Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

What Is Normal?

December 2, 2011 by  

What Is Normal?

“I like Ron Paul’s ideas on the economy, but I can’t vote for him because he’s an isolationist on foreign policy. He’s a kook (or naïve, or nuts or insert your own word) on foreign affairs.” That’s a common theme heard in discussions about the Republican Presidential aspirants.

What that means is that pushing Middle Eastern countries around and imposing our will on them is more important to so-called conservatives than getting our financial house in order. They — they being so-called conservatives — have decided that our national security can be served only by bullying smaller countries and installing dictators “friendly” to the United States. And it’s perfectly normal to believe this way, they think.

Americans are being terrorized by their own government. How? The constant drumbeat about Iran’s nuclear efforts. The same people who so vehemently declared that Iraq was close to having “the Bomb” — the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations, the CIA, Israel, etc. — are telling us the same thing about Iran. The GOP beauty contestants — save one — are promising one of or a combination of regime change, sanctions, the freezing of assets and/or no-fly zones for Iran should they be elected. These are all acts of war or preludes to war.

When the Hosni Mubarak regime began cracking down on anti-government protesters in Egypt, Americans expressed outrage. Mubarak, who was friendly to Israel and the U.S. and had benefited from billions of U.S. dollars, was suddenly persona non grata. President Barack Obama told him it was time to step down. Mubarak was tossed aside like a used table napkin.

A military government took over. Protesters are again occupying Egypt’s Tahrir Square.

When protesters — who we now know were members of al-Qaida — began protesting in Libya, Obama joined with NATO to quash President Moammar Gadhafi’s military and throw him out of office. A similar thing is about to happen in Syria.

In 1860 in the United States, South Carolina seceded from the Union. Six States soon followed. After the Battle of Fort Sumter, four more joined the Confederacy. President Abraham Lincoln attacked the Southern States to force them back into subjection. Most Americans see Lincoln’s actions as just and necessary. But they have a dichotomy. While they support Lincoln’s actions to “preserve” America, they oppose the actions of foreign rulers to keep their governments in power.

In Russia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is running for Russian President. What if he said he was advocating regime change in a former Soviet state: Georgia for instance? What would be the reaction of Americans? We know that Russian actions there in the South Ossetia war were highly condemned in 2008 by neocon hawks like Senator John McCain.

What if China suddenly acted on its designs toward Taiwan? What would be the reaction of Americans?

For most Americans, it was good and just for the American government to use military action to quash a rebellion 151 years ago, but other governments can’t do that today. And for most Republicans, America’s foreign policy should remain that we push around Middle Eastern, African and Persian countries — or anyone else, for that matter — and install our chosen dictators because we have some moral obligation to “spread democracy.”  But other countries should not be allowed to spread their preferred form of government or install their own preferred dictators.

Republican voters believe this way and see this as a normal policy. What about this is normal?

Ron Paul wants to end foreign entanglements, maintain a strong national defense and get our financial house in order; but Republicans believe him to be the kook.

Which is the more rational, less kooky policy? What is normal?

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “What Is Normal?”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Jon

    Simple and to the point. Spot on great article.

    • LexRex

      Amen! As usual Bob is “Spot on!”

    • http://LibertyAlert Bud

      If you recall Barry Goldwater brought the message of conservatism and Ronald Regan benefited by his message. Ron Paul brings the message of less government and someone will benefit and institute his teachings. Give Ron Paul the credit of presenting a strong message that will hopefully be carried out by someone who has voter appeal.

      • Ann

        Ron has plenty of appeal with the voters. Despite a stubborn and concentrated pattern of denial and obfuscation by the media, he polls with the best chance against Obama of all the Republicans. It is not the voters, it is the media with whom he doesn’t have appeal. If they would report evenly, he would be winning with a landslide at this point.

        • ‘jake

          By his own admission he does not expect to be elected (age 76), but as noted, his ideas and positions will be adopted by another Conservative, (add your own requirements), Fiscal Responsible Republican. THEN, “We The People” may have someone to support.

  • s c

    Bob, in American politics, doing the wrong thing at the wrong time for the wrong reason is ‘normal’ (and protected and held up as the ideal status quo in Washington). Rational, in the functional sense, means the exact opposite of ‘normal.’
    Unfortunately, America is so close to fading away that ‘normal’ and rational will be defined and re-defined often, and I suspect that the final decision makers will be the current herd of elected suspects in Washington.
    Up the rebels, and a pox or two of every possible description on those who think they are ‘elite.’

  • smitty

    Ron Paul can never, unfortunately, be elected. He is too honest, too pragmatic, too patriotic for the mass of American sheeple used to government handouts. I am not a Libertarian, but Ron Paul causes all other candidates to pale with insignificance. If “isolationist” means that one considers bringing order to one’s own house higher priority than concern for other houses, call me isolationist.

    • Troy Crowe

      I totally agree that we need our own house in order, but I do not agree with the ostrich mantality.

      • Brian

        That Isn’t the mentality. There is a huge difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.

        • Cliffystones

          Brian,

          Correct sir. I have great respect for Dr. Paul and his positions. Where he fails, IMO, is in his ability to articulate those positions to the larger populace. Sure, I get it, you get it, Bob Livingston gets it, etc. But the simple fact is that we don’t constitute a winning majority. He’s got to improve his communications drastically to get his message across to all of those “sheeple” out there, who (unfortunately) vote too.

          He stands in a debate on national television and makes a statement to the effect of “it’s none of our business if Iran gets nukes”. Then in another statement he equates Iran having nukes with the former Soviet Union having them.
          Now I (and others who will surely comment) realize that he’s speaking to the Constitution and the principles of the founding fathers. But the average soccer mom or Joe six-pack sees this, combined with the creative editing of the alphabet soup networks, and says “this guy sounds crazy!”

          To reiterate, Ron Paul’s positions themselves are great, but his communication of those policies needs a lot of work. Or I suppose you could say “simplification” in order to get across to all of the Constitutionally-illiterate Americans with voting rights. And regardless of our opinions of those voters, many of them will be needed for a Ron Paul win

          • DaveH

            What is it you want, Cliffystones? Are you advocating for Ron Paul to dumb down his message so ignorant people can embrace it? If people like Ron Paul dumb down their messages, how do you expect ignorant people to become knowledgeable people?
            I think Ron is doing exactly the right thing — waking up those who have a brain but have been stupefied for decades by the propaganda schools and the MSM.

          • Rcaston

            Until our illustrious education system teaches people the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism we will have a hard time getting Paul’s foreign policy position across. I am amazed at the sheer lack of understanding people here and elsewhere have regarding what it means to be an isolationist, which is what Paul is always accused of, versus a non-interventionist which is what he really is. He, nor our founding fathers, has ever proposed that we take an isolationist position in the world. That basically means that we “isolate” ourselves from the rest of the world and wish to have nothing to do with it. Being non-interventionist means we mind our own business and leave people alone to run their own countries the way they see fit. The founders simply said as long as you don’t bother us you need not worry about us bothering you. We wish to enter into no “entangling alliances”. But we would be happy to trade with you even if we don’t agree with you or even like you. But if you attack us in any way we will absolutely destroy you with overwhelming force and no rules of engagement. Just total destruction. We would not have to do this but once and the world would get the message would they not? So believed our founders. Does this sound like anything America does today? Of course not. We are in EVERYBODY’S business. We act as if the world belongs to us and we get to tell everyone else how they must live. Is it any wonder that we are so disliked today? Ron Paul understands this dangerous position America takes today and wants no part of it. So remember, for the hard headed out there, it is non-interventionist, NOT isolationist. Class dismissed.

          • Geno Zomparelli

            Cliffy,

            I respect your concerns about Ron Paul. I thought that way once too. But then I realized that we should not make it about Ron Paul. He alone is not going to make a difference. IT IS UP TO EACH ONE OF US. We have to carry his message and help others understand what this is about. We are the ones. We have to be the change we want to see in this country. We have to explain Ron Paul’s message to everyone we know. When people wake up the meaning of his message will make sense. The truth is obvious when we remove the blinders from the sheeple.

          • Cliffystones

            “Are you advocating for Ron Paul to dumb down his message so ignorant people can embrace it?”

            No, just develop a watered-down version for the less-informed. Ya’ know “Dick and Jane, see Liberal run…., see lazy control freak”, etc.

            “If people like Ron Paul dumb down their messages, how do you expect ignorant people to become knowledgeable people?”

            I have no expectations that they ever will. I’m really on your side here. But the fact is that people with the political savvy of a Golden Retriever still have the right to vote. And I would so love it if Ron Paul actually won. But this means that Ron and folks like us need to do the job of undoing years and years of damage done by the Liberals and the public schools, whether we would like to or not. Either that or prevent the same idiots that elected Obama from voting in the next election.

          • TML

            The truth doesn’t need to be wrapped in a big red bow for the average person to understand it. When he says “it’s none of our business”, is pretty straight and to the point and everyone gets it.
            It’s fear that causes people to not agree with him, and/or say he is crazy for such things… and fear alone takes away their reason.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1207123702 marty

            I would like to say that I believe he gets his message across just fine. The real problem is that the powers that be in this country, the Zionist media, are doing their very best to keep his message from getting through. While they do that, they are also in the process of trying to marginalize him by putting the whacko label on him. I have no doubt that the Zionists in the US and the government of Israel (not Jews) would like nothing better than to exact revenge for WWII by starting WWIII. They refuse to be deterred although they must be. I myself am a Jew and I can see this very clearly. The problem in America is that money is more valuable than life itself and when the Zionists own the media, the banks and everything else in between, it makes it rather difficult for the truth of Dr. Paul’s message to ring true. Unfortunately only 15% of the American population get their news from the internet, while 45% get it from TV. It’s a tough uphill climb. The best that we can hope for is that this grassroots campaign not only gets their message out over the internet, but on the street as well where people talk face to face with each other. One other method would be for people to donate as much as they can to his campaign, so that he can buy advertising on TV as well. The other day, his campaign put out the Gingrich hypocrite video, and although it went viral on the internet, it was barely a bleep on the TV news. The Jewish Republican debate which is upcoming has also refused to allow Dr. Paul to participate because of his “whacko” views. They should be marginalized and boycotted, so get the word out to people you know to write whatever station the debate will appear on, and give them a piece of your mind. Tell them that you will discontinue to watch their station or purchase their advertisers products. The best way to marginalize them is to get out on the internet the following day and announce that Paul won the debate handily (even though he didn’t even participate).

          • Jimbo

            What IS the difference between Iran having nukes and the Soviets (or Red Chinese) having nukes? The Soviet leaders said, “We will bury you!” I can’t recall the Iranians threatening us with annihilation.

          • Joe H

            clifftstones,
            I think Dr. Paul gets his message across just fine, WHEN HE IS ALLOWED TO!!! He doesn’t need to change his delivery, he just needs court ordered EQUALITY! The law states that if candidate A gets 20 minutes of time on the media, then candidate B has to be allowed equal time!! This is the reason the bar owner on Walker, Texas ranger had to leave the show during the run up to the elections in his town. He was running for office and people were raising hell about the prime time exposure he was getting without his opponent getting the same! WELL HOW ABOUT EQUAL TIME FOR RON PAUL?!?!?!?

          • Leslie Short

            Joe H.,

            You only get “equal time” if you bow down to the PTB. Ron Paul DOES NOT and WILL NOT do that. That’s why I’m voting for Ron Paul.

          • daniel

            i have always been and always will be in Ron Paul’s corner ,but tonight’s debate was a total failure for our side.this by far was his worst night yet. if he don’t start explaining his position a little better we will lose,and thats the last thing we want. he needs to just calm down and explain his position like he’s talking to a bunch of first graders because most americans have been dumbed down for so long that you have to explain for example what the constitution is all about, of course most of us here already know what it is but alot of americans dont..

          • Ann

            I can’t tell you how many times I have come away from watching a debate or interview thinking that Ron has finally gone too far, been too honest, or too intellectual and the gains he has made will be lost;only to find out he has actually risen in the polls that matter. The ones that include independents and disaffected democrats (who have already changed registration) are the ones that actually predict a win or loss. Come November, anyone can vote for either candidate and if we manage our convention right, Ron could be on that ballot.
            In short, stay the course and have faith. Dr. Paul has great wisdom and I think someone greater than all of us must be on his side.

          • Erik

            You are 100% right sir! Whats gonna happen is Ron Paul will end up running on a seperate ticket.He will secure a good part of the votes thus putting obuma back in office for another 4 years! End of game! End of america!

