Cam's Blog

Ron Paul - Consistency Defined. Ron Paul is the most consistent, principled Republican candidate for President in 2012.

Monday, 02 January 2012 11:18

In February, I wrote a blog piece on this site titled "Philosophical Consistency." If you go to the main page of my site you will see that it is the most popular article. Individuals from all over the country land on that article searching for the keywords, you guessed them, "philosophical consistency."

Today it is important for me to define consistency. In dictionary terms, consistency is "conformity with previous attitudes, behaviour, practice, etc." Philosophical consistency can therefore be defined as conforming with your prior belief system, behaving in accordance to those beliefs, and practicing them every day.

When looking at a personal definition of consistency, no person in American politics today fits the picture more than Dr. Ron Paul. I have endorsed Dr. Paul in this election as I did in the 2008 Republican primary. Dr. Paul is the model of consistency. His views on issues ranging from the budget to foreign affairs (and yes, they are closely tied together) have not changed.

A lone voice in the wilderness of Washington DC, Dr. Paul spoke against manipulation by the Federal Reserve as far back as the 1970s. In this, it means that he was against the Federal Reserve setting interest rates in such a way that may have had good outward intentions, but potentially disasterous results. An example of manipulation by the Federal Reserve that hits home to many is with interest rates. When is the last time you earned a good percentage on a Certificate of Deposit (CD)? You can thank the Fed for that.

That said, Dr. Paul has been speaking out on this for a tremendous amount of time. Other candidates for President are conveniently coming to his way of thinking and it is important to understand why. It is pretty simple, really. Politicians generally go the way of the public polling and public opinion. A vast majority of Americans say they support an audit of the Federal Reserve. So why not sway in the wind to share that view point. (I give credit to Rick Perry who I believe truly shares viewpoints that the Federal Reserve is out of control, but no exception to Newt who has had his finger in the wind so long that it has nearly dried beyond repair.)

Interestingly, a second issue where Dr. Paul has been consistent has been on foreign entanglements. Dr. Paul believes that we should take care of our own first. This means bringing our troops home. It means to stop meddling in foreign affairs. He would support using our troops domestically (perhaps on the borders instead of building fences) and creating lasting friendships with foreign countries who otherwise may be opposed to our interventionism. I typically share one country's name with friends who have skepticism over a foreign policy of peace. I say "Switzerland." Many of them do their additional research and realize a couple of things - Switzerland remains militarily neutral and Switzerland is not ever attacked. Simple, right? Why I say this is an interesting second issue is that this is the exception to the public polling "finger in the wind" rule. It is a sign that many in the Republican political establishment are so red meat that they care not what anyone thinks but they care about "democratizing" the entire world - through force if necessary. They are jaded into believing that they have the support of a vast number of Republicans. In reality there are a number of Republicans who remain in favor of intervention. However, more and more are coming around to the message of peace and non-intevention. And again, Dr. Paul has not swayed at all - even when a vast number of Americans supported intervention. That's consistency.

The issues continue where Dr. Paul has been consistent. On abortion, Dr. Paul is strongly pro-life. He has witnessed the murderous nature of abortion while in medical school. However, in remaining consistent, he sees the 10th Amendment (State's rights) as being superior to anything on the federal level and Dr. Paul believes in the states to make the proper laws when it comes to important issues like this.

For over 30 years, Dr. Paul has understood the Constitution and the ideas of liberty. While Dr. Paul has been fighting for the Constitution, others have been working to pull the wool over the eyes over the American people. In the Republican race for President, most of us understand that Mitt Romney has had a change of mind on several issues (abortion, health care, etc.). What everyone needs to know now, especially my friends in the Tea Party movement, is that even more unacceptable than Mr. Romney's changes are the truly dangerous flip flops of Newt Gingrich.

Many of my friends support Newt. I love my friends and cherish their friendship. However, the truth is important to know. Dr. Paul's campaign has done a tremendous job staying above the fray by avoiding attacks on Gingrich's personal life and by focusing on the various issues that should frighten supporters of Newt into reconsideration. From the $1.6 million taken in payment from Freddie Mac to a "change of heart" on climate change, there are an array of issues where Newt has been grossly inconsistent. Worse, Newt's integrity is in dire question. Many of his stances appear to come attached to payments. He has played for pay in the sense that it appears that he will advocate for something if it lines his wallet. Newt has (purposely or not, but still unacceptable) nearly ruined careers because of his political moves.

