Ron Paul supporters organize City Wide Sign Wave in Dallas and surrounding areas

If you were traveling around the Dallas area today, you might have spotted some people on a corner somewhere waving a Ron Paul sign. This was because the Ron Paul Dallas 2012 group organized a city wide sign wave today between 4-6 pm. The event was design to coordinate with the National Promote Ron Paul Day.
Ron Paul "City Wide Sign Wave" in Dallas Texas on Feb. 25th 2012.  Photos taken at Walnut Hill and Greenville Ave.
Debbie McKee of Ron Paul Dallas 2012

Ron Paul Dallas 2012 activist Holding up a Ron Paul Sign for the Febuary Ron Paul Day.
Daniel Richmond of Ron Paul Dallas 2012
Some of the intersections included, Campbell and Coit, Northwest Highway and Caruth, Beltline and Midway, Preston and Forest, Mockingbird and Greenville, and many others. Each location had around 3-4 people, with the largest amount of 9, reported by Stephen Powelson who was at Beltline and Montfort, where a lot of literature was also handed out. There was also another group of 20 people in Arlington off Bardin and Cooper, and groups in the cities of Granbury and Ennis as well.
At the location where I was, there where 4 sign wavers getting a lot of honks and waves by drivers passing by. There was even some literature and contact information handed out to a few people. Other locations have also reported success in recruiting volunteers to help with the Ron Paul Dallas 2012 group.
Participants commented that supporting Ron Paul was a matter of him being the only candidate who truly understands how to reduce the size of the Federal Government, and that he's the only one who actually has a record of following the U.S. Constitution. Another young man commented that he didn't want to be paying for the National Debt for the rest of his life.
Anyway you dice it, it sure appears that support for Ron Paul is picking up in the Northern Texas area, as the Texas Primaries inch ever closer; despite court ordered date changes.

2012 GOP Presidential Primary views, predictions, and rants.

With Super Tuesday less than two weeks away, and the final televised primary debate over, we have a close four-way GOP race between Gingrich, Romney, Santorum and Paul. Each candidate has their own issues with voters including: Santorum's religious rhetoric that won't sit well with non-religionists and atheists; Gingrich's baggage which will not sit well with many looking for a morally sound candidate; Paul is seen by many as a fringe movement that threatens the establishment; Romney is definitely a favorite among the establishment, but these days that's not seen as good thing for most younger voters.

The big question I have, is who will drop out after Super Tuesday, and who will their disenfranchised supporters move to? Paul would seem like the most likely to drop out based on popular vote but a more realistic delegate count says otherwise. After all, the presidential candidate isn't elected based on popular vote, but rather the number of delegates at the national convention that supports him. Still it's looking like an up-hill battle for Paul for the time being.

This begs the question of if the delegate process is unfair to voters, or perhaps the real question is if the popular vote for president is actually misleading; making voters feel they have done their part, when in fact they have only provided a suggestion or their wishes to the delegates. On the other hand a voting process fits easily into the other elections occurring at the same time regardless of its binding power. Of course here in Texas, with the redistricting court challenges, delegates may be picked outside of the primary voting process.
If Santorum and/or Gingrich drop out, will Paul actually have a chance at winning the nomination, or will their supporters, who tend to be considered conservatives, support the more moderate Romney?

I've had a lot of friends asking me who I'm supporting, and until recently I haven't had an answer for them. Four years ago it was Romney, but that was before I came to some realizations about which party truly best represents me. It was before Bush showed his true colors with his business interests being put above the interests of the average American worker, and working with a democratically controlled congress, allowed for the National debt to start exploding; thanks to bailouts for Monopolies that were "too big to fail" (if they were truly too big to fail, they should have been treated like the telecom industry in the early 80's: split up into pieces, allowing the failing parts to fail, and the rest to continue on without government assistance).

I ended up voting for the Constitution Party Presidential candidate in 2008, before I fully understood why they weren't too popular; the same reasons that Santorum isn't more popular, thanks to ideas like "Separation of Church and State". I fear Romney has many of the same Bush like qualities that will allow him to feel justified in using government to "solve" business related problems; which usually end up being at the expense of the average Joe Plumber.

