iVoteAmerica will post the interviews for our readers to digest.

iVoteAmerica will post the interviews for our readers to digest.

A self proclaimed “artist” Chad Michael Morisette wanted to create a macabre scene at his home for all to see. He said he did it in the spirit of Halloween. “It should be seen as art, and as within the month of October. It’s Halloween, it’s time to be scary it’s time to be spooky,” said Morisette.

Our Long History of Hate Now Forgotten

Morisette must have forgotten our nation’s long history of hate. Today, hate crimes have been codified into law. For anyone to lynch a caricature of any minority person or representative sample of any minority group would be classified in many states as an official hate crime. Hate is a crime…the Feds typically investigate hate crimes.

The lynching of Sarah Palin under the guise of “art” as the perpetrator (artist!) put it or, a Halloween “free speech” statement as others have characterized it would be, if applied to Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi or perhaps Representative Barney Frank, labeled a hate crime by Al Sharpton and immediate cause for FBI investigation and possible prosecution. And, such a labeling and investigation would be warranted.

Is the Lynching about Women or Just Certain Women?

Not so with Sarah Palin. The emblem of lynching has a caveat, a loop hole. The loophole is conservative women who run for political office.

The lynching of Sarah Palin is problematic on several fronts, not the least of which is its potential to incite the many whackos and nut-cases running loose in our streets to consider transforming the metaphor into reality.

The mannequin lynching of Sarah Palin, its tolleration by many and the pathetically low level of public outcry is evidence that we really have come that far with respect to our application of the images of hate that riddle our country’s historical timeline.

Are we to believe that the lynching of Sarah Palin is tolerable because she is a woman, a white woman, a conservative white woman, a conservative white republican woman?

Have we collectively denied Sarah Palin her civil rights and the protection she deserves as a candidate for the second most powerful position in the world, Vice President of the United States of America?

Yes, we have.

Paul is one of the only Republicans to tongue thrash both Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke over the Federal Reserves contributions to the decline in the value of the dollar against international currencies and he comes as close as anyone dare come to blaming the Fed for the mortgage crisis by making money too cheap and available to people who couldn’t afford to borrow it.

Facts, Staring us in the Face

With unemployment now on the rise and the Federal Reserve running out of idea, options and money solutions, Ron Paul is looking like he has been reading a proverbial crystal ball. His analysis and his statements on our policies both foreign and domestic seem to be true as they play themselves out right before our eyes.

Ron Paul has literally stated that we are going bankrupt as a nation.

He has literally stated that our foreign policies and domestic well-being are inextricably tied together and that because there has been no constitutional “declaration of war” by Congress as a body that Bush’s war(s) are not only a violation of the Constitution but a threat to our economic security.

The Media Spin on Ron

That Ron Paul is cast by the left leaning, mainstream media as unelectable is probably true. But when they cast him as a kind of crazed, militant, nut-case (our words) by the way they treat him, talk to him and snicker about him, they do so in ignorance. Paul is a constitutionalist and when it comes to the letter of the document, he is right on.

To be sure Paul has a militant following and a huge number of Gen X and Gen Y love him as well. He is also adored by a large number of baby-boomers, making him one of the few candidates to have such a cross-sectional generational following.

The problem America has with Ron Paul is that in order for us to understand him we must first listen to him with “eyes wide shut.” Dr. Paul is decided not cool, except to his followers. In fact, he’s a bit nerdy. But pull up a Ron Paul YouTube video, close your eyes and just listen.

Go head, pull up the YouTube videos featuring Paul and listen for 5 minutes…eyes wide shut.

His positions have to be thought through…one at a time. Ron Paul is not a good (as in slick, polished and equipped with one line sound bites) politician. In the sense of the MTV brand politician, he’s actually a bore.

Has Ron Paul been Right all Along?

But is Ron Paul right? Is he right, first and foremost, about the Constitution? After all, that’s his baby. iVoteAmerica thinks his constitutional interpretations are correct. If Ron Paul is right what do his positions mean to us and America?

Mr. Paul is uncompromising in his positions and unyielding in his staunch defense of pure constitutional government. To be more accurate, Ron Paul insists that the country, especially the three branches make its decisions based upon a pure, face value interpretation of the constitution. In such matters as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Paul’s position is simply that the United States cannot constitutionally go to war with a “Declaration of War” vote in Congress. Is he right or is he wrong? We looked and here’s what Article One, Section Eight says with respect to going to war:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

During one of the 2008 Republican debates he asked his colleagues why they were no longer holding on to Republican principles such as small government, military restraint, fiscal conservatism and a balanced budget. He question was ignored.

Here are ten reasons Ron Paul should be elected by means of write-in candidacy by the American people.

The Big Ten Reasons

Reason 1. Ron Paul can be trusted. Everyone who listens to him knows immediately that he is not a flip-flopper. His core value positions today were his positions yesterday and they will be his positions tomorrow.

Reason 2. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. That’s his platform. Mr. Paul doesn’t seem to come across as an egotistical politician lusting for power over people and preeminence for himself. In this sense, he is different.

Reason 3. Ron Paul understands the role of government in American life. He’s an old line Republican with Libertarian roots who thinks the Federal government should back-off and get off the backs of the American people. In this sense, he’s Reagan-like.

Reason 4. Ron Paul will appoint constitutionalist judges to the Federal bench. The first and most fundamental watershed for Ron Paul on any issue to ask and answer the question, “what does the constitution say?” Therefore, his first question to a candidate for Federal Court is “what’s your view of the roll of the constitution with respect to your judicial philosophy and actions?”

Reason 5. Ron Paul understands why the Middle East opinion of the U.S. among some Muslims is extreme. When Paul first mentioned that one of the reason extremists are so motivated is because of the historical involvement of the US in the middle east, he was chided and derided for blaming America. But is he right…have we done anything wrong…could we have done anything different…what is the view of America through the eyes of middle easterners?

Reason 6. Ron Paul will only take America to war constitutionally, with a declaration. On this issue there is no flexibility with Ron Paul. He doesn’t believe in “resolutions” that empower the President to toy around with the military in foreign countries. He’s black and white in his insistence that only Congress has the authority to send us to war and only “if” and “with” an affirmative “declaration of war.”

Reason 7. Ron Paul will remove the troops from Iraq and allow Iraq to solve its political, economic and social problems with scant financial or philosophical meddling by the United States. Ron is unbending on this issue. We are, in his view, engaged in war(s) that violate the constitution because there has been no formal declaration by congress. Absence the “declaration” Paul says we get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Reason 8. Ron Paul will keep the government out of State’s rights issues and allow people to run local government the way the Founders intended. Ron Paul’s position on many things is to allow the States to take positions on many things. He’s a State’s rights guy. This stems from his belief that the Federal Government doesn’t have all the rights they claim for themselves.

Reason 9. Ron Paul, if elected, would seek to shrink government’s paternal and self-imposed oversight of personal rights, allowing people to determine what is right and wrong for themselves and within their communities. His position is that individual choice, personal economic freedom, education and a host of other issues reside with individuals and not ultimately with our State or the Federal governments.

Reason 10. Ron Paul loves America and he serves out of the interests of Americans, not for power, greed or self-enrichment. When one studies Ron Paul, there is a sense of his humility. Truly, there doesn’t seem to be much ego presence or sense of political entitlement to power as we often see with Washington insiders. It’s hard to envision Ron Paul working a room at a Washington social gathering or cocktail party made up of lobbyists, power brokers and professional politicians…it’s just not him.

Based upon all of this, iVoteAmerica asks, should Ron Paul be considered by voters as a valid write-in candidate for President of the United States?