Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Ron Paul GOP's Only Hope for 2008 As the media are starting to concede, Ron Paul isn't going anywhere. Now it's time for all the people over at Red State and Town Hall to realize that they don't have to settle for another neoconservative, big-spending, nation-builder and to join the Ron Paul Revolution.by Colette von Hessen
(conservative libertarian)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The GOP will be doomed to obscurity in 2008 if it doesn't return to its conservative roots -- and fast. Ron Paul, GOP presidential candidate and free-market champion, has been attacked by the scarily-becoming-mainstream war-mongering, big-spending Republicans as being a "kook" and, in an attempt to scare what's left of the base, unconservative. As Ron Paul pointed out in the South Carolina debate, however, non-interventionism is conservative: Americans elected the Republicans to stop the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and were against getting involved in Europe during World War II until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Is it "conservative" to waste billions of dollars in taxpayers' money and, more importantly, American lives on a war that really doesn't have much to do with September 11?
Unlike many of his colleagues who so often try to desperately allign themselves with Reagan for political purposes, Ron Paul doesn't usually feel the need to invoke the Gipper's name at every opportunity to make his points; he is more than comfortable with his well-reasoned positions and rightly feels that they stand on their own. During the Fox News debate on May 15, however, he spoke of the Middle East and its peculiarities that Reagan understood existed. In simplified form, middle easterners have been killing each other for millenia -- are Americans really going to change that? Is it our duty to do so? Is it "conservative" to fight for a republican form of government for people who may or may not appreciate it, let alone keep it while we leave our borders wide-open? Think of the Andrew Speaker debacle: it would only take one terrorist to sneak through one of our underfortified borders with smallpox to vastly outdo 9/11. If we spent less money -- and American blood-- on the sand of the middle easterners who have been killing each other for centuries and instead decided to spend more resources on fighting our own borders, the Andrew Speaker Problem may never have happened. Ron Paul's non-interventionist stance is not only conservative, it is something that 70% of the American people support.
Ron Paul is a real conservative. He is a champion of the taxpayer, having never voted to raise taxes -- ever-- during his entire congressional career. He is a strong supporter of second amendment rights. He is pro-life, having sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act while in Congress. The Libertarian platform has officially made their plank pro-choice in recent years after some debate within the party. This is why I never voted Libertarian after Harry Browne and why the Libertarian Party is no longer an option for me. Ron Paul is unabashedly pro-life and argues that it is unsettling to say the least that "if you abort a 'fetus' one second before [birth] it's legal, and one second after it's born, it's murder."
Though many in the mainstream GOP and neoconservative camp of the Republican Party may try, Ron Paul's conservatism is not something that can be easily challenged. His conservative values go way back: Ron Paul was one of only four congressman to support Ronald Reagan for president in 1976 (the others opting for Gerald Ford) and was one of Reagan's earliest supporters. Reagan himself has said:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. [...] I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
And they said Reagan was a dullard.
Ron Paul is right on immigration, second amendment rights, abortion, taxes, and foreign policy, arguably the big five issues if the day. Ron Paul is part of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, something that will become extinct if the GOP doesn't take heed. His abililty to attract supporters across the political spectrum for his libertarian views on foreign policy, the War on Drugs, and other issues also places him in a prime position to attract votes from disaffected independent voters. Many leftists are also disenchanted with the Clinton machine and are wary of Hillary's eery eagerness to go to war with Iran. As Paul points out, even if Iran has a nucelar weapon, there are plenty of countries in the world who have them, and if they were bold enough to consider using a nuclear weapon against the United States, they would pretty much be wiped off the map, and pronto.
