The Ron Paul Revolution Brings In 8 Congressmen


It is uncommon that a candidate, even one for President of the United States sparks a real movement, but that is exactly what has taken place over the past few years as people have listened to Ron Paul. Though the Texas Congressman lost his bid for the GOP nominee this year, it didn't mean that he didn't have an impact on the elections. In fact, he helped to secure eight of eleven House endorsements and one of six Senate endorsements.

Among those that Paul endorsed for the House of Representatives are:

Justin Amash, who is a Michigan freshman congressman, who vaulted over Democrat nominee Steve Pastka. The 32-ear old Amash is said to possibly hold the "mantle as the titular head of the Ron Paul movement in Congress."

Also, Thomas Massie, an MIT trained scientist who won Kentucky's 4th Congressional district race and not only gained support from the elder Paul, but also his son Senator Rand Paul.

Kerry Bentivolio, a retired high-school teacher and reindeer farmer also won in Michigan's 11th Congressional District. Bentivolio won election to finish the term of Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, who resigned earlier in the year. He will have seniority over the other incoming freshman this year due to that fact.

Steve Stockman, who is a former congressman returns representing Texas' 36th District after he easily defeated Democrat Max Martin. He served earlier from 1995-1997 and is known to be a strong advocate for the Second Amendment (like all Texans are) and ideologically similar to Ron Paul.

Randy Weber won the race against Democrat Nick Lampson to take Ron Paul's seat in the 14th Congressional District of Texas.

Veterinarian Ted Yoho defeated Democrat Jacques Gaillot and will be representing Florida's 3rd Congressional District.

Congressman Walter Jones also easily won his race against his Democrat opponent for North Carolina's 3rd District. He has been an ally of Paul's in opposition to the Iraq War and favors defending civil liberties in the so-called "war on terror."

Of course, a few of those that Paul endorsed did not win. These include Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, freshman congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois, and scientist Dr. Art Robinson.

In the Senate, only one of six of Paul's endorsements won. Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz of Texas won his U.S. Senate race over Democrat Paul Sadler.

The Senate was just a terrible night for Republicans, but there is always a silver lining and with the Republicans picking up another eleven seats in the House, it shifts the power more in their favor. Perhaps with some fiscally responsible people in there, there can be either gridlock or leadership with a backbone that will do what is right concerning the deficit spending we have been seeing take place over the past 5 years.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






Comments

comments

  • PierceArrowV12

    More power to the eight Congressmen endorsed by Ron Paul. I hope they will NOT repeat Ron Paul's boorish act of inserting his earmarks into budget bill that were certain to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support, and the making a show of voting against those budget bills.

  • Rand2020

    Hey clueless wonders, the other guys won 30 races!!!

    Great job Campaign for Liberty, NOT!!!

  • http://twitter.com/usernamenuse sailing

    We can hope...

  • http://www.facebook.com/dave.combs.31 Dave Combs

    I've been adopting more and more of the Libertarians view of issues, especially the Federal Reserve and the need for "sound" money. The Fed acts as the Politicians', of both parties, endless source of fiat money. Money which in turn is used against the Peoples' interests. Good for Ron Paul.

  • Tim

    If Ron Paul was Pres. much of our troubles would be on the road to recovery....spare me the rhetoric.

  • http://twitter.com/jason_burns Jason Burns

    This is what the Ron Paul r3VOLution is all about!

  • Insighting Truth

    Only a bunch of piss-ants would blame Ron Paul for Romney's failure. The fact is the people, the voters, are not buying what establishment Republicans are selling.
    Romney led with his version of the welfare/warfare State. The voters decided they wanted a sincere socialist over Romney's socialist-lite. Romney had every advantage, he just didn't have a program to match his capitalist rhetoric.
    The Republican Party had a real chance to nominate an agent of change in the person of Ron Paul. Petty, selfish, RINO power brokers don't care a fig for America, and ignorant, arrogant fools in the Republican party let them get away with their NeoCon treason.
    If you are looking for someone to blame for "another four years of the communist in chief," look in a mirror. There you will see the culprit. He/she will look small, sour and pitiful, casting about for someone to blame for his/her own personal failures.