What I really want is someone with new ideas, and new ways of looking at the world in a more peaceful, empowering, and collaborative way. Someone who truly knows what the purpose of the U.S. President is. While I don't agree with him 100%, Ron Paul is certainly the only one who meets most of these qualities. Where I differ the most with him is on his foreign policies, the one area the President should be most concerned with, but I'm still more in-line with him then the others who would have become bankrupt while continuing to police the world.

What I want most, is a much smaller Federal Government, that allows the people of this country to be empowered to solve problems, instead of bogged down the government regulations that are meant to solve problems, but only create more in the process while getting in the way of innovation. Ron Paul understands that, and also understands that you cannot have a small Federal Government, when you have the largest army in the world; bigger than all other nations combined.

While I feel we were justified to invade Afghanistan, and that our presence there for decades to come (2-3 generations) will be necessary if we want to prevent them from falling back in there old ways, what wasn't well justified was the invasion of Iraq, and Libya wasn't even authorized in any way. What is no longer justified are all the military bases we have in peaceful places like Europe; where they have finally figured out how to become unified through peaceful means. Certainly we need to keep an eye on countries like China who are ramping up military sending, and North Korea and Iran who are both attempting to build up Nuclear missile arsenals, and possibly even Pakistan, but we could do all that with only a few bases in places like Afghanistan, Japan, and our existing domestic military infrastructure; not to mention working closely with other countries like Israel, England, and Australia. This would allow us to cut military spending in half without compromising our security.

CA Proposition 8 constitutionality, the fight for traditional family goes on.

Millions of voters in California sent a message in 2009, via Proposition 8, that traditional marriage is crucial to society. They expressed their desire, through a democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society, as it has been for centuries. A federal appeals court Tuesday overturned Proposition 8's ban on gay marriage, in a 2-1 ruling that opponents hailed as historic and supporters immediately vowed to appeal.

Young couple married in front of Salt Lake Temple
SirBryan Photography -

Having a brother who's chosen a homosexual lifestyle and a cousin who struggles with homosexual tendencies, I have seen firsthand how sensitive this subject can be to those who struggle with it. However, if we look at the origins of Marriage, and come to accept this religious tradition for what it is meant to be, we might find a better solution for all. Being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also gives me a somewhat unique perspective on traditional marriage.


What I've found most important is to not argue about if same sex marriage should be allowed, but rather to discuss the importance of marriage, and its origins as a religious covenant. It was first defined in the bible thousands of years ago as recorded in Genesis 1:27-28, and 2:24, defining it clearly a covenant between a man, a woman and God. Yet over the centuries governments have sought to be involved, creating a legality issue around marriage that today is being challenged by those who want to re-define and broaden the very meaning of marriage; something that has actually been going on since the U.S. civil war.

It wasn't until the 16th century that European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. By the 1920s, 38 U.S. states prohibited certain interracial marriages, and twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce. In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry, but began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents.

Here in Texas, were the state constitution specifically disallows same sex marriages. If it were considered a constitutional protection, then Texas would have a major conflict between the rights of the state, and the over-sight of the federal government. Other states would also be affected by this, but currently there is already a conflict between state and federal law. States are required to recognize each other's marriage licenses, but in the few states now allowing same sex marriages, these licenses aren't recognized in those that ban such marriages.

If marriage is seen as a religious act, the Constitution actually says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", nullifying the federal laws, but most proponents of constitutional protection of same sex marriage like to quote Amendment XIV were it says "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Yet despite all this, and the wishes of some religions, the states have "legitimately prohibit bigamy, incest, bestiality and other sexual relationships condemned by society, as well as impose age limits for marriage or require tests for venereal disease without running afoul of constitutional rights". Similarly if a majority of a state's citizens want to ban same sex marriage should they not be allowed to do that as well without any concerns of constitutionality?