Ron Paul's recent surge in political donations elicited considerable mainstream media attention. MSNBC ran a breaking news segment on Paul's impressive third-quarter haul. Being upgraded from a "second-tier also-ran" to a dark horse, Paul is also garnering attention for his passionate supporters who have amassed some highly creative campaign tactics, such as sending flowers to woo conservative darling Laura Ingraham, to Painting the Town Ron parties, in which supporters get together to create and display Ron Paul signs all over cities in the United States. You only need to witness footage of his massive rallies, which are usually fairly impromptu and last-minute, to understand the ramifications of Ron Paul's growing support. There were reportedly over 2,000 people at a recent Ron Paul rally at the University of Michigan. His meetup groups now number over 1,000 groups across the country dedicated to the sole purpose of getting Ron Paul elected president. There is even an Internet channel dedicated to nothing but All Ron Paul, 24/7, called Ron Paul Nation TV.
As the media are starting to concede, Ron Paul isn't going anywhere. Now it's time for all the people over at Red State and Town Hall to realize that they don't have to settle for another neoconservative, big-spending, nation-builder and to join the Ron Paul Revolution.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 89 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Colette von Hessen only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Colette von Hessen is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
"Governor George W. Bush is GOP's only hope in this presidential election." -Dr. Jerry Falwell 03/19/2000
Here we go again. Next we'll run up the Homeland Security "Red' flag. Whatever it takes, the end always justifies the means. Now that Falwell, Kennedy, and Humbard have departed, Hopefully, God will again appear in Oral Robert's living room, while he's reading a mystery novel, and tell us what to do. Got to go, we're picking an abortion clinic this evening, and hopefully I'll get home in time to tune into Fox News, to see what the body count was in Iraq today.
I hate to break it to you Bob, but Hillary is Bush's choice in 2008. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate to take a strong stand against the War, the Patriot Act, and all the various liberty destroying legislation of the Bush Era. All your famous democrats voted for it while speaking as though they opposed it (classic Orwellian hypocracy from the center-left). And as for their huge-government eugenics, no thank you. Ron Paul is about individual freedom, a concept Hillary and company have no understanding of.
"You hate to break it to me." Break what? I said nothing about Hillary. "All your famous Democrats?" My famous Democrats? I'm a registered Republican. Judging by this all-knowing reply from you that shows you don't know squat, one would have every right to assume that you're a far right-wing neo-conservative who intentionally marked the wrong answers on the libertarian test. Are you one of George's Patriot Act spies? As far as this ex-libertarian Dr. Paul goes, at least he had the courage to get into the real election this time. As far as I'm concerned he's as good as any of the others. I'd vote for him, but voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil. So why not go with the real thing, Fred Thompson. We don't have to guess about his integrity, as if that's been a concern since John Adams.
It is the Republican Party which has become out-of-step with the American voters, not Ron Paul. He is the only candidate who can restore core Republican values to the failing GOP. Many people see him as this country's last hope. This life-long conservative Republican will be voting for Ron Paul, as I encourage others to do the same.
Bob: Huh? Are you saying that Ron Paul is like George W. Bush???
There is no other like George W. Bush. Satan breaks the mold after each of his creatures crawl out.
No, I understand that all the libertarians are hoping and praying for one of their own, even if he is no longer one of their own, to get elected president. One thing is for sure, he couldn't do worse that George.
Bob says: So why not go with the real thing, Fred Thomas. We don't have to guess about his integrity, as if that's been a concern since John Adams.
Who the heck is Fred Thomas?
If you meant Fred Thompson... well using that name and "integrity" in the same sentence (unless combined with the words "man of none" or "questionable") is just rather funny. Dick Nixon used him as a lap-boy, and even then felt that Thompson was "dumb as a rock".
Real integrity is shown by KEEPING your marriage vows (like 50 years marriage with the same woman as Ron Paul has... not 3 different wives like Fred). Real integrity is voting and standing ALONE on an issue -- based on principled beliefs (as Ron Paul has done so solidly in 10 terms); versus selling yourself as a lobbyist to a cause you purportedly oppose (as Fred has done on several occasions).
But why should I (or anyone) argue with someone who doesn't even know the name of his favored candidate.