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      I completely agree

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christine-Kroeker/1239032574 Christine Kroeker

      Romney might have gotten some Ron Paul votes if he didn't cheat and mistreat his supporters so much. Romney supported fraudulently putting people in caucuses pretending to be a Ron Paul supporter and handing out false delegate slates. Romney sued and removed duly elected delegates in 3-4 states so that Ron Paul only had a plurality of delegates in 4 states. If he had a plurality in 5 states he would've been guaranteed a speeking slot and nomination at the national convention. Romney's people changed the rules at the national convention so the national committee can change any rule without the convention voting on it therefore making the vote of the people null & void. At the convention, they turned off the microphones in the areas that were not 100% Romney people so they couldn't contest the votes. Boehner read the results (motion passed) of the votes off of the teleprompter even though the first vote the nays were much louder and the subsequent votes were very close. They wouldn't let a roll-call vote go through. They had chant leaders connected by radios that would start pro-Romney chants If anyone tried to speak against Romney or the powergrab of the Republican party. Romney signs were encouraged and even handed out, but anyone who brought in another sign had it taken away. After people were treated like this, there was no way they would vote for anyone with this kind of behavior. The Ron Paul supporters followed the rules faithfully all of the way up the chain including at the convention. They were well behaved and followed Robert Rules of Order even though the Republican party ignored proper rules of order. The most ourtrageous thing the Ron Paul supporters did at the convention, is when the official vote totals from each state were announced and the announcer didn't announce Ron Pauls votes, they shouted Ron Paul's vote totals which I believe is reasonable.

  • axmickl

    Ron Paul and his followers are to be thanked for 4 more years of Obama. They took the same number of votes as Romney lost by. Thank you Ron for driving in the last nail with your giant EGO.

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      The only ones to be thanked for Obama's election, is the GOP establishment who shoved Romney down our throats and those of us who ware not the "hold our nose and vote" crowd voted principle. The GOP twice now has put up moderate/ liberals and both have lost. Heck if Romney had gotten the votes McCain got in 08 he would have won, but he didn't and the reason is quite clear. But I suppose you guys have to feel good about yourselves for pushing the man who lost to the man who lost to Obama last time.

    • DWeb

      Yea, Tim, Romney lost. I am in complete disbelief that he gained less vote than McCain/Palin did in '08. I suggest Palin had more to do with the number of "08 vote than Palin. But really, do you think America would have given more votes to Ron Paul? No Way that would have happened. Obama would have run the map on RP. Reality here Timbo. Not a false idealistic view of what you wish could have been.

      Here in NC., we Republican and Republican leaners did very well. Though the Presidential race was tight, we elected the first Republican Governor in 30 years, increased the advantage in state govt and sent some new blood the congress--one og the new congressmen is RP sponsored.

      Understand that I liked RP, for the most part, but I do not believe he could have been elected, in a federal election. I also believe that, should we have run RP, Obama would have won in a super landslide and then truely had a super mandate.

    • Here here

      If the republican establishment had put the full force of their money and influence behind Paul as they did Romney, put together some slick ads and a little more polished and tactful rewording of Paul's message, he would have won in a landslide.

    • DWeb

      Wishful thinking. But then again, why would would you call upon the establishment? I though you hate the establishment. But you like their money.

    • axmickl

      We feel good about ourselves because we voted for the future of our children and grandchildren. We didn't throw them under the buss like you Paul fools and call it an act of principle.

    • http://twitter.com/jason_burns Jason Burns

      Good job. Now you get Obama.

    • http://twitter.com/jason_burns Jason Burns

      No, thank the neo-conservative RINOs that choose Mitt Romney. I warned you guys that if the Republicans pulled another McCain, they would get four more years of Obama. You people are too bull headed to listen. Now I get to say I told you so... again. This is NOT how it has to be. The sad part is that in four years, you will do the same thing all over again.

    • axmickl

      You are correct. This is not how it had to be. You and your misguided friends made it the was it has become.

    • http://twitter.com/jason_burns Jason Burns

      Dream on. Yeah, maybe if we all went along with your socialist, gun grabbing, health care mandate inventing, abortion loving candidate, then Romney would have won. See the thing is, we didn't want to vote for a socialist.

    • Zeste

      When the Republican party puts up a true conservative then he/she will win the presidency. Rand Paul 2016!