        • Larry Maynard

          So why would you think we have the right to dictate our ideologies on other governments and societies. You probably want to tell me how I should live my life too. We can’t even take care of our problems and I’m not so sure the majority of americans want to police the world. If we were a good example we wouldn’t have to force our views on others. Not to mention that our leaders are stripping us of our rights and liberties as fast as they can. Less government, no neocons and no socialists. Give our country back to the people and take it away from the slime bag politicians.

        • APN

          T Cliffystones says:

          Right on target!!!! Ron Paul is a good man with good ideas but a poor communicator, at best! Simply put, he is not electable, nor is he presidential, and that is hard for many folks to swallow. When the libertarian party presents someone that is, then I’m all ears. Until then, well, I hate it for you, because it ain’t going to happen.

          • APN

            ….and one other thing Daniel….I am a conservative with a libertarian slant, and what you just said is very condescending and will not help the libertarian cause….. What we need is a long range plan to restore constitutional government, by HEAVY THINKERS who understand how to go about implementing REAL CONSTITUTIONAL change.

            Ron Paul is great about pointing out what the constitution says about x, y and z, and I agree with him, however, I’ve yet to hear any substantive comments from him about how to go about implementing that change without throwing the country into total anarchy.

            Simply put, a simplistic view of where we are and how to go about getting it fixed. We all understand at this point why we are where we are, I’m just waiting on the right leader to spell out that long range approach to repairing the damage created by 100+ years of “Progressive Stupidity”. It will not be an easy task!

      • Dorian Douglas

        I agree Tony Crowe.

        First, the choice given that “some people would rather focus on foreign policy rather than get our financial house in order” is a Faustian bargain. WHY NOT BOTH??? It also overlooks the comments from Dr Paul that he’s OK with Iran having nuclear bombs (made several times).

        Second, the history narrative is correct. But it is also mostly (not totally) irrelevant. Different times, different places, but mostly overlooks one of the prime responsibilities of our government: defense of our country TODAY. And preventative medicine is often just as important in nat’l defense as it is in health. (Would we have been better off helping Europe to take on Hitler in 1939, as opposed to waiting until 12/7/41?)

        Yes we can argue that our leaders in Washington haven’t always done well in that regard, and I would stand with all who read this on some (not all) of those instances. But that doesn’t mean we should give it up. It means we need to be more diligent in picking our leaders.

        Dr Paul for Treasury Secretary! I can support that.

        • Geno Zomparelli

          @Dorian Douglas:

          You are falling for the Red Herrings presented by the mainstream media. You have to understand the agenda behind all the wars. If you want to get a good idea of what is really going on i suggest you read “The Creature From Jekyll Island” and “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.” Then you realize that our government is not so benevolent when it comes to defending our borders and ensuring security for Americans. Our government has successfully implemented the Hegelian Dialectic to control the masses and have its way with the world. The government creates the problem (terrorism) to create a reaction (fear) and then propose a solution (war). Until we see the corrupt influences behind American foreign policy we will continue to be trapped in this false dialectic.

          • Annette

            Exactly we are less secure by thinking our Government has our security in mind, wake up Dorian you are not seeing the full picture. Ron Paul is the only hope for us to have any form of Liberty and freedom,then it is up to us to get rid of the virus that has taken over our Government his election does not end the fight.

          • Joe H

            Ron Paul with a number of true conservatives in congress to increase their influence! I’m not talking RINOs, either. I’m talking true constitutional conservatives!!

        • APN

          WOW Dorian….Dr. Paul…treasury Secretary????….. I’ll buy that for a dollar!………Bea-uti-mus!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • PATRIOT 101

      Smitty,
      The global financial meltdown being perpetrated by international bankers in coordinated cahoots with (supposedly) our FEDERAL RESERVE BANK are in the process of completely destroying our dollar. The Federal Reserve Bank is the greatest threat to Americans right now, a much greater threat than Iran.
      Our dollar is being devalued/diluted now by printing dollars for Europe! It is total BS that they tell us this is not going to “hurt” our dollar. That is completely false and the dollar will collapse shortly. Mayhem will ensue.

      • dano

        Ditto

      • JC

        Exactly right.

      • JeffH

        Hear Hear! I believe what the Feds and the central banks are proposing to do is a sign of open desperation…they need to insure the IMF and the EU are totally beholding to them and this move could further expand the inflation problems we’re facing here in the US.

        This move is supposed to ease the Euro financial market conditions, but it does nothing to address the underlying problems creating those conditions. So this is no substitute for the difficult decisions that Europe must make to overcome its troubles.

      • APN

        Patriot….YEP!!! Exactly!!! The ensuing pain from our “Progressive Stupidity” will be WIDE, LONG and CONTINUOUS! The DOW will be at or below 3,000 before end of summer 2012, latest, and the unemployment rate will be 20-25%, at best.

    • Millicent

      I can’t wait for that old coot idiot Ron Paul to fade away into the sunset. His views are as bad as the Kenyan’s on the international front. Either one of this idiots will get us into WWIII. Ron Paul is dangerous.

      • Realist

        Dr Paul is Dangerous. He poses a clear and present danger to all globalists, NEOCONS, RINOs, Zionists and the ignorant. Which category do you fit in?

        • Brian

          Hear, hear!

        • Millicent

          I fall into the category of someone who understand what Islam is all about. Ron Paul is an Antisemitic pork receiving dangerous idealogue. He is as dangerous as Obama, the Commie. If you think it’s okay for Iran to have nukes, you are out of your libertarian mind. The goal of Islam is world domination. They have VOWED TO DESTROY ISRAEL, CHRISTIANS AND WESTERNERS. What part of that don’t you believe? They are waiting for their Mahdi and the fake Jesus to return to help them in their “holy war”. Anyone who will not submit to Sharia Law will be beheaded their favorite form of murder. Ignoring them is the stupidest thing anyone can do.

          • Geno Zomparelli

            Milli:

            Islam can dominate the world without using guns or violence. In fact they already won the fight for world dominance. How? Look at the birth rate statistics for White Caucasians and compare with birth rates for Islamic nations. White Caucasians have a 0.57 birth rate. Islamic nations have a 2.3 birth rate. Now you can choose genocide or you can choose love. AS for me, I prefer love.

          • Average Joe

            Millicent,

            I belive you fall into the catagory of…Fell into a ditch and injured your brain.

          • Joe H

            Average Joe,
            That’s impossible. I believe one has to have said equipment to INJURE it!!!

          • Average Joe

            Joe H,
            Now that’s funny! Thnx for the LOL!

          • JC

            So Ron Paul wanting to put a stop to illegal immigration and reinstate a policy that might stop the wholesale importation of the entire Middle East is a problem for you?

            Wake up Millicent…you’re not thinking clearly.

          • Helen2

            Millicent – read your Bible again. When the Muslim Mahdi appears, so does Jesus appear on the Mount of Olives! I’d like to see the Muslims intimidate Christ as the mount splits in two halves when His feet land on it. In addition, he’s coming back with His church to take care of the unbelievers and put this world to rights. I don’t care if Iran has Nukes either. They won’t have any effect on Jesus or the saints coming with him. I’m actually looking forward to that time. So give poor
            Ron Paul a break, he’s only stating that because he believes Jesus is coming back too. He’s not worried and why should we be if we believe in Jesus and His Father who are going to fix things once and for all.

      • DaveH

        Let me get this straight, Millicent. Do you believe that you can go on your neighbor’s property, discipline his kids, push him around, and dictate his choices without a resulting fight?

        • Dan

          If you believe that does it justify terrorism and killing of innocents?

          • DaveH

            Of course not, Dan. That comes under self-defense. But preemptive strikes make us the Aggressors.

          • DaveH

            And as I pointed out in another comment, Dan, the US has killed far more Muslims than Muslims have killed Americans.
            I don’t like pushy controlling Muslims anymore than I like pushy controlling Americans.

          • Joe H

            DaveH.
            While i agree 100% with your post, I do believe that we have to start lowering the quota for immigrating Muslims!! We have far too many in some areas like Dearborn michigan and they are taking over the areas they settle into. not a biggot, just not a fan of sharia law!!

          • DaveH

            Joe,
            I think that is symptomatic of our crumbling Freedom. The Muslims wouldn’t have been able to take over Dearborn as they do without Government ignoring their trespasses on peoples’ Freedom.

          • bob wire

            dave says;” And as I pointed out in another comment, Dan, the US has killed far more Muslims than Muslims have killed Americans.”

            I’ve heard it said that Muslims kill Muslims more then anyone else. Now , if that is true. it’s tells us a few things.

            1. this 2 to 1 born ratio of Muslims over Americans is misleading.

            2. Muslims culture has an inherent predisposition to Murder, Rape and Kill.

            3. The culture is primitive and less civilized then European and Western Cultures

            4. The sanctity of life is held in lesser regard and superseded by religious belief that is not user friendly while reflect rigid ancient “tribal laws & customs” that are lacking in addressing many of today’s social issues and the demands of 21st century life.

            5. Practicing Muslim men on the average are sexual repressed deviants that hold women is low regard while lust for them so that they feel it an affront to God and sinful, then defer their own “guilt” to women. “The old Eve,the snake and forbidden fruit thing” played over and over again. ~ “SHE made me do it” defense to inappropriate acts of “free will”

        • Casey

          Sounds like what is happening to parents these days, doesn’t it?

        • Ted Crawford

          If he, or his children are bandying a weapon and thretening to use it on me or my friends, I wouldn’t be worring about a fight I’de take action, it wouldn’t matter if the weapon was functional or not. The only way for me to find out is for him to use it. that i’de try to stop!

        • Rick

          I can’t speak for Millicent, but will say this. If I have a neighbor who is plotting to do great harm or even death to my OTHER neighbor, and I have the ability to stop them, I will do so. Ron Paul stated very clearly that it was none of our business if Iran nukes Israel. WHAT?! I am sorry, but in my mind, that position is indefensible and morally bankrupt. I completely agree that our broken economy is job number one, but also believe that it can be fixed along with helping to defend our friends in the rest of the world.

          • Millicent

            Thank you for another rational viewpoint backing up what I have said. It would not matter to thos lunatics over there if we left them alone. They will NEVER LEAVE US ALONE.

          • Joe H

            Rick,
            first, that is your business as it is within the neighborhood you live in. Now answer this. If you knew the info you tout,but your neighbor was every bit able to take care of the other neighbor, and then some, why interfere more than to warn him?? Israel has already said it will not stand for Iran getting nukes even to a unilateral attack. Israel has also said they DON’T WANT the US to help militarily. they can take care of Iran all by their lonesome and have done so before!!!

          • DaveH

            What is rational, Millicent, about you fabricating reality?
            The United States has been in Islam’s face far more than Islam has been in the United States’ face. The US has landed squarely in the camp of the Aggressors. There isn’t a conflict that we don’t get involved with unless the Russians or the Chinese are involved (they fight back). The US has its nosy nose in practically every other country’s business.
            When are you going to face the fact, Millicent, that the US is the Aggressor?

          • DaveH

            Rick,
            Israel’s disagreements with Iran or others truly is none of our business. If you want to make it yours, then do so, send all the contributions you want, but don’t send MY money.
            But having said that, I doubt that Ron Paul would say such a thing. Do you have any proof?

          • JC

            Rick says:
            December 2, 2011 at 2:29 pm
            I can’t speak for Millicent, but will say this. If I have a neighbor who is plotting to do great harm or even death to my OTHER neighbor, and I have the ability to stop them, I will do so. Ron Paul stated very clearly that it was none of our business if Iran nukes Israel.

            Where and when did he say “exactly that”?

        • APN

          DaveH….only if your neighbor doesn’t have a NUKE but SEEKS one and has stated on the WORLD stage that when he gets one, then he has full intentions of blowing your arse up, family included!

          In fact, try this one here at home and see what happens to you. KNOCK< KNOCK< You open the door….. and say…..Yes, what can I do for you? Mr. DaveH, did you threaten to blow up your neighbor and his family because his religious beliefs are different than yours? Well, yea, I guess so, Mr. Federal Government. In fact, I'm trying to get my hands on a small thermo-nuclear warhead to take out the whole evil lot of them! Result….. Handcuffs, Jail and Trial……or…if you resist, BAAM!!!!! Now, I think the INSANE one in IRAQ is resisting not having a Nuke to kill us, correct?

