my life, my thoughts, my world.

Well, the glimmer of hope I once held for the 2008 election seems to have faded away. Somehow, the voting public has been convinced to throw their support (and ultimately the future of America) at the feet of those with absolutely no record of either caring about the public, or the Constitution. To be certain, they all talk the talk, but on paper (and in fact) they do not walk the walk. Of the entire field of candidate, everyone speaks volumes about how spending needs to be cut – yet only one man has managed to even run his campaign without incurring mountains of debt. That man did not win a single state on Super Tuesday.

Along the same vein, several candidates have said in one breath that they would return fiscal responsibility to Washington, and in the next praised some brilliant social plan that would ultimately cost hundreds of billions of dollars to implement. Perhaps it is my tiny infantry brain that keeps me from comprehending this, but if we have no money (on the positive end of the scale) – where exactly will the funds for these social plans come from? Surely a champion of fiscal responsibility would not dare suggest incurring additional debt for these plans, yet no one favors raising taxes either. There are probably dozens of accounting frauds in prison dying to know the secret to producing billions from thin air.

In short, I am truly concerned for the future of the United States of America. This concern comes not from a threat by cowardly foreign enemies, but from the domestic variety that have chipped away at the foundation of this country for far too long, with far too little opposition. From where I stand, I have no choice but to work towards trading in my SGT for a REP or a SEN. It is clear enough that supporting and defending the Constitution, as I am sworn to do, is going to require more sacrifice on my part – and an eventual run for public office. That’s a heady charge to make, and of course assumes there is anything left to defend when I finish school.

After having the opportunity to actually watch the recent CNN Republican Presidential Debate, it is time once more for me to exercise one of the freedoms I am sworn to preserve, and give my take on the whole thing. Granted, in a debate hosted by a far left “news” network, and headed by none other than the ultra-liberal Anderson Cooper, there was not much room for the freedom of speech on stage today. Mention the very document which clearly gives all persons that freedom, and there was a good chance you would be cut off from speaking entirely. At least if you happened to be a Congressman from Texas.

Typical to each debate I have watched, balance was nowhere to be found, either in the questions or the time given to various candidates to answer those questions. Instead of giving the voting public the opportunity to hear clear, uninterrupted, and direct answers to serious topics, the questions were again catered to whomever the network pundits have declared frontrunners. In short, this debate could have easily been called “The McCain and Romney Show!” More on that later.

The very first question posed to all four candidates asked for an opinion as to American’s being better off now, than eight years ago – before President Bush. In keeping with his long standing tradition, Mitt Romney responded by recounting for the umpteenth time his record as a governor. Despite being directly requested to clarify his position, in terms of the greater national public, Romney continued to dodge the question, and focus on his record as governor. On the same question, John McCain declared that yes indeed we Americans are better off today than we were in eight years ago. McCain went as far as to begin enumerating positive changes brought forth in the Republican Congress, but was cut short by an all-too predictable interruption by Cooper. Apparently even the possibility that someone could make such an assertion, and even begin to offer the grounds on which said claim is founded, was far too shocking for Cooper to remain silent.

In response to the same question, both Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul stated we were definitely not better off today than we were eight years ago. Huckabee acknowledged that there is a significant slice of America is economically hurting, and went on to say that without serious leadership touching all people, things would not start to get better. Ron Paul emphatically stated that we were certainly not better off, and placed the blame for our current economic crisis on years of unsound economic and foreign policies in Washington. Paul went on to explain, surprisingly without interruption, the long road we have taken toward this low point, and the poor monetary policy that drove the vehicle for crisis.

Half of the candidates feel we are better off for whatever reason, and the other half does not. From where I stand, I’m inclined to agree with the two who commented to the negative. Anyone unable to see the present economic plight, is either too rich to care, or dead. Everyone else is simply lying to themselves. Assuming you can comprehend the fundamental law of sound economics – that no matter how much you spend, it can not exceed how much you make – it should be alarmingly clear to you that our present federal expenditure is in gross violation of economic principles many of us first learned in the candy aisle of a 7-11. Simply put, Congress must trim the mountainous excess from its appropriations bills, unless of course national bankruptcy is something to which the voters of America have given consent. Whoever takes the Oath of Office on January 20, 2009, they absolutely need to be committed to real fiscal responsibility.