Voters in New Hampshire and throughout the United States today are sick and tired of being told one thing and being delivered something else. They hear a great message during the debates and they may agree with 90% of what they hear from Newt or Romney and 80% of what they hear from Dr. Paul. But I am here today to tell you that while you may agree with 80% of what Ron Paul says NOW and with 90% of what Mitt and Newt are saying NOW, I know that you will be standing by a President Ron Paul 80% of the time if you vote for him. By the time Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney come up with their true viewpoints, you'll be with them 10% of the time if you make them the nominee. I see 80% as a better number than 10%. And it's an 80% that I know that each of you can count on.

I'm thankful for being able to rest at night knowing I am supporting the Republican candidate for President with integrity, consistency, and a love for the message of liberty and freedom. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about Dr. Paul. I hope you'll vote for him in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday January 10th.

Rep. Cam DeJong
State Representative
Manchester Ward 2

PS - Please read and share Ron Paul's Plan to Restore American by clicking here.

PPS - Many of my friends have asked me about Dr. Paul's Foreign Policy and about some remarks attributed to him. Below are two videos I'd ask that you watch today to gather more evidence that Dr. Paul's foreign policy will make America stronger and safer and that Dr. Paul truly believes in the individual rights and freedoms of all Americans.

You Like Ron Paul...EXCEPT For His Foreign Policy

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul

Who Stands Up For You?

Saturday, 30 October 2010 18:48

As we fast approach arguably the most important election of our lifetime, questions do linger. Who stands up for you, me, and our neighbors? Is it the politicians who promise to provide us with everything we want, only to tax us to the point where everything we want is totally unattainable? Or is it the patriots who have come forth this year and promise to tax us less, work to have government spend less, and give us more freedoms?

We do have two very diverse choices as we go into the voting booth this Tuesday. For decades, the ideals of government knowing better than the individual has been put into practice - by both Republicans and Democrats. Every election season, a group of individuals comes forth and promises a new vision for the future. Think back to 1994 when the Republican Party had it's "Contract With America." It failed because the individuals elected, with few exceptions, allowed the power to get to their heads and hearts. They quickly forgot about the contract and even more effectively turned the American people back towards the Democratic Party.

As time has passed, more and more voters are Undeclared/Independent. They are rightfully tired of political parties, political games, partisanship, and the notion of groups trying to reveal to them how they can better run the lives of the people. The reality is that the best person to make these decisions is the individual. When someone is unable to pick themselves up after a tough day, we know in our minds nad hearts that community will always come together to lend a helping hand. Government should have a much lesser role in our lives. I have great faith that the hundreds of Republican candidates nationwide understand this much more and are more impacted with principle and respect for our freedoms and liberty. I believe that these individuals will work to empower the person who deserves it the most. That person is you, the voter.

When voting on November 2nd, vote for the candidates that respect you as an individual. Vote for the person that understands that you are much more capable to take care of yourself than any other individual or group. Vote for that man or woman who will stand up for your liberty and will fight for your freedoms each and every day as an elected official.

To that end, I hope to have earned your support as a candidate for State Representative this year. It has been great getting to know so many outstanding individuals and families. I look forward to having the opportunity to serve you as your Manchester Ward 2 State Representative. Please get out and vote at Hillside Middle School this Tuesday. I look forward to seeing you there. Live Free or Die!

Sincerely yours,

Cam DeJong

Last Updated on Saturday, 30 October 2010 18:59

The Senseless Census

Sunday, 04 April 2010 00:00 administrator

In my field of work, I keep politics outside. It is not appropriate and it is not fair for me to bring politics into the workplace.

Recently, I have had several customers talk about their disdain for the government takeover of health care and also the commercials promoting the Census. While there is certain temptation for me to get into conversation with everyone about these issues, I find this blog to be a better avenue for discussion.

I recall writing an article in 2000 about the Census, calling it "senseless." A google news search now reveals a lot of sources calling it the same in 2010. I am often irritated by the commercials that are played in every town in the United States. They proclaim that it is important to send your form in right away to ensure that your town gets its "fair share" of funding from the federal government. Not only do they have goofy actors doing their bidding, but politicians (i.e. I have seen the Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin on television) as well.

Let's look at the idea of "Fair Share" for a moment. The Census recognizes 25375 "places" in the United States. Places consist of towns, cities, villages, etc. If every one of these places got a "fair share" of $1000, that would be $25,375,000 in "fair share" spread around. Tell me how a country that is trillions in debt can give a fair share of that amount? Of course $1000 for a city like Manchester NH would amount to "only" a penny per person. So it's not even realistic.

