saw that in WWII. But some fool thought old Joe was a "friend." As if nations which are temporary geographical constructs can have friends. Governments have interests not friends.
Paul is a believer in sound money and an opponent of inflation. ( Gold Bug )
He is a believer in individual freedoms and liberties ( constitutionalist ).
He is against theft ( end the IRS, end the Federal Reserve and end all the departments that support the corporate socialism that leads to big oil big pharma big entertainment)
He is for allowing the internet to grow and develop as its users and providers wish. ( Old school free markets )
He voted against Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Serbia, and for the Afghan attack.
( Peace is profitable ) He also authored a bill that would have allowed the President to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal for the capture of Bin Laden. ( Constitutional again and limited and appropriate but as someone said back to the future )
He is also rated as the most progressive of the republican representatives in congress.
I admit my preference for what he has said and stood for for 10 terms in congress. He is the first candidate I have given money to; and will be the only candidate unless the dems get some sense and nominate Kucinich. And that would be a campaign and an election worth being involved in Kucinich vs Paul. But most likely the campaign and election will be Clinton vs Romney. Doesn't that thought just warm the cockles of your heart.

At 10:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with Ron Paul is the same as with most Libertarians. Their arguments start to fall apart as soon as you ask them who's responsible for installing the traffic signals.

At 3:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

News flash - the Federal government doesn't install the traffic signals.

At 6:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The John Birch Society doesn't endorse candidates or political parties. They are for less gov't and more individual responsibility. They oppose civil rights legislation from a federal level. They believe the issue should be left to the states. The Declaration states that everyone is created equal. They believe it and advocate it. They want less gov't. intrusion in our lives, so we can grow and prosper as we once did. Unfortunately today the trend is to have gov't. take care of us...which is not what the founding fathers intended. They didn't intend this to be a welfare state. If you want that, move to Canada. Today's political parties aren't much different from each other. Once they get into the President office, they surround themselves with the same bunch of idiots as the previous administration. Won't matter if a Republican or Democratic candidate is elected. If it's not Ron Paul, you can expect higher taxes, war with Iran, more Iraq debacling and further economic decline. Wake up sheeple! Learn your facts.

At 10:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The comments here on Paul's voting record are undermined by a major flaw in thinking of the writer's. Paul has said numerous times he doesn't agree with any time table for withdrawal from Iraq other than IMMEDIATE. which is why you see him voting against the original resolution, against additional funding, against additional troops, and against any longterm withdrawal timetable -- the last of which could be construed as "pro-war" but he's anything but. Also a "procedural" vote isn't a vote for something other than to discuss or vote on it, read carefully.

At 2:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please view this chart which gives a general overview of all the candidates' positions:

as well as a page which shows Ron Paul's actual voting record in black and white, rather than saying whether or not he is "progressive":

and the Wikipedia article on his political positions for good measure:

Now, let's clear things up.

1. Ron Paul has been a staunch opposer of the Iraq War from the beginning and advocates immediate withdrawal, which can't be said for many of the Democratic candidates. Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, they all supported it at one time or another, and few will commit to an actual timetable for withdrawal. Ron Paul is also against a military confrontation with Iran, which also cannot be said for many of the Democratic candidates. Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson all support "leaving military action on the table." Ron Paul has only ever supported action against Afghanistan since that's where Bin Laden was located. Trust me, Ron Paul is about as anti-war as the '08 candidates get, with the exception of Kucinich and Gravel.

2. Ron Paul fully supports civil rights and civil liberties. He voted against giving a medal to Rosa Parks, but he also voted against medals for Ronald Reagan and the Pope. Why? Because it's too easy to be generous with other people's money. Ron Paul asked for his fellow Congressmen to each contribute money to the medal out of their own pocket, and none of them obliged. It's not the role of government to use the people's money to give out medals, regardless of how heroic or noble their recipients may be.

Also, the article you got the "only about 5 percent of Blacks have sensible political opinions" quote from was NOT WRITTEN BY PAUL. He has addressed this on multiple occasions. It was written by a ghost writer under his name. Here's an article on government & racism that Ron Paul DID write:

You also bring up that some of his supporters are racist, anti-civil rights, etc. Your point? I'm betting that there's at least one murderer out there who supports him, but that does not mean that Ron Paul supports murder. No matter how closely associated he is with these bigoted supporters, it's still irrelevant. I'm friends with some people who do drugs even though I'd never consider doing them myself. Likewise, Paul can still be closely associated with those supporters without agreeing with them at all on civil rights and the other issues you brought up.

3. Yes, Ron Paul would remove the IRS and the income tax and replace them with nothing. He would also end our foreign policy of intervention and nation-building which costs us something to the tune of $3 trillion a year. This video shows his thinking on the topic at around 2:00 in:

He would eliminate other government agencies such as the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Energy, etc. 1. because they're inefficient bureaucracies, and 2. because what they deal with should be handled at a state level, not by the federal government.

If you haven't figured it out already, how he votes on an issue does not necessarily reflect how he personally feels about it. What it does generally reflect is whether or not he thinks the issue in question should be handled by the federal government and/or whether or not it's Constitutional.

Before you accuse his supporters of being ignorant, how about you look a little deeper into him yourself.

At 8:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well i dont know about all of your sources but eliminating the income tax would probably work out better for this country. if you know ron paul as well as you think you do you would know he wants to implement a fair tax system where we only pay taxes on what we consume. getting rid of the income tax is getting rid of the federal rserve's income thus bankrupting them and allowing for our fiat money to once again turn into real money. income tax is used to pay the debt that is loaned out to us through this fiat money. what debt is associated with this fiat money that is not percieved? it's called inflation and that is what your tax dollars pay for allowing the small group of bankers on the federal reserve board to get more and more rich while trapping us in debt. read this link and dont let the ron paul ad generate a bias, you might find it quite enlightening.

At 9:17 PM, Blogger Matt said...

Ron Paul is a congressman and he introduced this legislation in the House of Representatives:

H.R.1094 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2007
The text of the bill reads:

Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term “person” shall include all such human life. Recognizes more…that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state. Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

Who is the real bigot?

Ron Paul would leave it up to local governments to decide about traffic signals, not to people who would probably never go anywhere near where they are to be installed.


Post a Comment

<< Home