“The McCain and Romney Show” begins here, with another left-wing publication asking Romney why he feels McCain is a liberal, despite their assessment that his record is strongly that of a mainstream conservative. Romney and McCain traded verbal punches, insults, and refuted the merits of one another’s “facts”. At some point, Huckabee entered the picture to chime in as the true conservative among the group. How such behavior is tolerable in any form of debate, especially one between persons wishing to be the President of the United States of America, is beyond me completely. I suppose there are just some things a lowly soldier like myself just can not comprehend.

Four questions into the event, another question is finally posed on a real issue – one grounded in the Constitution itself – and is given to each candidate for input. That question, initially asked to McCain, centered on State’s rights. Specifically, McCain was questioned as to his position regarding the Governator’s (sorry, I couldn’t resist) request to allow California to enact and enforce emissions and other environmental policies far more stringent than those of the federal government. As these debates are surely available on YouTube by now, I will spare you the lengthy answers of each candidate, and simply state that all four spoke in favor of State’s rights, as well as alternative energy, and protecting the environment. The general consensus seemed to be that even if mankind is not to responsible for changing climatic trends, the worst that could happen as a result of reducing human pollution would be a cleaner world for our children.

The above is of major importance, for two key reasons. First, each candidate made a clear and direct answer aligning themselves with the Constitution of the United States, specifically acknowledging the right of each State to make their own policies. Secondly, despite Democrats’ rhetoric to the contrary, Republican candidates both care about the environment, and wish to ensure we leave the best planet we can for future generations. It seems some would be well served to remember where the entire idea of conservation started.

The remainder of the debate largely focused on the economy, and the war in Iraq. At least when McCain and Romney weren’t one-upping each other in the dirty politics game. Well, honestly, even when they were one-upping each other, that was still the focus. Every candidate stood the course of their campaign, and I’m not sure anyone’s minds have been changed as a result. For my money, Ron Paul is still the man. When allowed to actually speak, he well stated the things this country needs to return to the greatness we once enjoyed. Namely, fiscal responsibility, and responsible foreign policy. You know, the sorts of things the GOP once stood for.

Iowa has proven to me that the mainstream media is out of sync with America, and quite probably reality too. Prove me wrong, because I would love to believe special interests, greed, and fame have not driven a stake into the heart of journalism. Sadly, it seems objective reporting is a thing of the past, and pushing an agenda is what drives major media coverage. If it is an agenda that needs pushing, why let the big boys have all the fun? With Iowa’s Caucuses behind us now, I dare say it is officially match time. Hold the gloves, I’ll go this one bare knuckles.

As I’ve already reported, Barak Obama won the Democratic Caucuses, and Mike Huckabee won the Republican Caucuses. All my other post covers however, are the numbers, the results, a black and white snapshot of the overall outcome. The other post, is about as objective as you can get. Admittedly, objectivity can be rather boring, but let’s not deny that the public deserves the raw data, free of opinion. There is, after all, a reason the opinion page exists.

For months, the voting public has heard our major media outlets make their predictions, and stake their claims for this election season. Were the public to blindly follow those predictions, and turn out in the primary elections to vote without conducting any of their own research, the results would have been quite a lot different. Flipping my brain solidly to the off position for a moment, to facilitate regurgitation of what I’ve learned from the news, Clinton should have solidly taken the Democratic Caucuses, with Giuliani strongly leading the Republican Caucuses. Back in the on position, something the people of Iowa are clearly using, we see quite a different picture.

In a state with no minority population to speak of, a black man with a name that some associate with Islamic extremism (through some fit of ignorance), has passed the party sweetheart (sic), and a hair salon’s dream client. On the other side of the isle, the republicans of Iowa voted a much debated Southern Baptist minister as their choice. In fact, they voted practically the entire field ahead of the conservative media darling, Rudy Giuliani. While I can not claim to read minds, perhaps Iowa voters were sending a message to the rest of the republicans in America – one that should be plainly obvious to anyone able to read, or conduct research at the level we expect of fifth graders around the world – Rudy Giuliani is no more a republican than Ted Nugent is a vegan.

Rudy Giuliani can take credit for doing much to reduce crime in New York. He can take credit for handling the aftermath of the worst attack on our nation, and his city, as well as any other man or woman could have – and bette than most likely would have. He can not, however, claim to be a republican. His views, and history, are as opposed to the platform on which the republican party stands as anything found on the democrat side of the isle. With as much time as he has spent in Florida, maybe he just got confused and checked the wrong box when he announced his candidacy as a republican.

