This is taking a while, submitting what I have so far:
OK, here is where we are right now.
It is long.
It will be full page.
There will be bolding, set outs and text changes.
It is kind of hard to read without all the formatting. I will try to get a pdf up later.
If you have time take a look and make suggestions.
Thanks.
Larry
In particular, do you think I should leave this part in or take it out. It is how I feel. But Linda thinks we lose voters. Thoughts?
. Then there is another republican candidate who doesn't believe in evolution, and literally believes the world was created in six days. If we are going to replay the Monkey/Scopes trial at the Presidential level, we are surely lost. Anyone who does not believe in the theory of evolution, as proven by science, is immediately disqualified by me as not being capable of critical thought. I am not saying people are not allowed to think "magically", I am just saying that I do not want one of these people running my country.[Linda comment (I’d take it all out and not even go there—assuming your goal is to help Ron get elected. Plus the copy just flows better into your next statement with it out.)
BREAK
Paid Political Message
Why did I spend $85,000 to support Presidential Candidate Ron Paul? Because I care about my children and your children.
Lawrence W. Lepard, American Citizen.
Recently, <--- missing space
I reached into my own pocket and placed a full page ad in USA Today supporting the candidacy of Congressman Ron Paul. Why did I spend my hard-earned dollars on such an ad? I will tell you. Because Ron Paul is different from every other individual who carries the title "politician." He is truly a public servant. A "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" type of guy. No vested interest will support him, but I will. (I strongly believe that at this critical time we have a dire need for honest leadership in this country.) <--- missing parenthesis
As Americans, we stand at an important crossroads in our history. We need to make a decision as to what we want America to represent, and to become. History will record the outcome of our decision. If we make the wrong choice, many more innocent people will die, and history will not be kind. As I say to my closest friends, I do not want to have to explain to my grandchildren that I stood silent as others destroyed this country.
Let me state it clearly. The America that I grew up in
believed in the rule of law, not the rule of men.
The America that I grew up in believed in telling the truth. The America that I grew up in believed in following Judeo-Christian values, and yet made room for those of different faiths and backgrounds. The America I grew up in had a religious flavor, but we were wary of those who wore their religion on their sleeves. The America that I grew up in believed in the golden rule: treat people the way we would like them to treat us. The America that I grew up in believed that you did not lie, cheat or steal. The America that I grew up in believed in the inherent goodness of most men, but recognized that evil exists.
Nevertheless, the America that I grew up in did not believe in an eye for an eye. It believed in protecting oneself from evil, but in the process of doing so we were cautioned not to become what we were protecting against.
In short, the America that I grew up in was a place where one could be proud of one’s country, and thankful to the men and women who had sacrificed so much in the past to give us this heritage.
I wake up today as a 50 year old husband and father of three, and I wonder where that America has gone.
I see a President who called the U.S. Constitution “just a piece of paper”. <---
mentioned as not completely verifiable, could be replaced with something else just as powerful, for example, "who has ignored the tenets of The Constitution with signing statements that have placed the power of the citizenry given to us by that Constitution, into his own personal hands."
He replaced a President who blatantly lied to the American public. Admittedly, the lie was about something that was none of the public’s business. However, when a country is led by a liar, it lowers that country’s level of discourse and makes lying seem acceptable. It is not. Are these the best leaders this Country can produce? I see that second President’s wife running for President and claiming she will end the war, <---
maybe a mention of the fact of the timeline that has been stated to last until, what, 2013?, before we can begin to withdraw in significant numbers. I think there's even been a mention by Cheney and/or others of "a hundred year war".
when she initially voted for the war, and recently voted for a resolution against Iran that makes another war more likely. Do Americans really believe she will act in our best interests given all the money she has received from lobbyists and the military industrial complex? Do Americans really believe she will end the war, as she now has begun claiming in her political advertisements? Or is this just a tactic to gain anti-war votes now that Obama is breathing down her neck. Will her position on the war be like the story she told us about how she traded "cattle futures" so successfully? <---
I missed that one, it may go over the head of people not heavily involved in investing, though, it could cause them to look into it and see your point.
Maybe it could use a little explanation. A short background as to the circumstances involved in the quote, and where/why it's false.
I see the U.S. involved in an aggressive, undeclared war against a country that did not represent a threat to us in any way. We were lead into this war on the pretense of false and inaccurate information. <---
a mention of the first Gulf war being due to enforcing UN sanctions may be effective for the anti-UN crowd.
The truth is, we are far less safe now than we were before we invaded Iraq. This war has created more emotionally charged enemies who have more reasons to attack us than ever before. <---
maybe a mention of us being over there occupying them as an incentive to attack us as well, military bases all over the Middle East inciting them to attack us ect.
Of course, the Administration and the media conveniently assure us that the “surge” is working. No surprise there, given that there is an election coming up.
Ron Paul voted against invading Iraq. Rather than attack an entire nation, he tried to convince Congress and our President to strategically target the terrorists responsible for 9/11. The current Administration has failed to capture and eliminate the criminals who perpetrated this crime against us. Those responsible are still at large, our borders are wide open, and our troops are spread thin all over the globe. We need a leader who will protect us with a strong national defense and keep us out of foreign entanglements that in the end, create more enemies than friends. <---
good tie-in if there's an earlier a mention of bases in the Middle East ect,
the earlier mention will help define "foreign entanglements" instead of just mentioning them in passing. Us being over there is key in explaining why they attack us. People can easily understand someone invading their house as a reason to attack the invader. Making it clear that us being in their house is a perfectly logical reason for them to attack us, since we're the invaders into the Arab's house.
We need a President who will put the national security of the American people, and the safety of our troops, before the interests of oil companies and the military industrial complex.