          What is it you people don't understand about this INSANE idiot in Iran who seeks a nuclear weapon to destroy the major and minor Satan? i.e.; USA and Israel

          We aren't playing horseshoes here and a SMALL one megaton nuke will forever change this nation…..in a BIG drastic way….and you want like it.

      • Angel Wannabe

        Millicent, the only ones that are going to get us involved in WWIII is the Bank Cabal, better get back to reading!

      • Geno Zomparelli

        It is because of people like Millicent that makes me wonder how much time we have left until the America that our founding fathers gave us ceases to exist. When that happens I wonder how smug and righteous Millicent will be then?

        • Angel Wannabe

          G. Zomparelli, Sooo much info on the net, all one has to do is read it, there is no reason NOT to know what’s going on today!
          __I Came on here 2009, all I knew that there was something terribly wrong in America and I was P*ssed off about it!__Knowledge has grown and continues to grow!

          • Joe H

            Angel Wannabe,
            Same here 10-2009. I think you would say I’ve changed a lot in my thinking thanks to a few people here and Bob L.. They have made me research a lot of things. at times it seems like my head will explode at what I learn!!

          • JeffH

            Amen, amen! I’ve learned more in the 2+ years here than in my previous 60 years elsewhere. Learn something every day thanks to all you good folks.

      • Larry Maynard

        Your the idiot wake up fool!

    • http://none bob jones

      Ron Paul most certainly can be elected, why do we think we have to go along with the candidates the corrupt media picks for us, do you really think any of the lame stream/main stream media have the best interests of Americans in mind while they push their latest RINO flavor of the month at us? Mr Paul has finished in the top 3 in virtually all caucuses and polls, but the manipulation by the media has kept that from the public, if he wins a poll, they simply disregard their own poll, if he finishes 2nd, well they just report on who finished 1st and 3rd, and on and on. Ron Paul has more than enough support right now to win, and it is growing,don’t count on the media to give you the facts, that won’t happen. Isn’t it funny how each front running media favorite that has been pushed on us, have crumpled under any real exposure, Romney [ flip flops, his own Obamacare model], Perry [ forced Gardisil vaccinations, open borders, investing in porno shops] Cain [Fed Reserve connections, multiple affairs, lies } Gingrich [climate change cap and taxer, many anti 2nd amendment votes, personal baggage, lobbyist, flip flopper]. None of these phonies will be acceptable to conservatives, but a man like Paul who has voted Constitutionally 100% of the time and does not waiver on his pro-American, pro-life, pro business and unchanging principles of honesty and integrity, should appeal to anyone who is tired of the overwhelming corruption and disregard for the law and the Constitution. For those who are not sold on Mr Paul’s foreign policy, maybe, just maybe, overthrowing the governments of dozens of Middle Eastern, Central American, South American and African counties, with the resulting murders of millons of innocent men, women and children, should no longer be a policy we support. However if murder, genocide and torture is something people feel we need to continue supporting, then by all means continue with the status quo.

      • Mark in LA

        If murder and overthrowing government is what these people think we need, maybe we should enshrine it with a Constitutional amendment. That way we tell the whole world what we are about. Rome never pussy-footed around what it stood for.

      • FreeHumanity

        AMEN to that Bob. AMEN.

      • Betty Jo

        Very good article. I agree with it completely and without reservation.
        George Washington said not to interfere with other countries business!
        We got along fine before we started doing it. what have we gained.
        Only the big bankers and the military-industrial complex has gained and the bildeberbergers! Read APF

      • jbrimmage@hotmail.com

        since so many people are stating to “become” CONcernd with the polytickcal land scape. There needs to be a wake up call of who’s who and or what backing or the intents that the candiate have in their pockets…or who’s pocket they are in..! Like the Rhodes Scholars,…who are they, what do they advocate from their education. Then you have the think tank nerds,….who’s really the money boss’s of them way back in the dark shadows. We have had our edumakation sistem infilltrated sew badlee that we need to gut the
        Dpartmint of edumakation totetally.

    • Bob in Boston

      Saying Ron Paul can’t be elected is ridiculous. He’s currently 1st in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire. He’s already past the tipping point – the last thing we need is people saying he “doesn’t have a chance” when he’s already shown that he’s front-runner and definitely top 3 and on the rise!

      • APN

        Newt Gingrich is polling 1st in Iowa and 2nd place in NH. Not sure where you get your facts but that isn’t the data I’m getting.

        Where are you getting this poll data?

    • Mary

      I sadly agree. Dan is right RP will be assasinated. The media ignore RP and the republican make fun of him. I think they are jealous of how brilliant he is. I don’t subestimate the stupidity of the people that’s why we are in this mess. The republicans have no candidate. The only one is Ron Paul.

      • Brian

        Yep…

      • Larry Maynard

        Ron Paul is the only real candidate that has solutions that will fix the problems. He would also abolish the Patriot Act which is truly un-American. Anyone that voted for the Patriot Act should be tried for treason! Give our rights back!

      • Millicent

        Who would waste a bullet on this moronic imbecile Antisemitic old fool?

        • JeffH

          troll

          • Karolyn

            Jeff – You have more liberals on yoru side for Paul than republicans like Millicent! We do agree on something!

          • Millicent

            Hardly, just realistic. Ron Paul is a non entity

          • Joe H.

            and you millie are a non-intellect!! to put in terms you can understand, you are without a working BRAIN!!!

        • Average Joe

          “Ron Paul is a non entity.”

          If that’ the case (which it isn’t”), then why has Ron Paul got your panties in such a wad? Every single post you’ve made…is about Ron Paul…and how much YOU hate him…well good for you….you have just showed us how you are the perfect poster child…for what’s wrong in the Republican party….Idiots…like you…..
          You have nothing of value to add to this disscussion and your attitude alone is enough to make us want to vote for Ron Paul even more so than we already do….just to piss you off…… Yes, we get it…you are voting for Newt the slippery salamander…Ok, so we now know that Newtie will get one vote…go Newt!…Not!
          You are a liberal (your mindset and attitude give you away)…pretending (and not very well I might add) to be a conservative…..What you truly are…is a LOSER…of the highest caliber.

          Ron Paul/Andrew Napolitano 2012!!!

          The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
          John F. Kennedy

          • Millicent

            To call me a liberal makes you out to be a very angry person because I call Ron Paul out for the fool he is. I get these updates in may email and there is a lot I agree with in them Ron Paul is not one of them. Unfortunately, I have read more posts about how wonderful Ron Paul is and how none of you Ron Paul supporters will bother to vote if he doesn’t get the nomination,which thank God he won’t. I have a right to righteous indignation and to tell you what I think. I want Obama out and I want someone with solutions, not the head in the sand postulation of Ron Paul. Do I agree with everything the other candidates put forth, absolutely not. But I cannot abide a fool who says it’s ok for Iran to have nukes and so what, everyone else does. That is just plain stupidity IMO. If you want to talk about sticking our noses where they don’t belong, Obama the Muslim has done plenty of that. He is busy toppling regimes (which btw, I don’t approve of) to replace them with his buddies the Muslim Brotherhood, thus making the world a more dangerous place.

          • Average Joe

            Millicent,
            (or is that Militant?)

            The only one who seems to be angry here…is you. You’ve shown it in evey single post you’ve made today…every single one. We get it…you don’t like Ron Paul…whoopie, we’re happy for you. Now, since you have made it obvious how you feel, you feel the need to keep saying the same thing over and over…you are sounding like a broken record…because you ARE a broken record. If you want to sway someone to “your side”, you might try bring some facts to support your views (so far you haven’t brought anything other than hate filled rhetoric). If you have nothing of value to add…bow out politely and leave the other posters alone, you are simply being annoying…and that isn’t going to get you anywhere with the rest of us. So, add to the conversation with something other than your foul mouth…or just fade away. You like Newt?…talk about Newt…talk til you go blue in the face….but stop the broken record….(not that I think you are bright enough to know when you are losing the battle of wits….as you came here…unarmed). You don’t need to show us your backside by replying in a negative way…to anyone and everyone who mentions Ron Pauls name. You are only showing us what an ICEHOLE you truly are!

          • Joe H.

            Average Joe,
            Watch for newtie the salamander to drop out by spring, and watch for Cain to drop out in the next month!! Remember who told you. As far as millie’s statement that Paul supporters will not vote if he is not the candidate? I hope she doesn’t bet the kids college education on it, cause the poor kid will be just as uneducated as she! I will vote, I will write R. Paul in on my ballot!!

          • bob wire

            Millicent says;

            “I want Obama out and I want someone with solutions, not the head in the sand postulation of Ron Paul. ” & “Ron Paul is a nonentity ”

            Well Sir; I enjoy seeing people willing to make clear and concise statement.

            Cain; is only GOP window dress to amuse and entice the black vote. A nonstarter, non-contender and a embarrassment, intended to pull obama votes that has failed miserably.

            Huntman, is slow getting off the ground and there no ground swell of backing or support.

            Newt; is the brain trust and as genuinely sincere as a green turd in a pickle factory.

            Rommey; few like while he carry’s himself well and has got the loot to go the distance. If he ever get on message and strikes a nerve, a maybe.

            Bachman; will never make the finals but still building equity for later trading for political status, the only hopeful in a win/win position.

            Dick Perry; too closely identified with “W”, has shown us time and again he does not possess the mind for the job, and ? ~I forgot the other thing!

            Ron Paul; the old man in the room with simple, doable plans to address issues at their root source and does not sugar coat it. Enjoys strong backing by military leadership that’s very purpose has been abused for years. He scares the be-geebees out of the fearful and well positioned entrench political power without speaking a word about cleaning house or going rogue.

            It going to take one of these candidates listed above to take it from Obama. The GOP still can not run on their track record or achievements, so someone better come up with some ideas and Paul and Newt are the only ones serving up solutions that make any sense unless 999 from a Pizza man with a long line of offended and jaded ladies and Black Walnut trip your trigger.

        • Lost in Paradise

          You are way off with that liberal and ignorant comment. All of the other candidates want to do away with the constitution, and enslave all of us. They also want to continue to spend money they do not have. IF islam becomes a problem Paul will definitly deal with them.If not then we need to replace him also. We need to get this government back into the hands of the people.Paul is the only peaceful approach. The next and most effective, will be full blown revolution like we have been seeing in the middle east.

      • APN

        mary…. not that I disagree with you but you need to teach Dr. Paul how to communicate….If not, then regardless of your perception of we American’s IQ, 80 or 180, he is not electable with his current NON-message.

        We all get the fact that our government is out of control and has raped our constitution, so the MILLION $$$ question is, how does Mr. Paul suggest that we fix it without throwing the country into anarchy? Can he lead, and if so, how does he go about doing that with such poor communication skills? I mean I like the guy, and his message, he just can’t communicate well enough to keep my attention over 2-3 minutes!

        I worked for some of the best leaders in this county over my professional career and they all had one thing in common….Great communication skills with the ability to see their stated goals and objectives were met or exceeded….period.

        How does RON PAUL suggest that we restore Constitutional Government, specifically? When HE can answer that question, then I will consider voting for him. Otherwise, I see no difference in him and all the other “Candidates”. i.e.; Just words, nothing more, nothing less.

    • Borsia

      Dr. Paul; sounds like an isolationist on the surface but the reality is that it is our bad foreign policy that created much of the current day mess and he is the only one saying that it is time to stop.
      Looking at the ME you can’t just look back to the days of Bush and the Iraqi war, or even to Bush Sr. and Desert Storm. You have to look all the way back to the 40s when the British were pushed out and the Americans stepped in. We helped put the Shah in when his father died and we supported him and kept hi in power while we took their oil without giving anything back. The Shah was just as brutal and corrupt as Saddam Hussein. He treated the people like slaves and took all of the countries wealth right up until 1979 when he was overthrown.
      The US then backed Iraq in their war with Iran and empowered Saddam. It is no wonder that when he invaded Kuwait he thought we would look the other way.
      The US has supported Israel no matter how wrong they were and vetoed every international sanction, even those supported by all of our other allies.
      The same sort of history runs everywhere the US has gone.
      Now the US is failing under the weight of that same mentality and dreams of world domination.
      Paul is the ONLY one who sees all of this and offers a way out.
      It is going to happen when the US collapses and we will be in a much worse position then.

  • eddie47d

    When it comes to common sense on the military front and defense of America Ron Paul is the man. He will keep us safe and well defended and according to the Constitution. He understands that every country has a right to defend it’s borders against outside aggression even countries we don’t agree with.He would reign in the Military Industrial Complex and keep them from influencing Washington and profiting from war.