Democrats in the Iowa Caucuses looked at a tight race, at least among the top three contenders. While Barak Obama did lead John Edwards by 8%, the split between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton was a mere 1%. When the counting was done, the top three took up roughly a third of their party’s vote each. Perhaps most interesting was the totally opposed turnout along the age demographic. Youth voters turned out on the democratic ticket, and they voted for Barak Obama, so did the women. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, ran away with the senior vote.

In a stark contrast, the republican field was far wider spread. Mike Huckabee led Mitt Romney by 9%. Mitt Romney led Fred Thompson by 12%. Fred Thompson led John McCain by less than 1000 votes (not even a full percent), and Ron Paul by 3%. The gaps widen from there, with Rudy Giuliani trailing Ron Paul by 6%. Let that digest for a minute and read it again. Rudy Giuliani, a man who has seen the front page more often than The Pope, trailed Ron Paul by 6%. Chances are, there still is not a lot of meaning to those words, and I can understand that as you stand a good chance of having never heard of Ron Paul if you look to the mainstream media for your information.

To be fair (and balanced…) Fox news did actually mention Ron Paul today, in fact two of the Fox News Channel anchors mentioned him. This is not the first time he’s been mentioned, but it was the first time the mention came out of what may have actually been respect for his campaign. Of course, one of the anchors did make it very clear that “he won’t be President,” making me wonder if she would be so kind as to send this SGT the winning numbers to the next Texas Lottery. There was a hint of redemption to be had when the very same anchor made the case that he should definitely be included in an upcoming debate on FNC, he did manage 10% of Iowa’s republican voters after all.

Ladies and gentlemen, the race has really begun now. With more at stake than anytime in most of our lives, if you’re of voting age you owe it to the country (and honestly, the world) to register and cast an educated vote. Assuming you remember anything from government class, remember the way our representative democracy is framed. Take into account things like rule of law, checks and balances, and something I swore to protect and defend – The Constitution of the United States of America. Then ask yourself, which candidate has proven to understand our framework, and has a record of upholding it even in the face of adversity? I can not make up your mind for you, but my vote for Ron Paul is already in the mail. Unfortunately, my ballot is an absentee ballot, and from an active duty serviceman. The chances of it being counted, are about the same as winning that lottery I mentioned earlier.

In Iowa’s Democratic Caucuses, Barak Obama came out ahead with 38% of the vote. Trailing behind were both John Edwards (30%) and Hillary Clinton (29%) in a near tie between second and third. Bill Richardson (2%) trailed far behind in fourth place, with Joe Biden (1%) in fifth. Chris Dodd (0%) announced his withdrawal from the bid for President.

Iowa’s Republican Caucuses were led by Mike Huckabee (34%) for a win over a second place Mitt Romney (25%). Few votes, less than enough for a full percentage point, stood between third place Fred Thompson (13%) and fourth place John McCain (13%). In fifth, Ron Paul (10%) led sixth place Rudy Giuliani (4%). Duncan Hunter (1%) trailed in seventh place.

Returning to a point I made in an earlier post, regarding the way our Presidential Debates are skewed towards candidates deemed by the media to be more worthy than the others. When a candidate announces their official intent to run for office, and the field of hopefuls is generated, who ranks those individuals? Certainly not the voting public, simply because the voting public has yet to be exposed at length to each candidate. Unfortunately, even through the primary elections, most voters will never be afforded a mainstream opportunity to examine each candidate. How can that be? Well, as individuals officially become candidates, the political pundits of the media world take their picks and make it easy for the public to decide their votes. Here are the top four, according to us they are more warranted candidates than the rest of the field, who we will not be introducing to you anytime soon.

It is rather illogical to think that at the start of campaigning, any candidate has an advantage over another candidate, unless already the incumbent (though that may be a disadvantage at times.) That, however, is not how candidates are presented to the voting public. Before the first debate is even scheduled, the public has been provided with a top four on both sides, typically casting aside at least four more candidates per party, candidates that may well be exactly what the country needs. Unfortunately, most of the country will never have the opportunity to make that determination for themselves.

