Obama versus Paul

At digg, user Napoleone writes,

Obama is promising you the world on an empty bank account. Ron Paul wants to restore the value of the money in your pocket.

*Obama promised you a vote against reauthorizing the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, instead he went ahead and voted for it after making some menial changes to it, which did nothing to protect our rights, but did much for him in the way of political cover.

^Ron Paul voted 'NO' against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act the first time, the second time, and the third time. And he warned us all, in the moment of our greatest fear, that we were fearing the wrong thing.

*Obama voted for the Real ID. He doesn't like that it's poorly funded, but he supports it.

^Ron Paul voted 'NO' on the Real ID, and he gave an impassioned speech on the House floor, denouncing it.

^Ron Paul missed the vote on the Homegrown Terrorism Bill, because of the campaign, but went to the House floor the next week and warned of the danger of forming such a commission.

*Obama hasn't articulated a position on that bill (that I know of), and the senate hasn't voted on it yet.

^Ron Paul voted 'NO' on the FISA bill, which makes warrantless domestic spying "legal", and gives the tel-cos retro-active immunity for spying on us.

*Obama missed the vote on that bill, because of the campaign, but he claims to oppose it.

Why do I say claim? Well, consider this for a moment. If Obama, or even Clinton, truly objected to the FISA bill, do you not think they would have the necessary clout within their own party to remove this bill from consideration? After all, they are prospective presidents. They could have this bill tabled if they wanted.

They're not seeking that, though. Because they're not interested in that. All they need is the political cover to say they opposed it, but their lack of leadership on this issue proves they're very much in favor of it.

The only endorsement any candidate needs is yours. Wake up and smell the inflation and the debt and the erosion of your rights.