Holy cow. You people sound like starved kittens. Has it been that bad being on the outside looking in? "Ron Paul is the only candidate with verifiable integrity." Ron Paul is the GOP's only hope" "Thank you for this wonderful and well-written article." I'm not sure if I've opened the door to a vacuum cleaner salesmen or I'm at a speaking in tongues Pentecostal Church meeting. The one thing I am sure of is that I'm the only one posting on this page who can relate to George Armstrong Custer at the Little Big Horn.
A well written piece. Would that our local state legislators get behind the only real Jeffersonian liberal in the race: Dr. Ron Paul. We need the state primary wins or Hillary gets the nod.
Posted By: Rick Levandowski
Date: 2007-10-17 05:28:46
Ron hasn't flip-flopped every other year on some issue to garner the re-election or placate some lobbyist unlike SO many of the other contenders. I could go down the list of the actors, carpet-baggers, and dynasty-minded folks or mention why voters keep electing millionaires to represent the common man but that'd take volumes.
Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is insanity - - let's address the root of the problems we face, not the symptoms.
"Get behind the only real Jeffersonian liberal in the race: Dr. Ron Paul."
Jeffersonian? Isn't that the dogma of the guy who denounced slavery, but had slaves, never freed any of them, had sex with several of the female slaves, and at least one of them had his child; paid people to write lies about a man he claimed was his best friend, John Adams, a man who had asked him to write the Declaration of Independence instead of doing it himself? As I said on CNN; there are more hypocrites and two-faced cowards in the U.S. of A. today than there are flees. But then, George W. Bush's two terms proved that point beyond a doubt. Will, libertarian beetles enjoy yourselves, and here's hoping you get your fill of whatever comes out of this politician's backside, for all the good it'll due you. He'll not even come close to being the Republican candidate.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-10-17 07:57:15
Bob:
Yup, that's the same Jefferson. He's also the same Jefferson who wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
About half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were slaveholders. Shall we therefore reject the Declaration of Independence as a great and important document? Jefferson included a powerful rejection of slavery in his first version of the Declaration, but the southern planters at the convention in Philadelphia had that wording removed.
There's no question that Jefferson was a hypocrite on slavery. There is also no question that he was slavery's most vocal opponent in government among his generation, having tried on six different occasions to introduce legislation to eliminate slavery. He almost won one time. In 1784, he introduced in Congress (under the Articles of Confederation) an Ordinance which, if passed, would have emancipated all slaves and ended slavery 80 years earlier than it finally happened. Jefferson and Williamson of North Carolina voted in favor, as did all the northern delegates, and all the other southern delegates voted against. The deciding state was New Jersey which would have voted in favor but lost its vote because one of their delegates, John Beatty, was ill and couldn't attend. He was in favor of the motion. Had he been in attendance to vote, the legislation would have passed. If only Beatty hadn't been incapacitated by illness, our nation's history would have been quite different!
To be Jeffersonian is to believe in smaller government. This is true irrespective of the fact that Jefferson only freed six of his slaves at his death (and a few more during his lifetime). By the way, that's a point you were wrong about Bob. He did free some of them (not none as you suggested), although he should have freed all of them.
Finally, your point about John Adams is inaccurate. Adams was never Jefferson's best friend. They were friendly and respected each other greatly at the time of the writing of the Declaration. However, James Madison was a much closer friend to Jefferson, as was James Monroe.
Adams and Jefferson were merely friendly in Philadelphia and corresponded thereafter. They became political enemies beginning with Adams' term as President, to whom Jefferson was Vice-President. Adams first act was to try to send Jefferson to France again, in part because he felt threatened by Jefferson's influence domestically and wanted him as far away as possible. Jefferson had recently returned from France after many years away from home and didn't want to go back there. Adams told Jefferson (in Jefferson's words), "that it would have been the first wish of his heart to have got me to go there, but that he supposed it was out of the question, as it did not seem justifiable for him to send away the person destined to take his place in case of accident to himself, nor decent to remove from competition one who was a rival in the public favor." It was clear that Adams intended to shut Jefferson out of the day-to-day operations of the government as much as possible from day one, and that's exactly what ended up happening.