During the CNN/YouTube Republican Debate, I decided to take some notes a few statistics of my own. Given that I’m a little preoccupied with a crazy little thing called war, I might have missed a question or two, but here’s what I found to be true.

• Front runners may exceed clearly set time limits at length, and do so without penalty
• Front runners may interrupt at any time
• Few questions on serious issues are posed to those not considered to be front runners
• If a question is posed to someone outside the field of front runners, it is passed also to the front runners, but not to other outsiders
• Few questions are passed from front runner to outsider

For a quick tally, at least ten questions were asked directly to a front runner, and then passed on to the remaining front runners. By contrast, less than five (three by my count) questions were directed to a front runner, and then passed to an outsider. Two questions were asked to the entire field, but only one was allowed to make it through each candidate before being cut off for a new question. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) was directly asked three questions during the course of the debate, and was passed three more from questions asked to other candidates. Again, each of the front runners were asked at least five direct questions, often not to be passed on for input from the remainder of the field.

Does the above strike anyone as fair, or even productive? Is not the intent of the Presidential Debate to provide a structured platform from which candidates are allowed to explain, in detail, their positions on issues the nation feels to be crucial to the continuation of our country? How then, can anyone justify the vast imbalance in each debate? Fitting these debates into slotted blocks of airtime is severely limiting, as it detracts from the quality of the debate by quelling open discussion. Perhaps a better structure would involve national polling to determine major issues, and a collection of questions on the top ten issues. For those issues, direct one question per candidate allowing for a three minute answer. If you can’t get your basic answer across in three minutes, you probably don’t have an answer in the first place. Continue to allow candidates to respond if specifically mentioned, but enforce the time limit of that response. Of course, this day in age the only way to enforce that probably involves putting each candidate in a soundproof box and muting his or her microphone when the time has expired. The bottom line is that each debate really needs to have at least one group question per issue, questions each candidate are allowed to answer uninterrupted. If it takes two hours to ask the full field of candidates a singe question on five issues, so be it. Considering the resulting votes will shape the future of our nation, the importance of a fair and balanced debate far outweighs the cost for airtime.

Does anyone really want reform? Rhetoric aside, it certainly does not appear as though the government seeks to “bring about a change … so that they no longer behave in an immoral, criminal, or self-destructive manner.” What we do hear, on a daily basis, are cries from both Democrats and Republicans for reform. Not only calls for reform, emotional promises for reform. Both of our nation’s major political parties have crafted glorious works of communicative art showcasing their burning desires for a “true bipartisan effort”, neither has delivered anything remotely tangible.

Exactly what has the new Congress, which as we remember promised great change and prosperity, actually achieved? I’m certainly in no position to spend hours pouring through exact dollar amounts, but at a glance the new Congress has managed to load the pork barrels far beyond capacity, and that’s about all they’ve done. Really in none of the jobs I’ve had the pleasure of working, have I ever encountered a barrel sufficient for the containment of the pork so loved by our current (and admittedly past) Congress. Perhaps we should coin a new phrase, as pork barreling is nowhere near accurate. Pigs, even the biggest of the big, aren’t all that large, and as I said before neither are barrels. What we see today is more like whale tankering.

Spending isn’t the only thing this great reformation has bestowed upon our great nation. I would be irresponsible to not highlight the full spectrum of the current Congress, and instead mention only the insatiable need to spend money that doesn’t actually exist on projects no one will remember, or appreciate, at any point in the future. The present Congress has proven one thing beyond the shadow of a doubt, they sure can name a Post Office. In fact, they can name dozens of Post Offices. In true bipartisan cooperation, this Congress has placed differing ideologies aside, and collaborated in the naming of several dozen Post Offices. The success of these bipartisan acts absolutely does not end with the naming of Post Offices. No, in the face of dwindling funds for deployed troops around the globe (you know, the green stuff required to make sure myself and my soldiers have something to eat every day – we really don’t ask for much, but we do like to eat), our Congress has also managed to congratulate no less than 10 sports teams for their seasonal efforts. We can not manage to submit an appropriations bill that is not loaded with a fleet’s worth of whale tankers, but we can certainly pass resolution after resolution essentially illustrating a total indifference to the things that really matter. Bravo.