    • APN

      now eddieISM…..You don’t think that any of us at this point would believe that you are a RON PAUL supporter, do you?

      Nice try Bro! Get us all on the RON PAUL Wagon so AMABO can WAX him in the debates and WIN the election by a 60/40 landslide!

      Again, nice try Bro!

  • Dan

    I could never support Ron Paul simply because he blames the US for 911 and he supports Iran’s right to develop a nuclear weapon to the detriment of Israel.

    • KJQ

      Dan, from what I read Ron Paul said that American ‘contributed’ to the 911 attacks by antagonizing those in the middle east. It’s an unprovable idea and so not worth dwelling upon. He made it in the context of arguing against foreign US bases and incursions, which I happen to agree with. As for Iran, they ARE developing nuclear arms and Obama isn’t doing anything effective to stop them. To be fair, neither is any other country except Israel, and it’s unlikely any other Republican candidate would either. In reality, both Russia and China support both Iran and Syria, so any significant actions against either country by the US risks starting WWIII. I think Israel will take care of the Iranian nuclear threat long before they have any weapons built. Ron Paul has his faults, but he’s far and away the closest thing to the type of leader the US needs to get it back on track towards what the founders had in mind, and what made America great. Sadly, I don’t think he will get the nomination and the GOP will pick another middle-of-the-road candidate (remember McCain) who will lose to Obama.

      • Troy Crowe

        I agree with everything you have said for the most part. The one thing that gets me is that the individuals from that region of the world with radical islamist ideas are all over the world causing the same chaos as they do in their own land. So what Mr. Paul suggests is to crawl into our borders like a cacoon and not have any military influence in the world but instead isolate ourselves within our borders. Put all you eggs in one basket one provides your enemies with less targets to focus on. Much of our strength come strickly from being spread out. I believe that we should have strategic positions throughout the world but be very cautious and slow to get into a war. There are so many countries who do not believe as we Americans do, not our politians, that without our help would pulverize other small nations who rely on our protection. It is not all as it would seem in some of those circumstances either and I am not nieve to think that all is of those aformention purpose either. We Americans need to take control of our government, stop sitting it out on our couches, and make the many determinations that need to be made to assure that our actions in the world are of good intention and not bullying.

        • KJQ

          Some good points, Troy. I think, though, that this is become a moot point. US debt is so high that it’s either draconian cuts or a total economic collapse. The US is printing money as fast as the presses will run (a.k.a. ‘quantitative easing’ – sickening euphemism). The number of US dollars in circulation has TRIPLED in three years! The real inflation and unemployment rates are NOT stated. Have you checked your grocery bill lately? Filled up your car?

          In summary, the US can no longer afford to have bases outside of the US.

        • s c

          T, it took you 23 lines of words to make it obvious that you’re an interventionist. BFD! If you REALLY believe it, join the military, get into a combat unit (and survive), and then you can tell us from experience the difference between an interventionist and a realist (no intervention and no entangling alliances).

          • Brian

            Bingo!

          • eddie47d

            I always look to what happened to the Soviet Empire which was also stretched out over the world. Their military expanded so much in territorial conquests and in wars that the expense of maintaining that Empire caused that collasped. Ron Paul has the vison to see that financial overload and collaspe right here.

          • APN

            eddieISM…… RONALD REGAN caused the collapse of the Soviet Empire my friend!

        • DaveH

          No, Troy, what Ron Paul is suggesting is that we butt out of other countries’ internal politics like we expect them to butt out of ours.
          If you want to pick a side and donate money, feel free, but leave the rest of us out of your choices.

          • APN

            DaveH, Then if that is the case, then what would Ron Paul suggest I do if my neighbor has a 50 cal machine gun pointed at my house? Should I just ignore it and tell my children not to worry or should I call the local police department and report him?

            Given that, what duty does the local police department have in this case? Let’s say they come out and find that the neighbor doesn’t really have a 50 cal, but he freely and willingly tells them, “Well, my neighbor is wrong, I don’t have one YET, this one is a fake, but I’m saving up my money to get a real one, and as soon as I do, I’m going to wipe those xastards off the face of the planet!”

            Now, this is where I get lost in the libertarian mindset. Given the aforesaid, are you suggesting to me that I just sit around and wait on my lunatic neighbor to obtain a 50 cal machine gun and then kill a couple of my children before I act? Or would you suggest I just sell my house and move? i.e.; Cut and run???

            I mean I agree with you that we need to get our nose out of the worlds business however when a NATION(IRAN) is led by an INSANE fool that has proclaimed death at all cost to we Americans, then I’ve got a REAL problem with that, and Ron Paul’s suggestion to stick our heads in the sand, just makes ZERO sense to me. Just appears to me to be foolish and an invitation to disaster. A nuclear disaster…..

        • Larry Maynard

          As in most things we can decide on quality or quantity. We can have a strong US or spread ourselves all over the world until we don’t have a country left.

        • Joe H.

          Troy,
          What do you think defeated Hitler? He had his forces so spread out that it was almost impossible to supply them with food, let alone fuel!! He was weakened by being spread out, not strengthened!!

          • APN

            What defeated Hitler was his out of control sociopathic EGO but most significantly——> P A T T O N ‘ S 3rd ARMY…….

      • Dan

        I really think Islamic countries will see Ron Paul as a weak president, even weaker than Obama.

        • Brian

          Let them think what they want. And let them be surprised when, after Ron Paul has brought the troops home to defend us instead of fighting these foreign wars of offense, they are unable to attack because our military is actually defending the US. BTW, Dr. Paul served in the military. The chosen one’s have not. As a vet I have little use for a Commander-in-Chief with no mitary experience. It’s easy to send others off to die when you’ve never had to stare down the barrel of the enemy.

          • Bob Marshall

            I served as a Marine for three tours in Vietnam and like most veterans and enlisted men and women today ii can see the foreign policies of the US goes back to the former PNAC plans for reshaping the middle east.They even stated that all they needed was another event like Pearl harbor. unfortunately not enough people bother to research. They either don’t care, are in denial or trust the corporate controlled news media for their information.

        • http://DoULoveJesus.Wordpress.com Mark Dabney

          Actually they respect that Ron Paul has tried to be fair – and that he hears their side of the matter as far as provocations go – they do not deem this a weakness

        • JeffH

          Dan, better to have them “think” it than to have “know” it as is the case now under the present community organizer in chief.

      • Lastmanstanding

        Guys…I watched the planes hit on 911…I wanted retribution.

        I will keep this short as I’m a not a conspiracy theorist…I gather info, look at history, build and engineer things…understand how physics of the planet work…I search for facts to substantiate everything that i do.

        check out http://www.sonsoflibertyacademy.com it is a 48 hour (in 10 modules) complation of things that you should see regarding the last 200 years…It is 48 hrs of relentless info that you owe it to your kids and grandkids to watch…please check it out then make your own call…for a shorter version google “the greatest story never told.”

        Module 7 is about 8 hrs long and is on 911…i studied metallurgy in college for several years…I had to quit watching/listening half way
        thru as I was so angry i couldn’t hardly comprehend what I was hearing.
        Check it out for yourself then make your own call based on what you have seen in your lifetime.

        • Lastmanstanding

          Also check out the blog…dont-tread-on.me

    • Brian

      So does the CIA. They call it Blowback.

      • JC

        Yep! “Blowback”. The end result of meddling in foreign affairs wherein we support dictatorships friendly to American Interests.
        Read that as “Corporate Government Crony” interests.
        Funny how the citizens of those nations can see where the guns and training come from for the Police States they’ve been forced to live in. England is just as guilty too.

    • http://DoULoveJesus.Wordpress.com Mark Dabney

      You did NOT get that from Ron Paul – you got that from phonies like Hannity that blurred the distinction between the actions of an out of control gov’t and the people that gov’t CLAIMS to be acting in the interests of. “Naturally the people do not want to go to war, but it is the politicians that make the decisions, it is a simple matter….” Joseph Goebbels I believe – sound familiar? What he said is true enough – so why do not notice why they morph Ron Paul into saying things he simply did NOT say?

      As for him “allowing” Iran to build the “Bomb” – you give far – far too much credence to the same people that made unfounded allegations of yellowcake Uranium ore based on poorly forged documents – and then made out hydrogen generating equipment out to be mobile Anthrax fermentation labs and took what they knew to be an unreliable source [Curveball] to substantiate their claim – curveball has since admitted he lied.

      Iran cannot even make enough of its own gasoline – their ability to enrich is barely 20% to make certain medical applications – no where even remotely close to the 90%+ level for weapons grade. Iran IS unlike “Israel” a signed member of the NPT – and contrary to all the Zionist propaganda – has been fully compliant – ON THE OTHER HAND “Israel” is NOT a member of the NPT although they are required to be to receive our foreign aid – has HUNDREDS of state of the art “devices” and delivery systems. Smell that? hypocrisy – and duplicity is a “blessing”

      There are 25,000 Iranian Jews peacefully coexisting with their Muslim friends and neighbors – the largest Jewish community outside of “Israel” in the entire Middle East – but did you expect to hear about this from the Zionist Dominated media?

      JewsNotZionists.org JewsAgainstZionism.com NKUSA.com

      Or do you know that there exists a Satanic counterfeit of Judaism that the Bible calls “The Synagogue of Satan” [Rev. 2:9 & 3:9] – they created the global fiat scam – they run the conventional media – they created this counterfeit political entity that calls itself “Israel” – I agree with the Anti-Zionist Jews – explain how that makes me “Antisemitic”? or how twisting Ron Paul’s words to make him say something he didn’t is in anyway fair?

      • Realist

        The most sensible reply I have read all morning!

      • sean e.stanton

        Bravo Mark Dabney!!
        I was thinking of an intelligent response,then I read your comment!
        You sum it up quite well.
        I have always considered my views as “A” political,lending thought to both sides.Ron Paul is the only chance WE THE PEOPLE have at returning to normalcy.

      • Monte

        Mark D. Only a fool would not know that shadowy, behind the curtain, powers are behind everything taking place. And that these same villains control the media, so that we have only lies, distortions, and complete fabrications to rely on for information. But who, exactly, are these evil usurpers? Even this site never makes that clear. We hear of ‘the ruling elites’, ‘the ruling class’, ‘the powers-that-be’ and other such generalities, but never a clear picture of who these vermin actually are. I have for some time suspected the Zionists, but have been unable to gather any concrete evidence of this. As the creators of communism – and I understand that the Soviet Union, at conception, was financed by New York Zionists – I believe them to be the main culprits in the spread of the leftist agenda, both here and in Europe. The international banking cartels also seem to be under the control of the Zionists. Hence, they are prime candidates, in my opinion. But, if they are the evil force behind everything, why is this not made public at the conservative websites? Do you have any books that you would suggest on the subject. I mean, something with hard, concrete evidence? I am convinced that the Zionists are some of the most evil people on earth. Also their connection with the Neocons is suspect. I wonder if Neocon and Zionist might not be two ways of saying the same thing.

        • Millicent

          You have just proved my point that Ron Paul and his supporters are Antisemites.

          • JeffH

            Dr. Paul does not have a single solitary anti-Semitic bone in his entire body.
            Why is Ron Paul charachterized in this way? Ignorance! It’s because Ron Paul opposes foreign aid…to everyone. RP knows full well that foreign “aid” harms recipients, amounts to a theft from Americans, and has no Constitutional warrant. And, since he is a principled man, he makes no exceptions in this regard. He would cut off the spigot for all foreign countries, including Israel as well.
            http://lewrockwell.com/block/block183.html

          • Joe H.

            JeffH,
            Gee Jeff, you mean under Dr. Paul, we would stop paying foreign aid to China, the country we are borrowing so much money from?? the same country that is doing their best to replace the dollar as the global currency?? DAMN GOOD IDEA!!!!

    • Average Joe

      Dan,
      Please take the time to read:
      http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/jack-kerwick/9097-the-case-against-ron-paul-is-defeated

      Ron Paul/Andrew Napolitano 2012!

      Have a great day

      • Dan

        I read the article and when it gets to the following statement is when I have a real hard time believing he has a grasp of Islam.

        “To begin with, Paul emphatically rejects the proposition — treated as an axiom by the Republican Party — that Muslims hate us because of our liberties and freedoms. Rather, it is a hyper-aggressive American foreign policy, he insists, with its occupation of and sanctions and wars against Islamic lands, that accounts for the rage that culminated in the attacks of 9/11″

        Muslims have hated and fought all Muslim countries since the beginning of time. I has nothing to do with foreign policy. What Muslim country have we occupied prior to 911? Muslims hate us because it is their religion and nothing else.