    • axmickl

      With your chosen one in office, there may never be another election.

  • maggiemay

    I have a question. How is any of this relevant if Obama will just by pass congress and keep signing executive orders to get what he wants while republicans sit back and do nothing?

    • axmickl

      Ask Ron Paul. he is the one that got him elected.

    • http://twitter.com/jason_burns Jason Burns

      Yeah, because Romney cheating during the primary and his terrible record had absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact that Romney supported abortion, socialized medicine, and gun control had nothing to do with him losing... Wake up!

    • axmickl

      Those were all Obama favorites. So you managed to get your man elected after all.

    • http://twitter.com/jason_burns Jason Burns

      Make some sense when you reply to a comment...

  • Justintime

    Boycott all the swing states, whether by products, tourism conventions etc

    They need to depend on the government.. I will never vacation in any swing or Blue state

    again.

    Also is it true the Tea Party did not endorse Romney at the end ?

    Then they are no better than voting for Obama

    http://wmal.com/FlashPlayer/default.asp?SPID=35315&ID=1555617

  • DWeb

    I am happy, and I really do mean happy, that we have some quality congressmen coming in, but I am left to wonder, did the Paul-ites that supported these guys, vote for Romney? In Ohio, Wisconsin? Or???

    • GQ4U

      Don't blame "Paul-ites" for Romney... we never liked his politics or his anti-constitutional governing beliefs. Mitt lost because he is too moderate. He lost because the voters couldn't see any major reason to choose him over Obama. We "Paul-ites" saw this loss coming months ago... that doesn't make it our fault. Do not kill the messenger!!! Obama is the worst POTUS in our history and a Gingrich or Santorum would have beaten him easily. Romney couldn't take out Obama so he needs to get out of politics and stay out. Also, ask House Republicans why they quit pressing the "Fast & Furious Gun Walker Investigation?" Why weren't they screaming about the Libya massacre? Where's the birth certificate? Where's the impeachment proceedings? Why haven't they indicted Eric Holder? Why do they continue to appropriate funds for this administration to waste? Did the GOP secretly want four more years of Obama? So DWeb, I haven't answered your question because it is not worthy of an answer. Primary voters, Romney and the GOP lost this election months ago... not the "Paul-ites." However, the "Paul-ites" may save this nation in the near future. The GOP are the modern day Whigs & Torrie's.

    • axmickl

      You Paulites remind me of the lead cow in the procession to the killing pens. You plod along leading your fellow dummies to their deaths thinking you are good cows doing what you think must be right.

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      I'm sorry but who lost the election? and why was that? Oh that's right, the GOP and Romney campaign claimed they had the nomination in hand and then cheated duly elected delegates out of their seats for RP. They then rammed new changes to the rules down our throats via scripting and Boehner. I said it months ago, The GOP only has to look at it self, stop putting moderate liberals in the nomination and put solid guys like Paul in, but noooooo, no no no they know better don't they? Just like they did with Mourdock and Akin. They hang true conservatives out to dry. Maybe the GOP should begin rethinking how it does business, else the revolution is coming for them as demonstrated in these new freshmen congressmen and senator:D

    • axmickl

      I wouldn't pretend to defend the Republican power structure. I dislike them as much as you do. I just don't choose to compound the problem by throwing the election to a marxist muslim.

    • GQ4U

      McCain and now Romney... yep, you guys have it all figured out.

      I think the GOP should draft John Kerry next time... at least he might carry the governors home state -- Massachusetts.

    • DWeb

      As I said, I like a lot of what RP said. I did not like his views on the military or legalizing drugs, but most everything else I liked. But RP was NOT electable. My first choice in the primary was Michelle Bachman, then 999 Herman Cain. BTW, your questions a re good and I scream at my TV asking the same things. I believe if this President was NOT BLACK, he would have been investigated and impeached. Skin color should N OT discriminate against law breakers. He and Holder have been giving a pass and we need to pressure Issa and others to push the issue. Maybe we can get RP to spearhead that issue.

    • Lois

      And Romney was electable??