Is it fair to direct my disdain only towards Congress? No, by no means would that be even remotely fair. The ineffective masses of pension-conscious legislators were voted into office, which means a good deal of this is directed squarely at John and Jane Public. How many voters have any idea what goes on in Congress? How many know what the Supreme Court has been up to for the last decade? Do you think the majority of voters understand their representative’s voting record? How about the schedule for actions on the House or Senate floor, do you think most voters have any idea when important bills will be up for a discussion or even a vote? Given the easy access to this information, the power and importance of the vote, and our present political climate, one would certainly hope the answers paint a happy picture. The reality is that the painter does not even have a canvas. If you think I’m only trying to scare the country into participation, I ask only that you pick an issue, any issue, and ask ten random people for their position, and the position of their representatives on that issue. Be prepared for blank stares.

Political showboating has taken on a celebrity arena of it’s own. Crafty speeches, emotional outcries, harsh condemnation, these are the tools of Congress. The media is only too thrilled to help destroy the nation, by giving airtime, followed by editorial reviews, followed by network and radio commentary on the editorial reviews of the originally aired content, followed by books about the commentary about the editorial reviews of the originally aired speech. This wouldn’t be an issue, if there was even a glimmer of meaning or truth in a tenth of the speeches. For a present example, I direct your attention to recent Democratic showboating. Specifically, adding language to their most recent non-binding appropriations bill requiring that troops remaining in Iraq be limited to actions of counter-terrorism, the training of Iraqi Security Forces, and the protection of US interests (to include diplomats). As of yet, I have not made up my mind as to which is more disgusting, Congressional Democrats acting as though that very thing has not been our mission for the last several years, or the voting public responding as if somehow those “limitations” will greatly reduce the need for troop strength, and ultimately bring us all home. The fact is, that we are here specifically to interdict terrorist organizations, train the Iraqi Security Forces, and protect US interests. Adding language “limiting” our role to those actions in an effort to garner political recognition, is a slap in the face at best, but more directly treasonous as a blatant and direct lie to the voting public.

Lest anyone think for a second that I’m rallying against Democrats alone, there are still a few rounds left in me for the Republicans. What exactly happened to fiscal responsibility, and small federal government? At some point, those were the legs of the party platform. I dare say we’ve got about as large a federal government as possible, and I’d have to upgrade the storage capacity of this server if I had any intentions of going on about the utter lack of fiscal responsibility of late. Most alarming, are the fire breathing attacks against fellow Republicans wishing to return the party to its roots. Is there really a hope for bipartisan unity, when neither party can even behave within their own ranks? Probably not, sadly. If only someone would remind both sides that there’s a document which presides over their actions, many of them may have heard of it at some point – The Constitution of the United States of America.

Any doubts that the present sociopolitical climate is pointing towards major change, exists only in the minds of those removed from reality. Often, change is called for by a minority, one seldom represented by the leading congressional party. Today, members of both major political parties are sure of one thing, change is required. At the head of this heated political battle are a failed congress, a largely unpopular war, and ever rising global tensions. With the climate set, one has to ask what it really takes to effect a change.

Many assumed, albeit incorrectly, that voting in a congress run by Democrats would initiate profound change in our political forecast. Clearly then, voting in the other guy does not necessarily mean you are also voting in the better guy. This happens largely due to voter ignorance, those that stand by one solitary party, or swing to the other side of the isle should the actions of their last choice fail to impress. Voting is a right that should be exercised with care. Voting is certainly a means to effect change, but those wielding the power of a vote have an obligation to cast that vote in an educated manner.

We live in a world overflowing with information. Unfortunately, a good deal of that information is erroneous, much to the point of fraudulence. The voting population of this nation is old enough to be aware of the proper process by which research is conducted, and should be able to spot fraudulent information. In what is a sad reflection on our society, a troubling number of voters actually embrace blatant fabrications as the diction of $DIETY. If the relevance or accuracy of information is of no concern, for the sake of thorough examination, at least seek out a variety of sources.

Fortunately, the business of our congress is largely public record. These records are available through a number of media, the most readily accessible being the internet. Before taking the statements of any person running for a political office as fact, take a moment to go over their voting record online. Does that individual vote against movements you oppose? Does that individual vote in favor of movements you support? Does that individual vote at all? Our congress is a representative body charged with maintaining the freedoms of their constituency in accordance with will of the people, and the Constitution of the United States of America. To do any less is to operate in a capacity best described as derelict.