        • Dan

          I forgot to all all “non-Muslim” in the first sentence.

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Dan,

          You write: “What Muslim country have we occupied prior to 911?” Is that a serious question?

          Best wishes,
          Bob

          • Dan

            Yes it is. I can’t think of any.

          • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Dan,

            Here are a few for you: Lebanon, troops removed after bombing of Marine Barracks. Saudi Arabia: Most troops withdrawn in 2003. Kuwait, Kosovo, Bahrain and Qatar. And these are the ones that are officially acknowledged.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Joe H.

            Bob Livingston,
            I would think Dan owes you a vote of “THANKS”!!

        • Bob in Boston

          That’s such crap – have you actually been to the middle east? The whole “they hate us because of our freedom” is laughable.

          • Dan

            Who said anything about them hating us for our “freedom”? Is there anything in my statement that says that? They hate us because we are infidels and no other reason. I was in Desert Storm and I was in Iran before the fall of the Shah. When I was in Iran we had just given them several warships and even their sailors who wanted our training displayed outright hate and contempt for us. They treated us as lessor beings. I’m also tired of the crap about Muslims for the most part are peace loving and not radical.

          • DaveH

            Dan says “They treated us as lessor beings”.
            And how are you treating them, Dan?

          • Dan

            DaveH: are you implying that I treated them bad? If you are your an absolute idiot. When training their sailors I treated them with respect and worked my ass off to teach them what they needed to know. I treated them as adults and fellow sailors.

          • DaveH

            It sure sounds to me, Dan, that you think of them as inferior. If you don’t, why do you advocate our military presence in their countries?

          • DaveH

            By the way, Dan, I’m an absolute Idiot? Do you truly expect me to believe that you treat them respectfully when you can’t even refrain from disrespecting me?

        • sean e.stanton

          Sorry to read Dan,that your views are so tunneled.
          The United States has been poking around with our military for far too long.We have indiscriminately bombed other countries killing millions.There is a statistic but then again,WE THE PEOPLE are NOT kept informed as to all of our military actions!
          It is naive to think that Islamic countries are out to get us because of our way of life.
          It is and has been the use of our military that provokes a negative response from Islam.
          There is a political agenda pertaining to Southwest Asia,DIRTY POLITICS,and there lies the problem!!!

          • Dan

            In a tunnel? Those who believe Muslim people hate us simply because of our foreign policy has the tunnel vision. Muslims hate us because we are non-Muslim. We are Muslims so in tight with Communists countries like China and Russia? And if you don’t believe Russia is returning to communism then I give up. Why did Muslims back Hitler during WWII? I suggest it may be that Communism has no room for Christianity.

          • sean e.stanton

            Dan my friend,
            your research method’s are extremely flawed!

          • Millicent

            I realize if I am lucky I might end up in an old age home. (certainly not if Obama the commie has anything to say about it) However, I haven’t reached that point yet. Certainly nutjob Ron Paul has and beyond it seems

          • Joe H.

            Millie,
            go back to daily kos and tell them that you came, you tried, it didn’t work, and you want your check!!!

        • Lost in Paradise

          I also have noticed this in Paul, but we must give him a chance. He will learn very quickly about Islam, and more than likely change is mind as most others have already.

          • Millicent

            He is so full of himself and his Libertarian ideas that he will never face facts. Thank God he is 76 and will be in a home for senile old fools soon

          • JeffH

            Millicent, what goes around, comes around…if you’re not old now, you may be old someday too…if you manage to live that long. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

          • libertytrain

            If millicent is here to share meaningful dialog she has failed miserably

          • Joe H.

            libertytrain,
            on the contrary! She has tried very hard to do EXACTLY what her handlers have instructed her to do!! That she does not have the intellectual fortitude to succeed doens’t enter the picture!!!

          • libertytrain

            perhaps newts wife or wife in waiting -

          • DaveH

            Millicent says “He is so full of himself and his Libertarian ideas that he will never face facts”.
            What are those facts, Millicent? Please enlighten us, so that we may learn from your wisdom.
            Then Millicent destroys any shred of decency she might have otherwise claimed with this statement — “Thank God he is 76 and will be in a home for senile old fools soon”.
            I have long believed that those who don’t follow their own moral codes (that behavior which they expect from others) are their own worst enemies in the long run. Deep down we all know when we aren’t being consistent with what we expect from others. We can’t hide from that inconsistency and it takes a toll on our happiness sooner or later. Change your ways, Millicent, or you will pay a heavy price.

        • TML

          “Muslims have hated and fought all Muslim countries since the beginning of time. It has nothing to do with foreign policy.”

          Since the beginning of time, heh? Your own ignorance is rather amusing. FYI, it wasn’t until the Crusades (intervention) that Muslims united into coherent nations of Islam. It has everything to do with foreign policy, even today.

          “What Muslim country have we occupied prior to 911?”

          Aside from occupaions that Bob pointed out… were we not bombing Iraq for 10 years prior to 9/11? Hmmm, I think so.

          “Muslims hate us because it is their religion and nothing else.”

          A lot of them do indeed look down upon the infidel (non-muslim), and may treat them as lesser beings, but that isn’t hate. They hate us when we intervene in their own affairs, bomb their countries, and kill their leaders… that is why they hate us.

          • Mark in LA

            Well TML not quite true. The battle of Tours in 732 preceeds the Crusades by 300 years and was the first time the Arabic empire and Islam was stopped as it attempted to spread to Europe. The Crusades were initiated due to on-an-off attempts by various potentates to control the region around the Holy land and not let Christian pilgrims in any more.

          • JeffH

            Mark in LA :)

    • Mark in LA

      Dan, what would you do or how would you feel if China put a military base in Washington DC for “your” protection. Would you want to shoot one of the Chinese soldiers? Would you want to plant a bomb? Would you thank them with flowers?

      • Dan

        What you say makes no sense to me. If China put a base in DC to protect us it means we either invited them to do so, or they defeated us in a war. If we invited them to then I don’t see that as justification for terrorism and killing innocent civilians.

        • sean e.stanton

          Dan,
          The statement from Mark in LA makes a great deal of sense!
          It’s hypothetical,and a very good point/question,so just play along!!??!!
          That is exactly what our Government has been doing for many many years.
          AND…never say never…what if the rest of the world got together and decided that The United States could no longer be trusted.What if they ALL joined forces and conquered us with the intent to put in to power a NEW GOVERNMENT…sound familiar??

        • Mark in LA

          You mean the same way the Iraqi’s invited us to build a massive base in Baghdad or the Serbians invited us to build in Kosovo – with bribes and threats to politicians, knowing full well that a referendum to the people on the issue would fail with a 95% no vote and 5% abstaining.

          • Vigilant

            “…the Serbians invited us to build in Kosovo – with bribes and threats to politicians, knowing full well that a referendum to the people on the issue would fail with a 95% no vote and 5% abstaining.”

            You’ve lost me there. The Kosovars, not the Serbians, invited the presence of US troops. Kosovo is 95+% ethnic Albanian (Muslim) and the Serbs are Christian.

            Serbian intervention in the province was initiated because the Kosovars were systematically killing off all Serbian administraive officials in Kosovo. The civil war that ensued was just that, within the confines of a sovereign nation. Neither the US nor NATO had any business invading the nation.

            Kosovo today remains a place where smuggling of weapons and funds to terrorists continues with impunity.

          • Mark in LA

            Yes, I stand corrected. I think it was Bosnia where we built a base for us as payment for killing Serbs who’s partisans were on our side in WWII.

        • JeffH

          Dan, you’ve much to learn!

        • Joe H.

          Dan,
          No that would mean that our government invited them in, NOT US!!! With all the money we owe them, I don’t call that so far fetched!!

        • jbrimmage@hotmail.com

          Oh they arn’t going to build that base in D.C. but they are building a small city about 40 miles south of Boise, Idaho…about 7miles square in size…..right NOW.

      • Bob in Boston

        Or it means your government was forced to play nice (or paid to), regardless of what the citizens thought.

        • Dan

          You didn’t answer the justification for terrorist attacks against innocent civilians?

          • sean e.stanton

            Dan,
            Our military actions are seen by Islam as terror attacks.
            The United States military has destroyed far too many innocent lives…when we do it we call it COLLATERAL DAMAGE,when they do it WE call it TERRORISM…I fail to see the difference.

    • Bob in Boston

      The CIA, the 9/11 commission, and foreign policy experts like Pape all have incontrovertible evidence that our isolationist foreign policy contributed to the attacks on 9/11, but you’re believing the politicians who get kickbacks from defense contractors?
      How does that make any sense at all?
      It’s the current foreign policy that’s “isolationist”. Think about it – we bomb civilians in another country, and then help them rebuild it and give them a ton of money. Do you really think any of those countries would stand with us if there was a war in the middle east? Of course not, heck Afghanistan already said if we attacked Pakistan they’d fight with Pakistan and declare war on us.
      I can’t believe there are still people in this country who fall for the “weapons of mass destruction” line – didn’t we learn our lesson with Iraq?!?

    • DaveH

      So telling the truth is a problem for you, Dan?
      We have been meddling in other countries affairs for over a hundred years. And we have killed far more muslims than muslims have killed Americans. You think that endears their citizens to us?
      Read this:
      http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php

      • DaveH

        Another possibility for 911 is our own Government. False Flag events have certainly been the case for almost every other conflict we’ve been involved with. Why should the Afghanistan War be any different?
        Read this:
        http://911review.com/articles/anon/false_flag_perations.html

      • Dan

        No, I’m a damn liar. Or do you wish to restate the comment about the truth being a problem for me? On what side of WWII was Muslim countries? They backed Hitler and why is that?

        • DaveH

          I was talking about Ron Paul’s telling of the truth.

      • sean e.stanton

        Outstanding DaveH.
        I have a younger friend,29 years old,that is a MAINSTREAM MEDIA victim.
        He will not even consider that,there is more to life behind the BUZZ of mainstream media.
        He saw something on FOX NEWS,therefor it MUST be true.
        He even believes that we should take military action against Iran over this false flag assassination plot…He actually believes that Iranian SPY’S contracted Mexican drug cartel hit men to take out the Saudi ambassador and bomb the Israeli embassy…WTF

    • Patriot Diva

      Dan, that’s what many of the headlines are saying, but I decided to read the entire articles about this, and the press is misleading the public. Dr. Paul said that the U.S.may have unknowingly angered some people in the middle east. Many muslims were angered that the American military was on Saudi Arabian soil during the first gulf war. He wasn’t blaming America as having purposefully caused 911, only that some countries view our America’s actions as inconsiderate. Regarding his foreign policy stance, I think he just doesn’t think the U.S. can go around dictating to other countries how things are going to be without angering someone. He believes that we should get our fiscal house in order before anything else. Regarding the Israeli/Iranian situation, he knows Israel can and will defend herself if an American president doesn’t interfere with that (like Obama). Israel is very well armed and Dr. Paul would not try to stop Israel from taking out Iran if Iran attacks them. Just my thoughts for whatever its worth.

      • Dan

        He was asked a direct question on one of the Sunday talk shows – do you believe it was America’s fault that 911 occurred? He stated – no, it was not America’s fault but it was our policies that caused 911.

        • sean e.stanton

          The term “AMERICA” in that interview was misleading Dan…
          AMERICA meaning WE THE PEOPLE,are not responsible for 9/11,BUT,AMERICA as a political entity IS responsible

          • JeffH

            :)

          • Joe H.

            sean e. stanton,
            Such a nice little twist of words!! but OH SO TRUE!!!!!

      • Millicent

        Do you honestly think they would just stop with Israel?

        • Joe H.

          millie,
          nope before too long, they will be on your door step!! Better stock up on machine guns and morters, and don’t even forget the fighter planes. hope your checkbook is real FAT!!! Sheesh!! Wake the heck up from your daymare!!!

    • Angel Wannabe

      Dan, if you think our Government has been any better, than the next one, you’d better think again….just sayin

    • Lost in Paradise

      What is it that you do not understand? Ron Paul says that our corrupt government has ticked off the middle east. Is that not true??? It is also true that those barbarians will not leave us alone, and Paul also knows this. He is by no means a fool.We the people, are the real fools for tolerating this abuse of our constitution, and bill of rights for so many years, Not Ron Paul, who has been trying to do something about it.