    • http://twitter.com/jason_burns Jason Burns

      Apparently not. He couldn't beat McCain who lost to Obama in 08, so what made the neo-cons think he could beat Obama in 12? Heck, Obama is one of the biggest failures of all time, yet Flip Romney could not defeat him. Just goes to show what has happened to the RINO Republican party. It's all about big banks, bailouts, war, and spending... Given the chance to get a REAL conservative, they fought tooth and nail. They choose McCain in 08 and then made a worse mistake in 12 with Romney. Will they ever learn? Probably not.

    • GQ4U

      You should investigate Paul's stance on drugs and the military, when you fully comprehend his position you might alter your views, I know that's what happened in my case. He advocates Liberty for all, that includes the freedom of foreigners to choose their own path without the US interfering.

      As adults we should be free to choose whether we want to consume any substances and also assume responsibility for the consequences. Alcohol, tobacco, french fries should be my choice. It is estimated that 43% of prison inmates are there because drugs are illegal. Paul doesn't advocate legalizing drugs, he advocates decriminalizing them. People are going to abuse substances like hamburgers or pot but we as freedom loving Americans should only play an advisory role, not a criminal justice role.

      As for Barrack Hussein Obama, he shouldn't be impeached, he should be dragged off to prison for usurping the Presidency... he does not meet the constitutional requirements to hold that office. If this were ever considered by the high court his first election would be nullified along with every executive order and every piece of legislation he has signed into law... including ObamaCare.

    • DWeb

      Look, GQ, you cannot just throw someone in prison without reasonable cause, trial and conviction--unless you made a movie that makes fun of Muhammad. Then there is the patriot Act that removes all civil rights of terrorist, conservative and Christians. Impersonating a human being or an American citizen, does qualify for nasties under the Patriot Act. Perhaps impersonating a human should qualify though.

      Impeachment, on the other hand, means the President commited high crimes or treason. I am not sayng he has not committed those things, but there must be an investigation, proof and then an execution. Well not really an execution,but punishment. History shows that an impeached president get pardoned by the VP/new Pres.. So P Bo won't due time, it just won't happen.

      As far as illegal drugs becoming legal. Again I say that is a bad idea. I am a drug and alcohol counselor and I believe that making many hard drugs available for non-prescription "recreational use" will create more addicts. See, many drugs can become addictive with only limited use--heroine, methamphetamine among others. It ay only be the law, or the fear of breaking the law, that keeps many people from ruining their
      lives, their families lives...

      As far as prison for drug users, I don;t believe that is the best place for them either. I believe that a long term treatment facility, requiring 12 step ( or similar rehab program ) work, counseling and other responsibilities would be far more efficient and significantly less expensive to operate. A treatment center would also lessen the recidivism rate.

    • GQ4U

      I assume you're joking in paragraph one about throwing someone in prison without reasonable cause, trial and conviction since the 2012-NDAA-Section-1021 allows indefinite detention based solely on suspicions and removes habeas corpus and suspends all of our other supposed Constitutional rights rights.

      I am not seeking impeachment of Obama, that infers he is a legitimate office holder. He does not meet the constitutional requirements to be POTUS per Article II, Section I, Clause V because his father was a foreign national at the time junior was born thus giving him dual citizenship and putting him in direct conflict with required law. At least seven SCOTUS decisions state the definition of "Natural Born" as being a child of two citizen parents at the time of birth, clearly this does not apply to BHO. When the court rules on this he would be immediately removed as a usurper and placed in prison. Biden would not become President since he came to that position on the same illegal ticket with BHO and that ticket will be null and void. Biden would likely be charged as a co-conspirator. Nancy Pelosi might be charged as well.

      1930 prohibition brought about an extreme rise in violence as gang wars broke out fighting over territories relating to illegal sales and distribution of alcohol. This endangered local families in neighborhoods where this violence occurred. It also made criminals of those individuals who wished to continue alcohol use. Secondarily those who did continue to drink paid much higher prices due to the government ban. All this did little to deter drinking by anyone who really wanted it. What it did do is increase risk and cost. With higher prices in a depression era this caused many to become thieves to obtain the funds required to support their life style (habit).

      After a decade American's realized prohibition caused far more unintended problems than it ever hoped to solve. You cannot legislatively impose morality on a free people, they must choose for themselves. We have made the same mistakes, causing the same unintended consequences, creating drug cartels, high user cost, muggings, breaking & entering to support use (habit), turf wars, drive by shootings and a general devaluing of life by the lowest forms of humanity.