To date the outcome of this war is that between 100,000 and 1.0 million innocent people have died. These figures are between 30 and 300 times the number of people killed on 911. Do two wrongs make a right? Furthermore, the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Not Iraqis. We are allies with Saudi Arabia and yet Saudi Arabia is far from being a democracy. <---
A mention of our tax money being sent directly to Saudi Arabia to "help them" would be effective perhaps. People don't like being taxed so that the government can just give it away, especially overseas like that.
Yet we went to war to create a democracy in Iraq and set an example for the Middle East.
The hypocrisy is staggering. The mistakes that were made are nearly criminal. <---
maybe "perhaps" criminal. "nearly" may imply to people that you believe the mistakes weren't quite criminal enough to be criminal, while it seems to be common knowledge more and more that we were deliberately lied too to start the war for another agenda other than defense of the nation. i.e. to control the region.
Why anyone believes one thing that is said by the people who led us into this war is a mystery to me. <---
fits well with using "perhaps" instead of "nearly"
“We will be greeted as liberators.” Wrong. “Oil revenues will pay the cost.” Wrong. “A secular democracy will emerge and be an inspiration for other countries.” Wrong. The list of misjudgments goes on an <--- missing the "d"
on.
Were the civilian Iraqis killed by our preemptive war “collateral damage” or is that just a euphemism for murder? Has anyone taken the time to look at their pictures on the Web? I wonder how their relatives and friends feel about the United States? I wonder if they are more or less likely to become terrorists as a result of the actions of the United States. <---
perhaps change the last "United States" to "the current administration" or the like to focus blame on the administration and distance blame from the US as a whole.
I see a country <---
again, perhaps use "an administration" instead of "a country" for the same reasons as immediately above.
that has violated the Geneva Conventions. I see a country <--- same again
that has violated the Christian Doctrine of Just War. I see a country <--- same again
that has started a war that is illegal under international law. As President Eisenhower said, “Preventive war was an invention of Hitler.
Frankly, I would not listen to anyone who seriously talked about such a thing”. I see a flock of Presidential candidates, most of whom voted for this war and many of whom believe “all options should be on the table” in dealing with Iran. For those who are not current on this subject, that language is code for: we should be prepared to attack Iran with conventional or nuclear weapons.
Think about that for a moment. Leaders in this Country are actually talking about using a nuclear weapon preemptively against a country that has not attacked us. Are they insane?
I hear Neocon pundits calling for the beginning of World War III. <---
maybe a mention of Bush coming out and directly mentioning WW III based on lies that have been found out now, in terms f them trying to suppress intelligence assessments.
I see a Country that has suspended habeas corpus. I see a country that has stripped its citizens of the Constitutional protections against an overreaching government. I see a country that has sanctioned “rendition” which is just another term for the kidnapping of anyone, anywhere, throughout the world, and then spiriting them off to a remote location where they can be subject to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which we are told are not torture. <---
maybe a mention of "no lawyers, no trials, can be held indefinitely/for life" ect may be effective somewhere around here.
Another lie. I see a country that has engaged in torture. Hell, <---
okay by me, but to avoid a slighty "curse word" may be wise.
Could easily say, perhaps, just as effectively,
"one leading Presidential candidate - even - wants to “double Guantanamo”"
one leading Presidential candidate wants to “double Guantanamo” and thinks his sons’ <--- (son's)
campaigning for him is equivalent to serving in the military. Of course, he <---
perhaps replace "he" with "that candidate" to avoid an instant confusion as to
which person you're talking about, the candidate verses the son.
as in:
"Of course, that candidate got a deferment to avoid serving in Vietnam."
got a deferment to avoid serving in Vietnam. Other candidates for the highest office in this land are not any better. I see a war hero candidate who sings "bomb Iran" to the tune of The Beach Boy's song, Barbara Ann. How can he make light of killing people? Shame on you Senator. Of all people, you should know better. Joking about killing someone is a disgrace in my book.
~~~~~~~~~
Then there is another republican candidate who doesn't believe in evolution, and literally believes the world was created in six days. If we are going to replay the Monkey/Scopes trial at the Presidential level, we are surely lost. Anyone who does not believe in the theory of evolution, as proven by science, is immediately disqualified by me as not being capable of critical thought. I am not saying people are not allowed to think "magically", I am just saying that I do not want one of these people running my country.[Linda comment (I’d take it all out and not even go there—assuming your goal is to help Ron get elected. Plus the copy just flows better into your next statement with it out.) ]
~~~~~~~~~
Could easily reference Huck with something like "wears his religion on his sleeve", or even now, "mislead people about receiving a Theology Degree" ect ect. Huck has tons of things to mention.
Furthermore, I see a country where the top advocates of war have never fought in one. Worse yet, they sought and obtained deferments when others were fighting. You cannot make this stuff up. The irony is incredible. If, as I believe, you reap what you sow, - then the ultimate payback for these injustices will be staggering. <---
nice, no comment, just wanted to mention that it's powerful and effective.
As a minister I like it. So very true. A point I try to make as often as I think the
perpetrators will see/hear it. Let's not forget, God sees all, and will repay in kind, both the good and the evil.
I see a Country that thinks that it owns and controls the world. I believe this is ethically <--- (include "and morally" perhaps?) wrong.
Furthermore, we cannot afford it, so even attempting to run the world is pointless. <--- "self defeating" instead of "pointless" perhaps?
i.e. we're kind of defeating ourselves, economically for one, by trying to run the world ect.
I see a country that thinks it should have bases in the Middle East for the next fifty years. <---
only 50? Hasn't there been a mention of at least a "hundred year war"?
perhaps use "50-100 years" or "50 to a 100 years" ect.