  • Duffy

    Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he rather believes in pragmatic approach to world affairs, ie not invading/putting our peoples lives in danger to support drugs and oil. But being fully engaged on a global basis for good business and relations all in the best interest of American citizens. True – Ron Paul cannot be elected as the global controllers will not allow it. They want Romney or Gingrich both of which are in the controller’s camp.

    • johnk

      Now that seems to be the truth after seeing all the polls …. and seeing that the media still puts romney on top.

    • Lost in Paradise

      They will also create more war!

  • Elwood

    No mention by you of slavery in the South, No mention by you of Islamic terrorism or the desire to spread Islamic sharia law world wide. You guys seem to believe just as obama does, be nice to them and they will be nice to you. Pretty weak thinking.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Elwood,

      Non sequiturs. VERY weak thinking.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Elwood

        I speak english. Please explain.

        • Average Joe

          non se·qui·turs Plural
          Dictionary….what a wonderful idea…..Who would have guessed that you can actually look words and phrases up in it (or online for that matter)?
          NOUN
          1. incongruous statement: a statement that appears unrelated to a statement that it follows
          2. unwarranted conclusion: a conclusion that does not follow from its premises
          [ < Latin, "it does not follow" ]

        • Elwood

          Well?

          • Elwood

            I disagree. It does matter. Big time. It is no longer a tiny little world that one can remain in a blessful cacoon and attempt to hide from evil.
            Thank you for being a high tech translater.

          • DaveH

            Who has a military presence in more foreign countries, the muslims, or the Americans?

          • JC

            The US has a military presence in 197 countries.
            It’s Imperialism and unConstitutional, plain and simple.

          • Average Joe

            “Thank you for being a high tech translater.”

            There was nothing high tech about it…I simply typed the word into my browser and POOF…there it was….. Are you telling us that you aren’t smart enough to find answers on your own?…that we need to hold your hand and walk you through something so simple? No wonder you’re lost somewhere out there in LaLa land……

            The next time you are sitting around watching “Wheel of Fortune…don’t buy a vowel….buy a clue!

            Never insult anyone by accident.
            Robert A. Heinlein

            and

            Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
            Robert A. Heinlein

    • ArkansasRebel

      I don’t understand your point about “slavery in the south”. Also, you say “slavery in the south” as though there was no slavery in the northern states. Simple hypocracy! Remember, Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation freed slaves in the southern states but northern states continued to hold slaves. Check your history.

      • Karolyn

        I didn’t read that in the history book I’ve been studying.

        • JeffH

          For political reasons, the proclamation did not free slaves in the states that supported the Union. Nor did it free slaves in the areas around Norfolk, Virginia, and New Orleans, Louisiana. Many men throughout the North would fight to save the Union. They would not fight to free the slaves.

          Lincoln also needed the support of the four slave states that had not left the Union: Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri. He could not be sure of their support if he declared that the purpose of the war was to free the slaves.
          http://www.manythings.org/voa/history/105.html

          In an 1862 letter to New York newspaper editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”

          Lincoln revoked Union Gen. John C. Fremont’s 1861 emancipation of Missouri’s slaves, and Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves because it applied only to that part of the Confederacy still under Confederate control. Slave states still in the Union were exempted, as was Washington.

          • libertytrain

            I think she needs to read more books…. :)

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Karolyn,

          What history book are you reading and who wrote it?

          ‘Tis true. Read it for yourself: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html

          According to William Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

          Best wishes,
          Bob

    • Millicent

      Thanks for an intelligent response to these idiots who support the old fool Ron Paul

      • JeffH

        The troll brigade is back!

        • Millicent

          No just sane and sensible people who realize what an idiot Paul is.

          • JeffH

            As I said…troll!

          • Joe H.

            Millie,
            Troll, troll and nothing but a troll!!!

          • JC

            You don’t make any sense Millicent, all you’re doing is spweing unfounded, bigoted anti-American hatred.
            So which of the bought and paid for Globalists are you backing?

          • libertytrain

            she mentioned earlier that she was a “newtist” :)

          • JC

            You mean Newt Gingrich? That salamander with the “for sale” sign on his back? Pathetic. More of the same old…

          • JC

            “I think we prefer to go to instant check on an immediate basis and try to accelerate implementing instant checks so that you could literally check by thumbprint… Instant check is a much better system than the Brady process.” — Newt Gingrich June 27, 1997

            That’s our Newt!
            Just another Big Brother Control Freak.

  • Ted

    Ron Paul is the one we need,but if he gets in he would assinated because they only kill the good ones not the bad ones.So Obama is safe from that.He may be a kook to others but not me,if hes not on the voting list when I vote I will not vote.The usa has gone to pot,hes our only hope.To bad it wont happen,Obama has already bought the vote.

    • Troy Crowe

      “if hes not on the voting list when I vote I will not vote”. Then why don’t you get ready for more of Obummer because with that attitude, if others follow suit, that is just what you will get. Unfortunately, Mr. Paul does not have a chance at winning. Since that is the case, who would you like to have that is actually running to take Obummers place. Those are your choices. Unfortunately that is how it is for now. We need to band together and build this liberty movement and find the Ron Paul like Candidate who can actually win; Rand Paul in the future maybe. We have to play this thing as our opponents are, like a game of chess. In chess you have to our manuever your opponent to win the game and sometime along the way you have to understand that some of the good players are going to be sacrificed for the ultimate victory. Unfortunately that is the way it is here. The only difference is, Mr. Paul is not being sacrificed he just can’t pull it off.

      • PATRIOT 101

        RON PAUL has the best chance of winning the general election of all the candidates. He scores (polls) higher than anyone among independents! If RON PAUL doesn’t get the nomination, it will be because of nay sayers like you that won’t get a pair and support him!
        It will be because of “Mainstream” (Bushy) republicans telling America through all their mouthpieces in the press Ron Paul “Can’t Win”. You have taken the bait, now spit it out and support RON PAUL!

        • Betty Jo

          i will not vote Republian or Democrat either if Ron Paul or Michele Bachman are the the nominee. I will vote for the Constitution Party other party candidate.

          • Joe H.

            Betty jo,
            If you won’t support R. Paul, then get ready for more of Abummerism politics!!!

          • Lost in Paradise

            That is just plain childish. If I can’t have my way,I won’t do anything. Good greif grow up!

      • Brian

        What you fail to understand is that any of the others are just like Obama. They are all statists. If you support Romney or Gingrich you support the same policies as Obama’s. Romney was the inspiration for ObamaCare and Newt supports both cap and trade and the individual mandate. So tell us, what’s the difference?

      • Average Joe

        Troy Crowe,
        I tend to post this a lot…for those of you naysayers who lack any common sense.None of the candidates are electable….unless we vote for them…got it? None of them……

        If it weren’t such a serious matter, it would be almost funny…listening to everyone complaining that this candidate did this…or that candidate did that ( as if the things that they complain about are something new….they aren’t).
        Then, when anyone points out that there is one candidate out of the whole batch ( both sides)….(with a 30 year history to prove it)..who has never done any of these things, who has always been honest, forthright and a defender of the Constitution….someone who has stood up for smaller, less intrusive government, sound currency and personal freedoms…….everyone goes wild … calling the man everything except…a viable candidate.
        Why is that?
        It is obvious to me ( as it should be to everyone else) that what we have been doing….ISN”T WORKING…..and maybe…just maybe, it’s time to take a new approach to the way this nation is beng run. Maybe, just maybe it’s time to stop electing “business as usual” “mainstream” candidates….who continue to run our nation into the ground while ignoring the will of the people and the rule of law.
        If we were to elect Dr. Ron Paul, could he really be any worse than what we’ve had over the last 40+ years (both sides)? If we were to elect him and he doesn’t make changes that positively affect our nation….can we not vote him out in another 4 years?
        Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over…and expecting to get a different result. Isn’t it time that we stopped the insanity?
        While I am not asking anyone to vote for any particular candidate, I will ask that you spend more time actually looking into all of the candidates’ backgrounds ( voting records, campaign finances…who they’ve made deals with etc.). learn everything you can about the candidates (not the MSM talking heads versions…do the research yourselves), so that on election day….you can make an informed decision about who you want to represent you in government….
        Remember, what they do is a direct reflection on us…..if they do foolish things….it makes us look like we elected foolish people….which means we look like fools for electing them in the first place.
        I don’t know about anyone else, but I am tired of the insanity and will be casting my vote for Ron Paul.
        You can say that I am wasting my vote….well , I guess that’s OK….it is after all…MY….vote……it doesn’t belong to any party or candidate….it belongs to me …to cast as my conscience dictates.
        I hope eveyone makes informed decisions concerning our future as a nation.
        The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
        John F. Kennedy

        • Geno Zomparelli

          Well said, my friend. Well said.

          The government is truly a reflection of the people. If we do not learn the issues ourselves and make informed decisions when we select our leaders we will get whatever they tell us to believe. Ron Paul may not be perfect. He is not a smooth talker and he does not look like a movie star, but he is a man of integrity with a consistent record that is as clear as a sunny day.

          Our country was based on christian principles, but our founders were wise enough to know that religion has no place in government. Rather than imposing their religious values on others our founders believed in the right of the people to believe whatever they wanted to believe. I have no right to interfere with another man’s pursuit of happiness. They wisely created a Republic that is based on the rule of law. They recognized that a diverse people may not agree on some things and they created a government that protected everyone’s right to believe what they wish. Our country is based on the principle that though I may not agree with someone about an issue, I will defend their right to believe it. This principle is what made America the light on the hill. The greatest nation ever conceived by the minds of men.

          Unfortunately, ignorance and apathy have dimmed the once bright light because the people have failed to remain vigilant to defend the values that keep the light shining.

          • ChristyK

            Our founders did expect Religious individuals in our government. They just didn’t want the Government legislating religion like the Church of England. They did believe that our government would only work with a “moral and religious people”.

      • Bob in Boston

        Ron Paul is in 1st in Iowa and 2nd in NH. To say that he “can’t win” is ridiculous. He can and will win, despite the media and the establishment trying to convince everyone that he can’t.

      • Lost in Paradise

        We need to play this think like our founding fathers, and remove this corrupt government like we are told in our founding documents. To Hell with voting, it will get us nothing, just prolong the inevitable.

        Stand up and fight like real men, and Patriots, or lose everything doing nothing. It would be much better to die trying, than to die crying that you lost everything, and WISHED you had tryed.

        • Lee

          Exactly!! I said this same thing 10 years ago and still do.

      • Millicent

        I think Ron Paul is an idiot. However, I have listened and read a lot of what Rand Paul (can you believe this jerk actually named his son after a Nazi like Any Rand?)has said. I so far find no fault with his thinking. However, he has lived with his nutsy old man for a long time. One can only hope that he can form his own opinions and not succumb to his father’s stupidity.If he can keep rational thinking, I will support what he stands for.

        • JeffH

          Millicent, you make these mean spirited comments about Ron Paul, yet you cite nothing, other than your hate twisted opinion, to support your hateful rhetoric.

          Simply put…YOU ARE A TROLL…

          • Average Joe

            Tis a pity that the TROLL won’t stay under her bridge……

          • Millicent

            It’s real simple, anyone who says our policy contributed to 9/11 or it’s okay for Iran to have nukes is a total idiot. That doesn.t make me a troll, just realistic. You Ron Paul morons don’t have any common sense. I hope you all have your bomb shelters built from back in the late 50′s, you’ll need them.

          • JeffH

            No Millicent, it make you a moron! Your’s is a typical MSM generated response.

            Ron Paul did not blame the United States for the 9-11 attacks or even say that the United States had “invited” them.

            The absurd idea that Ron Paul blamed the US for the 9/11 attacks arose out of the Republican presidential primary debate at the University of South Carolina on May 15, 2007.

            During the debate, Paul asserted that terrorists attacked the United States on September 11 “because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East.” When asked by co-moderator and Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler if he was suggesting that “we invited the 9-11 attack,” Paul replied: “I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it.”

            During a postdebate interview, Fox News host Sean Hannity asked Paul: “Are you suggesting the United States of America caused the attack on 9-11?” Paul replied: “No, I think that’s a cop-out.” Hannity then asked: “Are you suggesting that our policies are causing the hatred of people that would cause them to want to kill us?” Paul responded: “I think it contributes significantly to it, and this is exactly what our CIA tells us. Paul later stated explicitly: “[T]he Americans didn’t do anything to cause [9-11].”