Members of congress are, in fact, human beings. As such, they lack any super powers enabling them to read the minds of their constituents. In order for our representatives to conduct their duties in a meaningful and honorable way, we the people must also be involved. The blanket of dereliction also covers the swarms of voters abstaining from congressional correspondence. In failing to make their positions on the issues at hand known to their representatives, those voters fail to enable their representatives even the possibility for planned success, irresponsibly leaving the entire process to chance alone.

This correspondence can fortunately be called information, and in this day in age sharing information could not be easier. So far as I can tell, there is a means for digital communications with every single member of our government. In the increasingly unlikely event that access to the internet is completely unavailable (for the sake of argument, I am writing this from the middle of a barren Iraqi desert), it is an absolute certainty that each of your representatives has at least one mailing address. Put those lines of communication to use. Send letters, send emails, blog your position and link your representative’s homepages as well as the pages containing specifics of the legislation in question.

Follow the activity of our government and make sure your representatives know where you stand, at a minimum, on the issues personally important to you. After the dust has settled, and the votes have been cast, see if your representative voted in a way that pleases you as a constituent. When doing this, check your ideological and emotional baggage at the gate. While your representatives have the obligation to represent their constituency, they also have an obligation to uphold the constitution. Should all things be in order, and you find yourself consistently disappointed by the actions of your representative, start researching his or her competition so that you may cast an educated vote against the incumbent in future elections.

At this point it might seem a little ridiculous to even mention this, but I’m going to do it anyway. Understanding what it means to be an active member of our political process is one thing, actually doing it is another. You can send correspondence, conduct thorough research, hell you can even launch a non-profit organization to spread the word, but it is all a waste if you do not bother to show up and vote. That should be painfully obvious by now, but election year after election year the percentage of registered voters actually casting ballots is shamefully low. As the saying goes, if you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Sadly, a lack of responsibility on the part of the average voter is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Horribly inflating the supply of fraudulent information is our very own media. Often this is done in less overt ways, in things as seemingly innocent as the layout of an article, or the photographs used to depict certain candidates. The fact of the matter is that we pay attention to layout, and make judgement on things as important as credibility off of something as unimportant as a random facial expression captured at chance in far less than one second. Pay attention to the positioning of candidates in a presidential debate, those the media deems unworthy of attention are placed in the sidelines, often with far less lighting, and outside the field of view of the normal scene. The same “unworthy” candidates are not afforded a proportionate number of questions, nor are they allowed to answer without interruption from the chosen media pets. It would seem, in fact, that the “chosen” are encouraged to interrupt the “unworthy” as often as possible. Bonus points are given for interruption with a rebuttal far from the same galaxy as the original question. Print media is equally guilty, playing lap dog to the broadcast’s chosen electable with dedicated coverage of things as important as hair style and vacation plans, all the while ignoring the unworthy at all costs. When, on the rare occasion of course, something newsworthy does involve one of the “unworthy”, the story is typically small, and if any photo is included at all it is sure to be the least aesthetically pleasing available stock.

Again, the people ultimately have the power. Media, both broadcast and print, is a business. Businesses depend on sales. Successful businesses monitor their market for changing trends, and supply a product or service to satisfy the consumer. Much like the process by which voters interact with their representatives, you can interact with the media and request fair coverage. Should that request be denied or ignored entirely, you can place a vote. In fact, you can place the single most powerful vote possible in a market economy, and the ballots are found in your wallet.

From where I stand, it seems clear that the entire system is broken. All branches of government are ultimately charged with upholding the constitution, none seem too concerned with that minor detail. From a distance, and even upon closer examination, it is apparent that career longevity is the main goal of our government figures. Fortunately, we voters have the power to ensure only those truly committed to their positions can have that career longevity. We only have to organize, and exercise that power.

As far as I can tell, at least where the current field of individuals hoping for a chance to hold the title “President of the United States” is concerned, there is only one valid candidate. This proclamation comes after countless hours of research and discussion, and that individual is Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX). Far be it from me to launch an assault on those who wish to lead this nation, yet fail to execute the charge of their offices in congress on a regular basis. However, in the field of candidates there is only one man standing with a voting record that stays true to the constitution. There is no doubt at all that we need change on a comprehensive scale, and starting by electing a POTUS dedicated to upholding the constitution at all costs is a large step in
the right direction.