Your example of Adams becomes an excellent example of how Jefferson was a small government advocate, while Adams was a big-government Federalist. Adams sent John Marshall, Charles C. Pinckney, and Elbridge Gerry to France, where they were rebuffed by Talleyrand, now Minister of Affairs, because Tallyrand had been socially ostracized in Philadelphia. Tallyrand demanded a $250,000 bribe in order to allow the building of relations between France and the United States. This chain of events led Adams and his Federalist Congress to pass twenty war measures against France and with Adams making a fiery speech in Congress to rally public opinion in favor of war, which Jefferson privately called, "insane." [source: Thomas Jefferson, An Intimate History, by Fawn M Brodie, WW Norton & Co., NY, 1974]
It wasn't until they were both old men that their friendship was restored. So no, Adams and Jefferson were nowhere near best friends.
I didn't say Jefferson was Adams' friend. I said Jefferson's best friend, John Adams. Jefferson's friend was Jefferson. But Adams pushed his young friend Jefferson in front of others who thought little of him. He refused to believe that Jefferson was a back stabbing, racist, and lying hypocrite. The Louis and Clark Expedition and Louisiana Purchase do not in any way dilute or excuse Jefferson's lack of integrity and hypocrisy. However, like millions who excuse and justify George W. Bush, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton's behavior just to mention a few, millions do so for Jefferson. And by all means let the people of Iowa make whatever excuse for honoring Senator Craig they desire even if he failed to honor God, family, office, and himself. Let the Bush family get the felony convection of Ken Lay expunged. So what if it cost the people twenty-two million to convict him. At least now the rest of us don't have to listen to Libertarians sing their "lesser evil" song. That is, until the general election.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-10-17 13:59:15
So if Jefferson's best friend was John Adams, why did Adams try to push Jefferson out of any effective role in Adams' administration, despite the fact that Jefferson was elected as his Vice-President? Is that the action of a "best friend"? That fact is that he and Jefferson had been rivals in the election, and Adams resented Jefferson's presence in his government.
And if Adams was Jefferson's best friend, what were Madison and Monroe to Jefferson...swiss cheese? Madison lived down the road from Jefferson and was a frequent visitor to Monticello. Ditto for Monroe. Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all lived within about 50 miles of each other. Adams lived in Boston, more than 600 miles away. Not exactly near enough for a weekend jaunt.
Besides, you understate the other delegates' admiration of Jefferson in Philadelphia. It's not true that Adams, "pushed his young friend Jefferson in front of others who thought little of him." The truth is that the Continental Congress had many, many committees during its months of deliberations, and Jefferson had ended up on a lot of them. It was in the course of this experience that the other delegates gained their admiration for Jefferson, not because of anything Adams said of him. It had become clear to everyone that the shy, quiet young man from Virginia wasn't much of a public speaker (he rarely spoke at all during Congressional deliberations), but he was a whale of a writer and worked hard on the committees where he served. The delegates' level of their admiration of Jefferson was already high when they asked him to serve on the drafting committee.
Sorry, but your claim doesn't wash.
Besides, what makes you think I'm not going to continue to sing the "lesser of two evils" song? Because of Jefferson? You wish! I'll sing that anytime I find people trying to justify that tawdry concept.
I'm not sure I would have voted for Jefferson for President. More likely, I would have been ready to revolt and sided with the Whiskey Rebellion during Washington's administration and kicked the bums out.
However, there is a long list of current candidates I am absolutely sure I won't (and wouldn't) support in 2008. So you can be sure I'll be singing the "evils" song right through the primaries. In fact, I'll probably sing it the rest of my life.
But getting back to our topic. Jefferson was far from perfect, but he had some strong points, and he has come to be identified (rightly or wrongly) with the impetus for smaller government So when libertarians (and some non-libertarians) describe themselves as "Jeffersonian," they're referring to the ideal, not necessarily to the man.