            Yet when describing the confrontation between Paul and Giuliani during the debate, numerous media figures claimed that Paul “blamed” the United States for 9-11 or said that the United States was “responsible” for the attacks, and they made no mention of his subsequent clarification. In addition, some not only accepted Giuliani’s interpretation of what Paul said but praised Giuliani’s response.
            http://mediamatters.org/research/200705160009

          • JC

            Totally twisted freak.

        • Average Joe

          Millicent,

          For future reference……

          It is better to keep your mouth shut and let us wonder if you’re an idiot…rather than for you to open it and remove all doubt!

          For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen.
          Douglas Adams

          • Millicent

            Speak for yourself.

          • Average Joe

            There ya go Millie…you prove my point…yet again.
            Once again?…please?

          • Joe H.

            Average joe,
            It’s terrible!! Somewhere out there, over some river, spanning some distance, some bridge is missing its troll!! Millitrollcent!!

          • Average Joe

            The scary thing is, I’m actually enjoying …playing with the Troll……

            How to metaphorically bury a Troll

            1) Invite the Troll on your radio show,TV show or blog site.

            2) Hand them a shovel

            3) Watch

            4) Applaud.

            5) Make sure you get the shovel back.
            ;)

          • Joe H.

            Average Joe,
            In there some where you should have added step#? ocasionally kick some dirt into said hole!!! I’m not afraid of a little work!!!LOL!

        • Geno Zomparelli

          Milli: What common sense are you using to explain how building 7 collapsed into its own footprint when it was not touched by a plane? What common sense are you using to explain the lack of any plane wreakage on the Pentagon site? Where are the engines and tail? Rather than listen to the MSM try thinking for yourself. Could a single plane really collapse an over engineered steel structure like the WTF? Hey, it is hard to swallow, I know, but it is what it is. As soon as you resolve your cognitive dissonance the truth will become obvious.

          • JC

            Exactly right, and even if it were a bunch of radical muslims who couldn’t fly planes anyway…Dear Millicient refuses to acknowledge the reality of our Corporate Crony Foreign policy completely F-ing over the people of foreign nations who have become so embittered with Americans that they actually want to see us die.
            All thanks to her idols of the past and present…the bought and paid for White House and it’s Military Contractor pals.
            That’s not a shot at out Military personnel either, it’s an ugly truth about our system.

            I wonder if Milli realizes that in 2008 and so far this year, Ron Paul has more contributions from the Military than all the other candidates combined. There’s a reason for that.

    • Angel Wannabe

      Ted_ Agreed!__Lincoln was trying to squash the FED and so was JFK, where did they end up?__If ya don’t play by the rules your dead!

      • Carlucci

        Andrew Jackson (“Old Hickory”) did succeed in getting central bankers out of the picture and survived two assassination attempts on the same day. What is different between then and now is that the population was aware of what was going on with the bankers and were behind him. Ask the majority these days if the Federal Reserve is really “federal” and you will most like get a “yes”.

        For the people that are new to this board, if you want to know more, watch this 2010 award winning documentary, “The Secret of Oz”:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI

        • Angel Wannabe

          Carlucci, It’s a shame, a lot of Folks don’t know the Fed isn’t really Federal, a good place to start is check the Yellow pages, The Federal Reserve is NOT listed among Government Agencies.

          • Buddy

            Federal or not, the FED’s got to go.

          • Angel Wannabe

            Buddy_ Absolutely Agreed, but threats and Past Assassinations are a Factor, our Electives are fearful, I suppose they think it’s less of a risk to stand and watch our downfall, that to try and stop them._-We definitely need another George Washington.

        • Joe H.

          Carlucci,
          One other thing that was different is that Jackson HAD A PAIR!!! I believe it was him that killed a man in a duel??

      • Dan

        Right, the Feds had Lincoln and Kennedy assassinated. For all those who are calling for the auditing and dissolution of the Federal Reserve what would that get us in the world economy that exists now? I can imagine the investigation would reveal there is no Gold, the Feds have been ripping off the American people and we simply shut down the Fed.

        I can see that happening if we did not owe the world/China 15 trillion dollars and have over 40 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

        All I can see from this scenario is a total financial collapse of the US economy and global war.

        There has to be a better answer, I just don’t see it.

        • DaveH

          You’re wrong, Dan. We could simply stop them from printing or creating any more fiat money. And then open the markets up to banking competition. Any future dollars printed or created would be required to be backed by hard assets.
          In the hundred years before 1913, the dollar actually increased in value. That is people could actually buy more with their saved dollars.
          In the almost hundred years since 1913 the dollar has declined dramatically in value. In 1913 the dollar could buy 20 times the amount of goods that a dollar can buy now.
          Fiat dollars allow Government and their Crony Bankers to steal from those of us who try to save our money by diminishing the purchasing power of our saved money. Whenever new money is created the receivers of the new money (bailout recipients, etc.) benefit and the rest of us lose.

          • DaveH

            Read this book, Dan, and learn everything you need to know about money:
            http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf

          • Angel Wannabe

            Daveh, I agree with all you’ve said, But the question remains, Just who is Going to stop this?

          • DaveH

            Only an educated citizenry can do it, Angel. I’m afraid that’s our only hope for Freedom and its resultant Prosperity.

          • Angel Wannabe

            DaveH, Agreed!, A lot of Folks have woken up, but I don’t think there enough awake to the extent that we need!_-I have those in our own Family that refuse to believe that a takeover has happened and the road we’re on os one to destrustion of Liberty and Freedom._-It’s the same old adage Dave, you can lead a horse to water, but can’t make them drink._ Guaranteed, They’ll get thirsty when the waters gone!

          • Angel Wannabe

            Daveh, Sorry for the spelling errors.

          • Angel Wannabe
          • JeffH

            DaveH, I agree wholeheartedly…”we the people” are the only ones capable of stopping the madness and as you say, it must be an “educated citizenry”…our Constitution provides that path to self govern.

            “self government” starts with government of “self” and with individual responsibility. It is then delegated upwards, from the family to the local government, then to the State and eventually to the federal government.

            We, the people, have agreed to delegate our power to our representatives in Congress, to our President and to the institutions and mechanisms that make government work. We call this representative democracy. We call the United States a republic.

            The founding fathers used the concepts of “fragmented power”, “de-centralized power” and “enumerated powers”, as an insurance and protection against the temptation of tyranny, whether by a single person, or by an institution.

            The framers of the Constitution protected us, the people, by fragmenting the power among three branches of government: the Executive, the Judicial and the Legislative.
            http://www.selfgovernmentfoundation.com/

    • Millicent

      Who would waste a bullet on this old phoney” Get lost you RP idiots.

      • Angel Wannabe

        Millicent, YOur obviously the Liberal here, YOU take a powder and have a Nice Day! :)

        • Millicent

          I am far from liberal. I despise the commie Muslim Kenyan illegally in the WH. I understand that we can’t have everything we would like to have in a candidate. I have my misgivings about some of the ones I favor. However, if we can gain the Senate and keep the House, even if the pos Obama steals the election, he can be neutralized. I will however support whomever the Republican nominee is, unlike most Paul supporters who want to abandon the election or do a write in, which gives the lowlife Obama the win.

          • JeffH

            Millicent, unfortunately, you come off as one very miserable and hateful individual…just sayin’ the hate you project ain’t pretty…take a breath and gather yourself up, check for missing body parts, listen for the soothing sounds of the wind whistling between your temples then relax.

          • Joe H.

            JeffH,
            She could always listen to the wind as it entered one ear and exited the other!!! She’s another that if someone gave her a whole brain she’d have a half!!!

      • http://deleted Claire

        Millicent– Who is your choice for the GOP nominee?

        • JeffH

          OBAMA!

          • Angel Wannabe

            JeffH___LMAO!!!

          • Millicent

            Not on your life. Only the one who I think can beat him

          • JC

            Only the one you think can beat Obama…and give us more of the same, right?
            People like you are the reason this country is in the shape it’s in…
            Trained Hamsters.

        • Millicent

          I think the best choice, despite what he said about immigration, is Newt Gingrich, second Romney. Gingrich would draw blood in a debate with the Kenyan Muslim Commie pos. I like Bachmann, but don’t believe she has a chance. David Axelrod, Obama’s propagand minister, has destroyed Cain, whom I like as an individual. However, Cain lacks what is needed IMO to lead us in international affairs. I feel the same way about Paul in regard to international affairs. To call me an Obama supporter just because I am opposed to Ron Paul is ludicrous. Guess what, if Ron Paul got the nomination, I would vote for him. I would do that because if the Conservatives can capture the Senate and retain the House, then anything Paul wants to do to kill us internationally could be stopped. My vote is ABO, even Ron Paul

          • Average Joe

            In other words, what you are saying is that you are a “Party Loyalist”, but you have no moral principles that you stand on? I am gathering from your post, that if Adolf Hitler was nominated by the “Party”…you would vote for him…..what a friggin lamebrain you’ve turned out to be…….the lesser of two evils….is still…EVIL. Anyone that would vote for someone…simply because a “party” says to vote for them…..is an utter moron….just like you ….Millicent. BTW, do you kiss your mother or your children with that foul mouth?….ewwwwww!

            You live and learn. At any rate, you live.
            Douglas Adams

          • JeffH

            Average Joe, Millicent is onviously a very deep sleeper, uhh, I mean thinker.

          • Joe H.

            JeffH,
            It cpould be worse, she could be a super delegate!!! Or even worse, a member of the electorial college!! Nah, she doesn’t have the minute material between the ears for that!!!

      • Average Joe

        “Who would waste a bullet on this old phoney”

        That depends…Are you the old phony that you are refering too? If so, I’d be willing to waste an entire clip…..hell, maybe two….just for the practice.

    • Joe H.

      Ted,
      LISTEN UP, BUDDY! IF HE’sNOT ON THE LIST, THEN WRITE HIM IN!!!!!

  • Sol of Texas

    Bob –

    Another great thought provoking article. I don’t see Ron Paul as an isolationist. He is consistent. I still intend to vote for him in the primary whether others think he can win or not.

    • Troy Crowe

      We will see Romney our Gingrich as the nominee partly for that reason. Of the two I would rather have Gingrich. Because Mr. Paul does not have the support to win, look at the polls, we will see one of the aforementioned two becoming the nominee. The only other choices I see in the current selection, as far as someone being comparable to Mr. Paul, would be? Get my point hence the question mark.

      • Joe Loyd

        The only reason Ron Paul “cannot” win or is “unelectable” or “lacks support” is all of you people who mostly agree with him but will not vote your conscience. The lesser of two evils is still evil! Why would you want to be on a winning team that is destructive to liberty, free markets and the Constitution of the United States? What we have been doing in this country is not working! We need a radical departure from the statist/progressive agenda and all of the candidates besides Ron Paul offer more of the same. Your support for Ron Paul would, at the very least, make him a force to be reckoned with in American politics. As it stands, the “lamestream media” gets away with marginalizing Dr. Paul and we need to vote them out, as well, by electing him to office.

      • PATRIOT 101

        Troy,
        You took the bait too. The media has you convinced that ONLY one of “their choices” can win. Get a pair and vote on principal! If we miss the chance to nominate Ron Paul, the media will have succeeded again in choosing our candidate, thus giving us (We the people) no choice at all…
        There are at least 3 candidates that deserve consideration and the media has trounced them all starting with Michelle Bachmann when she was in the lead when Fox’s Chris Wallace asked her if she was a “kook”. He later apologized, but the damage was severe and permanent as she has been sliding in the polls ever since that incident.
        Media has systematically destroyed every “leader” except Romney! Just a coincidence I’m sure.
        Media insists that only Romney or Gingrich are “electable” and the sheeple are falling in line with the propaganda machine.
        We still may have the power to reverse the course of this country through elections IF people vote their conscience. If we lose this opportunity, I fear there will be no more (at least at the polls).

        • dan

          Pat… you took the words right out of my mouth. Grat minds think alike!
          The other “dan”

        • Rosco1776

          Amen brother!! It’s Ron Paul again for me!!

          “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” — John Quincy Adams

          • DaveH

            Most excellent quote, Rosco. Thank you.

      • s c

        T, if you’re a conservative, I’m a blood-sucking Margaret Sanger fan. If you like Gingrich, then you probably like McCain.
        WHY do you waste our time calling yourself a conservative? You might be a fence-sitter, but you’re NO conservative. You might be a RINO or a neocon, but you ARE NOT a conservative. Get it?