      I don't use drugs but I support the constitutional freedom of an individual's right to decide how they want to live their life as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. ObamaCare will create food prohibitions banning personal eating decisions, this is outrageous and needs to be stopped... so does the War on Drugs. This isn't any different than legislating sex acts among consenting adults. Want a full time monitor in your bedroom? Who gets to decide whats normal and whats perverse? Congress?

      Bottom line is if I kill myself on hamburger's saturated fats that's my business. If I die from using drugs that's my business. If I die from alcohol consumption that's also my business. Friends and family can intervene but the government never should. Criminalizing self destructive substances causes far more harm to society than decriminalizing them. Counseling is wonderful for the individual who wants it, but it doesn't work well for those who are not ready to change. Either we are a free people or we are not, choose wisely.

    • DWeb

      G.

      Apparently you have no sense of humor if you have to ask if I was "joking in paragraph one." Yea dude, it was sarcasm. You response, however, is a joke thru and thru. Yes, prohibition turned out bad and legislating morality never works well. But to say that addicts will stop stealing, robbing, break-ins, DUI, using and abusing family friends and everyone else in their lives is just silly. Also, to call addiction (habit) is oversimplifying the problem.

      I will say this again, as it appears you missed it in my previous post. I am a DRUG AND ALCOHOL COUNSELOR. I have worked in treatment facilities that were designed to help addicts get off their drug and live a long and prosperous life. Some of the centers I worked in were voluntary and others were court ordered. Int enough, the interestingly enough, the success rate for each program wad about the same. So to say that addicts only accept help when "they are ready" is again oversimplification.

      Hitting bottom is important for an addict, but please do not presume to know what will cause "bottom". BTW, bottom is extremely overrated. Some/most believe that bottom requires loosing everything (job, home family, health) but in truth, bottom is a different place for each addict. I have seen court ordered tx (treatment), jail, prison, homelessness and life threatening illness or injury be and addicts "bottom". I have also seen "bottom: be as high as simple as a the possibility of loosing any one of these things.

      As I mentioned in my earlier post, many drugs have an highly addictive. Alcohol is not (typically) on of those drugs. I say typically because some people can become alcoholics from just one drink, but that is a rare phenomenon. Honest people don't break the law--they respect it. Making hard drugs legal is not legislating morality, it is necessary. We have legal addictive drugs like adderall, synthetic opiates, and Valium on a prescription only basis. Why, because they can become addictive or used as an instrument for suicide and therefore must be monitored. Putting meth, cocaine, crank and even marijuana, drugs that are highly addictive, openly/legally in the hands of people is irresponsible--the same way putting addictive prescription drugs in people's hands would be. Yes, the prices would go down, but addicts use until the money or drugs is gone, and then they still need more.
      You said you do not use drugs. I have, and I can tell you that I have worked with many people that have used and abused drugs. so many of the stories are the same, only the faces and names are changed. The alcoholic that quits drinking only when the beer runs out and there is no more money for more. the crack addict that sell fer body and soul for the next hit. the Heroine addict that won't eat for days so he can find money for a fix. So making these drugs legal might lower the price, but the addict will always need money for more. Whether drugs are legal or not, they will find a way to get more--even if it requires breaking the law.

      Making hard drugs legal will only make more addicts. They may be legally addicted, but they will be addicted nine the less. More families will be torn apart. More careers and lives broken. More deaths by overdose. More misery and heartache for millions of people. More DUI deaths, robberies, muggings, home invasions and who knows what else. But hey, drugs will be legal.

    • GQ4U

      D-

      1) “Apparently you have no sense of humor if you have to ask if I was "joking in paragraph one."”
      I never asked if you were joking, I assumed you were… read it again. The NDAA stuff was simply an FYI.

      2) “You response, however, is a joke thru and thru.”
      Insults... really? Is this a “DRUG AND ALCOHOL COUNSELOR” technique? Does this get positive results?

      3) “Yes, prohibition turned out bad and legislating morality never works well.”
      We agree on this point, so why continue to argue against decriminalization? Do you have a lower per capita success rate among alcoholics versus drug users? Do convicted criminal patients fare better than non-convicts? Do the convicts have better or worse career choices? Doe's having a criminal record improve their overall outlook?