Sing your song until you get laryngitis if it pleases you, Walt. No one with the mindset of a libertarian will ever have his or her name on the Oval Office. Libertarians deny the existence of “society” and “the public.” If this sounds outlandish, consider the following observations by three prominent libertarians. First, Margaret Thatcher: “There is no such thing as society – there are individuals and there are families.” Next Ayn Rand: “There is no such entity as ‘the public,’ since the public is merely a number of individuals.” Finally, Frank Chodorov: “Society is a collective concept and nothing else; it is a convenience for designating a number of people."
The implications of these pronouncements are radical in the extreme, for if there is no such thing as “a public,” it follows that there are no “public goods” or “public interest,” apart from summation of private goods and interests. Moreover, if there is no society, it follows that there are no “social problems,” there is no “social injustice,” and there are no “victims of society.” The poor presumably choose their condition; poverty is the result of “laziness” or, as the religious right would put it, a “sin.” There are further implications. Since there is no such thing as a “public,” taxation for the support of such “so-called” public institutions as education, libraries, the arts, parks and recreation, is coercive seizure of private property, or “theft.” All Dan Brosseau, a libertarian with the Picayune newspaper in New Orleans, could write about was how people should take care of their own property and welfare. Boy has his tune changed. He's got his big libertarian hand out for all that big government aid he can get. His whining can be heard in Seattle when the wind is out of the South.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-10-18 04:14:28
First of all, Margaret Thatcher and Ayn Rand were conservatives, and Frank Chodorov was an anarchist. None of them were libertarians, although it is true that some libertarians like to say that Chodorov and Rand were libertarians. Chodorov lived before the word itself existed, and Rand explicitly rejected libertarian thought, although many people (including those same libertarians) don't realize it. There was very little about Margaret Thatcher that most libertarians would consider libertarian. She was very much of a Reagan conservative.
Second, I agree that the public is a group of individuals, not a single collective entity. It is extremely misleading to think of the public as a single, living, breathing entity, separate from the individuals who make it up. I also agree that "society" doesn't cause poverty, because society is nothing more than this same group of people. Unless one can prove that there is a conspiracy of some kind among the whole of society to empoverish, I don't really see how society can be blamed for poverty.
I do not believe that poverty is caused by "laziness or "sin." I believe that the primary cause of poverty is government. It does so in a number of ways, none of which are intended by those in power who cause that poverty.
(1) Taxation is the number one cause of poverty. Regulation, particularly of small business, is the number two cause. Public education is the number three cause. These factors work together to deter people in poverty from making a better life for themselves than merely working at McDonalds. As anyone who has ever tried to create their own business enterprise on a shoestring knows, the government is your worst enemy. I know from personal experience how difficult it is to create and run a business that produces enough income to pay off the government before I'm allowed to use whatever is left over to pay my rent and put food on the table. Government is the primary reason why 98% of all new business ventures fail. Between a daunting array of government filings and requirements, lack of capitalization due primarily to all the ways government distorts economic functions, and the poor themselves having been trained in public schools to be good factory workers who take direction and not people who can stand on their own two feet and think for themselves, the poorest enterpreneurs have little or no chance anymore. The day-to-day ability to operate a business is beyond the reach of most poor people for these very reasons. As a result, only a tiny minority of poor people ever successfully leave their crushing circumstances behind anymore.
(2) Government creates poverty by "fighting" it. Poverty levels have increased dramatically in this country ever since President Johnson declared War on Poverty, according to the government's own claims and figures. The late Harry Browne expressed this concept best when he wrote in 1996 in his book Why Government Doesn't Work, "However, it won't be so easy to survive the devastation wrought by the Great Society programs of the 1960s and early 1970s. For millions of Americans these programs destroyed the belief that you must earn what you enjoy. Instead, the government is now considered responsible for everything any American might need or want."
(3) Socialism, the idea that the "public" should be responsible for a variety of "public" functions including helping the poor through government redistribution of funds, has never worked.