What if instead of relying on the governments to issue licenses for marriage, and the mess we can now see it creating, we instead left it up to the churches, and got it back to its origins of being a covenant of significant religious importance. As for the legal issues, we should allow any two people, irrespective of any romantic involvement, genders, or the like, who have an interest in being financially and legally bound, to get a civil union license if they desire it. They could then say they are "civilly bound".

Santorum surges with success in early Feb. caucuses, but still far behind.

Santorum surprised a lot of people this week when he gained 26 delegates in the Minnesota, Colorado, and Nevada Caucuses. Missouri also held caucuses, again putting Santorum on top, but they are considered non-binding.

AP via Google Search
So far the delegate totals (both pledged and un-pledged - granted that many of these are projections) come out at:
Still Santorum's momentum isn't enough to get him into the lead, but it makes one thing clear; this race is not over for Santorum, or any of the other three candidates for that matter. We likely will not have a clear front runner until after Super Tuesday on March 6th.

AP via Google Search

A four way contest, especially with both Gingrich and Santorum competing for conservatives and Tea Partiers, will cause some votes to be "split", but even if you add up the three other candidates, they are still short of Romney's 115 delegates; and still nowhere near the 1144 needed for the win.

The Maine Caucus is also under way, with Romney and Paul as front runners, which will likely help to minimize Santorum's early February surge, and likely give Paul some additional credibility.
Here are some important dates to keep in mind:
  • Feb. 11 Maine presidential caucus ends
  • Feb. 22 Republican debate in Mesa, Arizona
  • Feb. 28 Arizona and Michigan primaries
  • March 1 Republican debate in Georgia
  • March 3 Washington caucuses
  • March 6Super Tuesday” primaries and caucuses, including: Ohio, Massachusetts, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Idaho, Alaska, and North Dakota.
  • March 10 Kansas Caucus
  • March 13 Alabama and Mississippi Primaries, Hawaii Caucus
  • March 19 Republican debate in Portland, Oregon
  • April 3 District of Columbia, Maryland, Texas, and Wisconsin Primaries.
  • June 5 California, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and New Jersey Primaries.
  • Aug. 27-30 Republican convention in Tampa, Florida
  • Sept. 3-6 Democratic convention, Charlotte, North Carolina
  • Oct. 3 Presidential debate in Denver, Colorado
  • Oct. 11 Vice presidential debate in Danville, Kentucky
  • Oct. 16 Presidential debate in Hempstead, New York
  • Oct. 22 Presidential debate in Boca Raton, Florida
  • Nov. 6 Election Day

National NDAA protest day in Dallas, Texas at Pegasus Plaza

Today, February 3rd, 2012, across the United States, people have been out protesting section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act; quietly signed into law by Barak Obama on New Years eve. In Dallas people from a number of freedom loving groups, including the Libertarian Party, Tea Party, Texas Liberty Campaign, Dallas Activism for Ron Paul, and others, protested downtown during lunch hour; despite the overcast weather and scatter showers.

Over 800 fliers were handed out around the intersection in front of Pegasus Plaza, by just over a dozen people. Signs were also held up to catch the attention of hundreds of motorists, all in an effort to raise awareness of the freedom threatening portions of the 2012 NDAA. They spent two hours talking with people walking to and from work for lunch, and others going about their business. Many were uninterested, but some were surprised by the information being disseminated.

The fliers claimed that section 1021 of this year's annual NDAA, provides the Military with authority to "suspend due process and habeas corpus, as well as other rights guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments... for terror suspects apprehended on U.S. soil." This new athority could easily be abused to "detain (forever) anyone the government considers a threat to national security ... in military custody forever without trial!"

The scariest thing about this relates to the 2009 Homeland Security Memo in which the term terrorist was interpreted to include any person who supports state authority over federal authority (despite the 10th amendment), or those who are dedicated to a single issue such as abortion, immigration, gun rights, and the like. It even listed Christians who believe in "end time prophecies".

The fliers were promoting H.R. 3785, presented by Ron Paul, a bill to repeal section 1021 of the NDAA. They were also providing pre-written letters to Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for people to sign and mail in. These letters pointed out the authorization congress has given to the President, and listed things congress must do to remove this authority.