      4) “…prices would go down, but addicts use until the money or drugs is gone, and then they still need more.”
      True, but how do they get money to buy more? Stop rent payments? Stop eating? Turn tricks? Steal? Kill?...

      5) “But to say that addicts will stop stealing, robbing, break-ins, DUI, using and abusing family friends and everyone else in their lives is just silly.”
      I never said they would stop these things. Harming loved ones is par for this group. However, it has been determined that a $200.00 dollar a day cocaine habit would drop to about $20.00 if it were sold legally in shops versus the street. Addicts using $200.00 per day aren’t paying for this doing an honest day’s work. Crime becomes their only option,
      and who do you think they commit those crimes against. This places my loved ones at risk of home invasion, muggings, car-jacking, assault and possibly death. That same addict on a $20.00 a day habit is less likely to commit a crime for drug money when he/she could cover this with a minimum wage job, government assistance, or even pan-handling. Women need not resort to selling their body to support addiction. They would have access to regulated safer untainted drugs. Families of addicts might be able to pay the rent & buy food. Drug Lords would become paupers. Gang bang shootings would decline. Prisons would start to empty saving $BILLION$. Police forces could be reduced in size saving $BILLION$ more. Court cases would be drastically reduced saving even more $BILLION$. The DEA and the War on Drugs would be history saving 10’s of $BILLION$. Let’s recap the basics; safer drugs, cheaper drugs, fewer robberies, fewer assaults, reduction
      in coerced prostitution, fewer gangs, less powerful cartels, safer neighborhoods, eased financial burden, no criminal records for possession, fewer financial burdens, greater family stability, reduced fear of repercussions when seeking medical/professional assistance.
      Decriminalizing/legalizing certain drugs is better for the addict, the addict’s family, the addict’s friends, the addict’s neighborhood and the addict’s would be innocent victims. Life for all of us would improve. Would there be more addiction? I don’t believe so because
      most drugs are currently readily available. I have witnessed in my own family several alcoholics and several addicts. Some of them are functional, some are not. Some of their families have been torn apart,
      some have not. Some abused themselves to death, some did not. I have seen some control themselves for family or career while others sacrificed everything for their next hit or drink. I have seen many sent to rehab, some volunteer for rehab and most fall back into their
      abuse within a year. I have seen children put up for adoption by the courts in one case and left with the parent in another. I have NEVER known one who stayed clean simply because it was a crime not to. No one does the twelve steps unless they are personally committed to changing their life. No one stays clean unless they have decided to fight for their life. Legislation does not work. We are losing the drug war. This war criminalizes users and isolates them. There will still be laws for DUI’s, disorderly conduct, assault, robbery, spousal abuse, disturbing the peace, public intoxication and so on. Judges can still order counseling or other treatments as part of the sentencing process. But you, however, support and advocate the dysfunctional
      status quo while simultaneously stating opposing views are “a joke thru and thru.” You have tunnel vision; you’re wearing blinders; you can’t or are unwilling to see the bigger and better picture; the overall improved outcome; a better way. Perhaps that’s because of your training/indoctrination as a “DRUG AND ALCOHOL COUNSELOR”? I hope you seriously consider my view, it just might improve your counseling successes, after all that’s the real goal here, helping others in need while protecting their innocent wood be victims.

    • DWeb

      G some of your arguments are good and I would agree with them; Cost
      down, purer dope. But really, "Let’s recap the basics;safer drugs,
      cheaper drugs, fewer robberies, fewer assaults, reduction in coerced
      prostitution, fewer gangs, less powerful cartels, safer neighborhoods,
      eased financial burden, no criminal records for possession, fewer
      financial burdens, greater family stability, reduced fear of
      repercussions when seeking medical/professional assistance"? I
      hesitate to disagree with you on these issues for fear of insulting you.
      Your reality, though, is your experience. It, your reality, is based
      upon what you know, what your believe and what your hope for.
      Unfortunately, your reality is not the real world of hard drugs.