To me, it is a total outrage. The intend of the Census is not to find out how many toilets you have in your house. It's not even to find out how many males, females, whites, Hispanics, African-Americans, etc live in your house. It was put together to count people, simply people, in an effort to appropriate US House seats. There very well may be 120,000 PEOPLE living in Manchester NH in 2010. That's all that matters for Congressional representation.

I hope to see a continued outrage at the way the Census is being administered. I hope to see people fill out one question - how many people live in your household. That's it. Nothing more. I also hope to see a stop to the millions being spent on "crafty" commercials trying to entice people nationwide to get their "fair share." Remember, your fair share takes away from my fair share and my fair share takes away from your fair share. So let's be truly fair and cut the mess out with this entire bogus concept put forth by our federal government when it comes to the senseless Census.

Cameron

True Health Care Reform

Monday, 22 March 2010 00:00 administrator

Friends -

I don't have all the answers, but I can say one thing - more government regulation is NOT the answer to our health care crisis.

The ultimate problem with government intervention comes down to the backroom deals that never have the interest of we individuals in mind. It was a number of backroom deals that led to the crafting of legislation that was pushed through our federal government this past weekend.

There are many things wrong with the health care legislation. When a congressperson can say with a straight face that a trillion dollar bill will help reduce the deficit over a ten year period, we are all in trouble. The truth is the costs will be passed down to the states.

To me, we need more choices in health care. We need less regulation in medicine. Our government is in the process of trying to regulate natural substances - which may impact your choices in things as simple as multivitamins.

I can assure you that Nancy Pelosi does not know how to best run your life - including your healthcare choices. I can assure you that Carol Shea Porter does not know how to best run your life - including your healthcare choices.

You ultimately best know the greatest decisions when it comes to your health and the care thereof.

As a state representative in New Hampshire, I will work with Jeb Bradley and others who support health freedom in ensuring that your bests interests are always understood and respected. To me, your best interests are your freedoms. I will always stand for your freedom.

Cameron DeJong

PS - Please support me and other like minded candidates. Visit http://www.camstaterep.com/donate.html to help financially today. Now is the time for us to come together as a state and show the federal government what the Constitution means!

Philosophical Consistency

Wednesday, 10 February 2010 00:00 administrator

I believe that people can change. I further believe that in order for us to see liberty succeed in our society, some individuals will have to change their mindsets on a variety of issues.

When I was 16 years old and a junior at Northside High School, I discovered liberty in politics for the first time. It was financial guru Harry Browne's articulate message of liberty that took me from being a Freshman/Sophomore fiscal liberal to fine tuning my message towards one of consistent freedom.

I recall my United States history teacher telling me that I would grow out of my constitutional Republican ideals as I matured and got into the so-called "real world." Here I am today, as consistent in liberty as ever. I still believe through all the change in the world that the best ideas are founded in individual freedom - socially and economically. I believe that the best vehicle with which to spread the ideas and to reach those means is through working with like-minded individuals in developing plans of action to show voters how liberty is indeed the best answer.

That said, we sometimes get very excited when a new person or idea comes forth. Scott Brown comes immediately to mind. He was an afterthought when polling well behind Martha Coakley. Then he jumped into a pick up truck and said the buzz words "Tea Party." During this time, his poll numbers increased. As a state political figure in Massachusetts, Mr. Brown supported the government-run health care system that is in place today. He was moderate on a variety of other issues. However, the excitement of his polling increases were minimal in the minds of activists who wanted to see the seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy go to a Republican.

Excitement is a great thing and we should all be forthright in expanding our energy when the causes are right. We must be careful in the meantime. We must take a more diligent approach to ensuring that the candidates we support support the principles of freedom. Scott Brown has already proven that he does not subscribe to the principles of freedom by supporting a billion dollar job bill in Massachusetts. His moderate stance on this and other issues may win him new fans, but we must remember those he was "preaching" to in order to get elected. But still I say, we must take individual responsibility to know our candidates philosophical viewpoints and know if they are or are not consistent before jumping on their bandwagon.

To me, the principles of freedom and individual liberty can and must not be compromised. Sure, we may have a variety of means with which we present our message of liberty. Debra Medina in Texas and Rand Paul in Kentucky are suggesting liberty in a variety of terms that I believe will lead to the same, beneficial end result.

That result, must however, be the same. Maximizing liberty and freedom should be forthright in the minds of anyone who subscribes to the true, original meaning of our founding fathers. We must be philosophically consistent and know those around us and know if they are preaching a bad gospel or are really on our side.

Further, we must continue to work without delay in helping everyone share our belief that a society where individuals are truly free is a society that is most prosperous for all.