(4) Coercion is the main thing that differentiates government programs from non-governmental programs. Only government can force their programs to take effect at the point of a gun. No other institution has the legal power to do this. Charities can't. Companies can't. "Society" can't. Only government can use the legal power of coercion. Only government is an agency of coercion (other than the Mafia and other criminal enterprises). Coercion for the "public good" always produces the opposite results in the long run from what was intended.
I have no idea who Dan Brosseau is, so I can't comment on him.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-10-18 07:30:10
After I left the previous message, I went out for a walk. During my walk, I realized that I had left out one of the most important ways that government causes poverty. That's the Federal Reserve System.
The Federal Reserve could actually be included in my first point in my message above because it is a form of government regulation. However, it's also the most insidious form. Through its control of the money supply, it puts our country through an endless series of booms and busts. The poor are the worst equipped to handle this cycle and are the most deeply affected by it.
It was the Federal Reserve system, not the stock market crash, which caused the Great Depression. The Fed's policies are what caused and led to the "over exhuberance" of 1920s investors who thought from their limited experience that stock prices must always go up. Fed policy had created that illusion, and when the bust hit, it hit big.
The failure of the banking system in the 1930s was directly caused by Fed policies in the 1920s. Those policies were the main reason that the 1920s were said to have been "roaring." It was the New Deal that perpetuated the Depression in the 1930s, in part by seizing gold and imposing greater monetary control in the hands of the Fed. The high degree of poverty adversely affected the thinking of an entire generation, who didn't realize what the cause of their misery was and ended up turning for assistance to the very same institution that had caused those problems in the first place: the Federal government. Unhappily, this tendency continues to exist today.
Today, the Federal Reserve system in conjuction with all of the rest of big government has created a financial colossus that is leading our country to the brink of financial disaster (as Bob knows very well).
By the way, Bob, our discussion here has gone far beyond the original scope of the article on this page. I'm not going to post any more replies to your commentary on this page. I suggest that if you want to continue this discussion, you should create a columnist account for yourself and write an article detailing your position. I'll be happy to provide feedback there, and we can continue the discussion.
I was wrong, at least according to the BBC. They're predicting that Dr. Paul will mop up before the GOP National Convention. Now how the British of all people would know this beats me. Are there a lot of Libertaris in England or is this an honest to goodness poll?
Go Ron!!! I think it's interesting to note that as far as my home town goes I have seen no Democractic or Republican presidential candidate yard signs other than three of them for Ron Paul.
Without hopefully getting into a pointless argument with Bob, who somehow thinks Fred Thompson is a righteous man and not a neo-con nut, which I believe he very much is, Ron Paul is the only conservative in the pack and the only candidate worth voting for if you believe in small government and individual freedom (which are founding principles of this country). As for his honesty and candor, RP's record backs it up like no other, period. He's lived his principles and voted the exact same way for 10 congressional terms. He is the antithesis of today's politician. Now no offense to Ronald Reagan, but his 2 terms were filled with concessions to liberals, though many conservatives hate to admit it. His administration was loaded with Bush neo-cons, who were clearly there to subvert the true conservative ideal and pursue the insane "new world order" foolishness. The government expanded under Reagan, then Bush. Bottom Line: We don't need another phony aristocrat/actor in the White House. We need a public servant that truly serves the public. We already know RP won't take dirty money, because he never has. He's well known for his commitment to serving the tax payer (he's voted the Tax Payers' Best Friend consistently, never voted for tax increase, etc.). Who else can make that claim? Who else goes on TV and says "no pay raises for us"? To call Ron Paul "evil" is to basically presume that all politicians are evil with no exception. It could be the case, given the corrupting nature of power, but I'll put my faith in RP for now and see what happens. But I'll be sure to watch some re-runs of Law and Order to gain a better sense of Fred Thompson's impeccable character.
Ron Paul is clearly the best choice for President. He is very intelligent & freedom oriented. I don't want any 'mandatory healthcare insurance' to be imposed on me or on anybody else who sees it as wasting money! Voting for either Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani would be too expensive for the next four years. I wouldn't want to vote for anybody other than him for the President & will put my money where my mouth is November 5th!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