      I
      don;t have time to write a book on each one of these issues above, but I
      could. The book would be non-fiction, using case study/history. You
      make several assumptions that are clinically incorrect, starting with
      the assumption that the addict would stop using after he spent $20
      rather than $200. It is true that they can only use X amount of dope in
      one day, without overdosing. It is also true that as long as an addict
      has money, they will spend it on their drug. So, given that, in your
      scenario, the drug goes to $20 (btw, you did not site your source on
      that so it is suspect) and they have $100, they will spend the $100.
      Also, since they, and all the new addicts that would be created, are all
      stoned and unable to work, where would they get to $20 or what ever
      money they have? Work? No, who would hire a known drug addict? Back to
      stealing and prostitution--guess they would just charge less? Less
      Prison population, yes and less addicts getting help.

      It would
      be like Obamacare in this respect. More insureds = more doctor visits =
      less care available. So, less cost = more users = more addicts = more
      demand = more individual and family pain and beak up = more work related
      lack of production cost = more DUIs = more arrest = more judicial time =
      more prison time = more... There would be a fork in the road after more
      addicts that would go like this: more addicts = more ODs = more deaths.
      But at least that would help to empty the prisons.

      No, I
      won't take your position. I cannot. You see, my reality is based upon
      my real world experience with drug addicts. It is what I know to be
      factual, what I believe as I have seen it and lived it. It is also
      based in my hope, that all addicts will recover completely. To live a
      happy, healthy, productive life filled with love of self, family and
      God.

      PS. Patrick Henry meant what he said. Don't blaspheme his
      incredible statement if you don't mean it. You may very well get the
      opportunity to prove yourself.

    • http://twitter.com/jason_burns Jason Burns

      I am a Ron Paul supporter. After the way that Romney and his campaign were caught cheating, I could not bring myself to vote for the Obama clone. Also, looking at his record, not the lies that protrude from the man's lips, but his actual record, I could not bring myself, as a born-again Christian and lover of liberty, to vote for a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-socialized medicine, pro-indefinite detention without trial Democrat posing as a Republican. I voted third party.

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      I didn't vote for Romney and I have been clear on why. Has nothing to do with sour grapes, that is what the GOP establishment people are exuding after the election. It has everything to do with principle. You don't vote for what you don't want and in Obama and Romney we didn't want either of them.

    • DWeb

      And now you have Obama unrestricted. How that feel? Tell you what Tim,. when Obama "changes" the SCOTUS to favor the Progressive position (which will fundamentally change America for decades to come) I will remember you, and I will ask you how you feel your vote for whomever really worked out. Same when Obama gets a 3rd term and does what ever else he wants to as he violates the constitution.

    • Here here

      Obama is not exactly unrestricted. He and the RINOs have even more pesky 'bots to deal with in the House of Reps than before. Bring it.

    • DWeb

      In an election year, Obama, by executive order, by passed congress by giving amnesty. He made congress irrelevant in his first term. He will make them non-existent in his second. Re-read my post. I said I like much of what RP said. If Rand Paul runs for president( providing we have another election) I would vote for him.I believe Obama will rule by decree and regulation, and like Chavez, never leave office. I just found out this morning that the Department if Treasury is hiring 1,000 new investigators to review/audit 401Ks. This guy will do what ever he want to do and flat out get away with it. These guys, even "pesky bots" are not going to impeach the First Black President.

  • RightGunner

    While Ron Paul deserves some rest and time with his family, none of us believe he will be inactive for long. Thank you Ron Paul for having a major impact on the political economy of this country which for so long was a lonely journey for you.

    We have just been through a major battle and lost, but the good news is that we survived to fight another day. The situation now calls for the greatest fight of all, which is a risk but even more an opportunity. It is the opportunity to get done that which would not have gotten done even if Romney had won.

    It is the opportunity to end borrowing now and begin the effort to find the right way to live within our means. DO NOT RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT! Mr. Bohner already indicated he would stand strong economically if Obama won, and our trick is to find the way to help Mr. Bohner find the strength to hold the debt limit line.

    With the debt limit held, the Administration would have to find ways to divvy up the other money, which would put them on the spot in front of all the voters, a position they will fight against to their metaphorical death, (we can only hope).

