Why I Voted for Ron Paul

Even though I disagree with his economics for the most part (my views are more in line with another candidate-- whom I will do a favor and not name-- who has a long record of supporting Keynesian economics), I just got back from voting for Ron Paul in the GOP presidential primary.

The reason I did is simply because Ron Paul is the only candidate who rejects the idea that the President of the United States has the legal authority to assassinate any or all of the People of the United States, something Attorney General Eric Holder had the balls to defend publicly...

"Some have called such operations “assassinations.” They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings. Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful."

In other words, its not unlawful because "for the reasons I have given" I say that that its not unlawful. Why that's practically as solid as the Magna Carta (well not really, "NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned... or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land").
Weighing in on the other side from Eric Holder is Sir William Blackstone (still quoted by judges three centuries after his passing):
"Bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom".

Yeah, you'd think. But there's only one presidential candidate conveying the alarm of tyranny.
"Ron Paul: I strongly object to the President institutionalizing a policy that explicitly says that he has the authority to target American citizens because he believes they’re bad people. You don’t protect bad people because they deserve it, you protect bad people and go through the process because you think a lot about innocent American people never being treated in this manner."

Brav to the O. Remember the old days when even Democrats talked like that? This is what Eric Holder had to say during the Bush Administration.
"To those in the Executive branch who say “just trust us” when it comes to secret and warrantless surveillance of domestic communications I say remember your history."

If by the GOP Convention this summer, no candidate has achieved a majority of the delegates, Romney and/or Santorum will have to scramble to pick up votes where they can. I trust the Paul supporters (I guess I mean, my fellow Paul supporters) are considering what Dr. Paul should trade his delegates for if he isn't in a position to win the nomination. My own druthers would be the eventual GOP nominee:
(1) Promises to end to Fed, which doesn't require congressional action if the President files a lawsuit against an independent agency-- any one will do-- and petitions the Supreme Court to overrule Humphrey's Executor on unitary executive grounds (After which the elected President, subject to Acts of Congress, would set monetary policy. I trust he and they won't set up a gold-based currency board but there's no telling);
(2) Renounces presidential authority to assassinate US citizens and promises to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate any rumors or allegations-- someone should've read Holder his Miranda Rights before he gave his most recent speech-- that the Foreign Murder of US Nationals statute has been violated by government officials;
(3) OK OK, this one's for the kids; Pledges to reschedule cannabis by Executive Order so the decision whether a sick person benefits from use of medical marijuana is left in the hands of their doctor and not their congressman.