    The other main loophole besides borrowing is funding by inflation. There the House can give a non-paying job to provide a report of what Mr. Paul can find out about the Fed activities of recent, at least, and what areas they won’t tell him. This can be used, together with a laymen’s view of the underlying economics, to arouse the public to the meaning of Quantitative Screwing.

    • axmickl

      Right gunner, don't you realize that Ron Paul was as important to Obama's victory as anyone. He divided the conservative vote and took as many votes as Obama won by,1%. Had he not been a senile old egotistical fool we might all be celebrating a Romney win today. You Ron Paul jerks should all not be seen or heard anymore before you piss the rest of us off enough to come after you.

    • http://twitter.com/jason_burns Jason Burns

      Screw you axmickl. There was only ONE conservative vote and that was Ron Paul. Calling Romney a conservative is like calling Obama a conservative.

    • axmickl

      Well, you got your Obama victory. How is that working out for you?

    • http://twitter.com/jason_burns Jason Burns

      No, you got your Obama victory. I didn't vote for a socialist. That was you.

    • Truth Serum

      Jason, don't waste your time with axmickl...he just doesn't get it and probably never will.

    • noitaint

      I think not. you waste your efforts chasing minnows when you should be harpooning the great whale.

    • Neo-Con No More

      We don't believe in your policies. We don't believe in your endless wars and police state. If Ron Paul had run, I would have voted for him. I voted for Gary Johnson instead, because he had a platform I liked.

      $16 trillion in debt caused by these two evil parties made up by Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs.

    • axmickl

      So what is Gary going to do for us now that you voted for him. You might just as well have voted for rose ann barr

    • http://twitter.com/jason_burns Jason Burns

      axmickl, let me ask you what Mitt Romney is going to do for us now that you voted for him? You might just as well have voted for Barack Obama... right?

    • Here here

      Because what America really needs is fewer ppl of stalwart conviction. Yes, yes we hear you: the whole country would be improved by getting rid of those kooks that draw a line in the sand and say "no further." All American history would be more glorious if ppl of conviction just stood down and conceded defeat in elections....oh, wait.

    • axmickl

      There is no answer low enough to address your statement. If you like surrendering so much, why not go to France where it is national policy.Trouble is, there history is not very glorious. They would all be still speaking German if we hadn't drawn the line in the sand.

    • Zeste

      When we start running true conservatives instead of "Obama Lites" we will win axmicki! You are clueless!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Mills/1387372799 James Mills

      I did not vote for Ron Paul--but he has a significant impact on America's thinking right now. Back to the Constitution and audit the FED!!Wow

  • adamenochnoah

    Looks like Ron Paul bailed out the O'romneybots...

  • riceinwa

    Wonder if among all of these "leaders with backbone" we can hope to pursue the truth on Libya and pursue impeachment now?

    • whackajig

      If our congressional leaders had any balls at all, they would have already impeached ovomit.

    • SINROSSCO

      It will never happen because they would be called a racist and that seems to be more detrimental to them than impeaching. Secondly, think of the violence that would occur? Sort of reminds me of the Vietnam Era when government didn't have the balls to control the demonstrations. It would be the same thing. Wouldn't have the balls to do anything about the violence.

    • Smeethow

      Impeachment takes both the house and the senate, As long as dingy Harry reins there, impeachment is impossible.

  • jwright673

    If they're looking for backbone in the house, they will have to give boehner a built in brace. He makes me long for Newt Gingrich to come back for crying out loud.

    • jdangiel

      Amen.

  • Calamity Sane

    All the red states need to secede. Get the message we are sick of the regime

    • jdangiel

      We should at least move to those states, elect solid conservatives at all levels and tell Washington straight-up, flat-out "No" at the point of a gun if need be.

    • rosech

      Sounds like a plan to me and mine. We would have the brains, resources, and could control education that is real, etc. Let's go for it. There has been talk before so nothing new and we should pursue!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Doc-Smith/100002549106697 Doc Smith

    Secede Now or go down with the rest of the "Peoples Republik of Amerika"

  • Another Guest

    It's a start.We can change the direction our country is headed as we change the house and senate personnel.

  • jammer

    I do not expect any opposition from the jellyfish in congress. They warm their chairs the last 4 years as Hitler pushed his regime, appointed czars, and destroyed the country. I wonder if the upholstery crew repaired their worn out chair cushions during the recess?