      • Geno Zomparelli

        Who says Ron Paul does not have the support to win? Does he have your support? YOUR support is all he needs. That’s right, it is not about what others think about RON Paul. It matters what YOU think. If everyone supported Ron Paul he will win. It is that simple. Do not confuse electing the leader of the free world with a horse race. Don’t try to pick the winner. Support the person you believe is right for America. It certainly is not Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. Just look at their records. Both are socialists. If either are elected we will get more of the same. If Ron Paul is elected we will get a new renaissance for this nation and the world. A Ron Paul presidency will be like the dawning of a new age. It will create a major shift in the way people of America see things.

        • libertytrain

          Amen.

        • Average Joe

          Well said!

          Ron Paul/Andrew Napolitano 2012!

      • DaveH

        Newt Gingrich? Please. The Liberals would slaughter him. And if they didn’t we wouldn’t be any better off with Newt:
        http://news.yahoo.com/newt-gingrich-pass-tea-party-muster-165541370.html

      • Lost in Paradise

        IF your attitude continues to spread, he probably will not win. Suck up your dumb attitude, and help us all to get Paul a win. I do not think it will save us, but it is at least a start, before we force the existing regime from its grip on us.

  • http://Boblivingston Lyle McDaniel

    It gets harder and harder to understand why so many think we must stay at war to have peace. bring the troops home . Protect our own borders .Get rid of the immigrant baggage that costs us so much then all those troops that come home would have jobs.RON paul is absolutely right about us having no buisness trring to run other country’s buisness, when those in charge has only enough time to be on continued vacations.

    • s c

      Lyle, PLEASE read ‘Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace’ [edited by H E Barnes]. Then follow it up with Ludwig von Mises’ ‘Socialism.’ Breathe deep, and try not to go ballistic when you’re done reading those two books.

  • Troy Crowe

    First of all Mr. Livingston. I am one of those who things Ron Pauls foreign policy is a little kooky and I am a true conservative. I do not advocate pushing around other countries but neither do I advocate living like a ostrich as Mr. Paul borderline does. He is a very smart man and in many cases I agree with him but being isolationist will only make us a target. Sure we are already a target for the most part, but we will be that much more of a target if we abandon the rest of the world and leave them to their selves. Another thing, what about the countries out their who request our help. Do we leave them to fend for themselves and within a short period of time just watch as one neighboring country overtakes them. Their are definitely many military bases throughout the world that I would close down but I would not crawl up in a cacoon as Mr. Paul in a round about way would suggest. Lets also talk about the fact that the unborn child is protected by the constitution. It is clear that Mr. Paul is stanchly pro-life. But instead of utilizing the constitution to abandon abortion on demand he uses it to give the states the power to decide. I agree with the limitation of power that the constitution provides the federal government and believe that most of the powers that it has it has stolen from the state. My problem with this particular issue is that if an unborn child is protected to “the right to life” by the constitution, what makes it even the right of the state to decide. To me that is a punt. I agree with ending the war on drugs, outside our borders. I believe we adhere to our drug laws and seal our borders to keep them out. Now, one last thing sinse you have me started. I believe without an ounce of doubt, as I am sure many others believe the same, Mr. Paul would get his clock wiped in the general election. He is one who through frustration our whatever has a habit of stuttering when trying to provide an aritculate message in a debate format which in turn lowers the confidence of many who believe in most of the ideas, like myself, that he provides. when it is him one on one he is very articulate but when he is in a rebuted debate he stutters and the many Americans out there who know nothing about him, but finally decide to get involved by viewing one of the debates, think he is a kook and do not think twice about him. I am aware of this through regular conversation. Lastly, Mr. Paul does very well in straw polls because all of him fans are fervent followers and vote in everyone of them. Having said that. Look at every national poll in the last 6 years and you rarely see him get any futher than second place. It happens but look at the many different polls out there right now from the past year. You might find him in first once maybe twice. That really gives one some confidence that he can beat the jackabite of a president that we currently have. Most poll that I have seen Mr. Paul in barely, on occasion, have him in the teens and never above second place. My belief is, he can’t win. I am not alone in my belief of that by far.

    • fedup

      We’re already a target, ya dumbass! 911 a-ringing a bell. Only now with wide open borders, we can be attacked whenever they want. You’re not a true conservative, you’re a fool! Ron Paul said we should get out of other countries business, he didn’t say not to keep an eye on them. The idea is simple, but effective, take care of our own house, we have enough here to be independent and be strong leaders in world market. trade with all who want trade. He who can control markets has a better chance of controlling the world than someone that controls armies. You’d be surprised how many countries will be nice to you when you have goods that they want. A true conservative minds his own business, sticks to his own knitting, and takes care of himself and his family. Without infringing on anyone else rights or liberties. It’s sheeple like you who cheered the Patriot Act for robbing us of our privacy and liberty.

    • Geno Zomparelli

      I carefully read your remarks and it is clear to me you have been brainwashed by the mainstream media. I think you should look at the facts of history and think more objectively about what is going on in this world. If you think Ron Paul’s foreign policy is “kooky” then you would have to say the same about George Washington and the founding fathers. But they’re out to get us you say? What do countries like Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan have to gain by attacking a world super power like the United States? Could their be other things going on. President Eisenhower warned us about the Military industrial Complex. War is very profitable. As long as our government plots ways to keep us in perpetual fear of the bogey man they accomplish two things: A docile fearful people asking the government to protect us from the bogey man they created, and a profitable war machine that enriches a few at the expense of the lives of our children.

      It is time for a paradigm shift in your thinking. Ron Paul understands what is really going on and once you open your eyes it becomes obvious. Ron Paul is not the ostrich. In fact neoconservatives like you have your head in the sand. Your cognitive dissonance does not allow you to see what is really going on in this world.

      Your arguments about protecting the unborn are also hypocritical. You see nothing wrong with killing innocent children in other countries yet you think our government should do more to protect the unborn child. If you want the government to dictate morality you are no different the Sharia law. Our government is a republic. It is not a religious oligarchy. A republic is based on the rule of law (the Constitution) and not on the whims of men (a democracy). I suggest you read the Federalist Papers who want to understand the principles upon which our country was founded. This are the principles Ron Paul believes in and has consistently stood for.

      You are superficial in your assessment of great men. Doesn’t the Bible warn us to beware of the smooth talking devil? People seem to have a Hollywood mentality when it comes to picking the leader of the free world. If he is not a smooth talker with a nice hairdo then he cannot possibly be the right man for the job. When will people wake up and learn the lessons of history? Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. It is time we stop playing into the false paradigms perpetuated by the left and right and consider something different, like Ron Paul. It is sad to say this, but our government is really just a reflection of the moral will of the people.

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Geno Zomparelli,

        Very well said.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

      • Lost in Paradise

        Excellent post and response. Excellent!

    • FederalistNo84

      Troy Crowe,
      It was George W. Bush that got me up off the couch. I started reading the United States Constitution and The Federalist. It took several years of study to begin to think as the Founding Fathers did. Their level of education vastly out weighs what we would consider “normal” education. That being the case I’m not surprised folks have a difficult time understanding what Ron Paul is communicating. To be clear, I’m making a general statement and not attacking you.

      Further, our present educational system has been infiltrated by the progressive/fascist/communists. We have been programmed and lied to from a very early age. And, the MSM has continued our education. We all have thinking that needs to be corrected but, I digress.

      During my years of study my wife and I talked often at the dinner table. We would talk about events of the day, attempt to quote the Constitution and connect with Jay, Hamilton and Madison. For times when memory fails we have several books at the ready. To this day my wife and I continue this exercise. It has become a way of life.

      I never liked Ron Paul. Not that long ago I heard Ron Paul speak and maybe for the first time. I almost fell off my chair. I listened to more of what he had to say. Because I had been studying we were now locked in agreement. I approached my wife and asked her to listen. She wanted nothing to do with Ron Paul. One day I got her to listen and that was it. Ron Paul thinks the United States Constitution and Rule of Law. All other Presidential candidates understand nothing about American History or The United States Constitution. At best they are incremental progressives.

      My wife and I no longer call our selves Conservatives. We are Federalists through self education.

      I would remind you, the States created the Federal government not the other way around. It is the States that can dissolve the Federal government. The People and States are sovereign. The Federal government only has the powers listed in the United States Constitution and no more. You see, the power to dissolve the Federal government was never prohibited to the States or the People by the Constitution. You should be able to quote sections of the Constitution, The Federalist and finish my points. You should also be able to identify who (today) is predisposed to usurp power within the Federal government by name and position.

    • DaveH

      If you are a militarist, Troy, you are NOT a True Conservative. Our founders disdained foreign entanglements.
      Picking a side and getting involved has nothing to do with Conservatism and everything to do with Freedom Taking. There is no greater affront to Freedom than taking the lives of other people except in self-defense.

    • JC

      Troy Crowe says:

      December 2, 2011 at 7:44 am

      First of all Mr. Livingston. I am one of those who things Ron Pauls foreign policy is a little kooky and I am a true conservative. I do not advocate pushing around other countries but neither do I advocate living like a ostrich as Mr. Paul borderline does.

      Where do you get this stuff? TV? that figures.
      Ron Paul does not advocate isolationism. he advocates non-intervention and Constitutional values…like a good American should.

    • Millicent

      Very intelligent response. I agree with you 100%. Ron Paul besides being Antisemitic is a hypocrite.

      • JeffH

        Shmuel Ben-Gad: Dr. Paul’s position is based upon a principled, modest, non-interventionist foreign policy – not upon anti-Zionism.

        It seems to me a Ron Paul presidency would be good for Israel and for the United States. Its foreign policy non-interventionism and its concern to protect national sovereignty would provide Israel with a greater impetus to increase its own independence and sense of national honor. (Shmuel Ben-Gad is a librarian at the George Washington University in Washington, DC, a registered Republican and an overseas member of Manhigut Yehudit)

        http://lewrockwell.com/block/block183.html

      • JeffH

        Millicent, you’ve not responded one time to any references or cited article regarding Paul that I’ve left for you. Is it because you can’t refute them or you can’t say anything that isn’t derogatory because you can’t back your comments up with any facts? Just askin?

        • Joe H.

          JeffH,
          Well, it’s been almost three hours since you asked that and since there is no answer( intelligent or otherwise) I would say she can’t refute them with FACTS. but being the prog she is, that doesn’t suprise me one bit!!

        • JC

          Jeff, it’s because her entire mentality is based on blind hatred.
          NOT a thinking human being at all…

          • Millicent

            Over the years I’ve sometimes been asked by supporters of Ron Paul why I don’t take him more seriously despite my own libertarian leanings on many issues. One of the reasons was on display in Monday’s GOP debate in Florida, namely Paul’s penchant for blaming the U.S. for the murderous hostility of Islamic jihadists.

            It’s one thing to have opposed U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, or to call for a significantly smaller military budget. Fine. But it’s despicable to assert, as Paul did Monday night, that “we’re under great threat because we occupy so many countries” (my emphasis), as if that were a useful explanation for 9/11. “We’re in 130 countries,” he added. “… if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we’re kidding ourselves.”

            Paul went on to recite Osama bin Laden‘s stated reasons for terror attacks (before retreating somewhat under a barrage of boos), and compared the U.S. with China. “We have to be honest with ourselves,” he said. “What would we do if another country, say, China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?”

            In Paul’s view, apparently, every foreign intervention is equally vile, no matter who the intervening country might support or what that country’s motives might be. His moral equivalence is ugly.

          • DaveH

            So, Millicent, you go over to your neighbors repeatedly for weeks, smacking them up. And then finally one day they come over to your house and smack you back. Your neighbors are the Aggressors? Maybe you can sell that to your fellow fanatics, but the wise people don’t buy it.
            Some reality:
            http://www.parstimes.com/history/us_iran.html

          • DaveH
          • Karolyn

            millicent -”We have to be honest with ourselves,” he said. “What would we do if another country, say, China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?”

            Exactly!!!!!!!!!!! Who the hell do we think we are??

          • JC

            Millicent, I prefer to take the scope of my thinking further back than Iraq and Afghanistan. How about our support for the Shah of Iran, or the House of Saud? Both being brutal dictatorships supported by “American Interests”. We got our oil, the people there got an Iron Fist paid for with US Dollars…and they know it.
            How is it that the regimes of Hosni Mubarek and Muammar Ghadafi were tolerated by us for so long if we are so freaking noble? It took the people of those nations to rise up and throw off the regimes supported by Western Democracies and tolerated by the UN and NATO(for 30 years) to begin the process of change within those countries.
            So don’t hand me this crap about them not having any right to to be angry with us, they have every right in the world.

            That said, I will not tolerate religious nut jobs of any persuasion advocating the death of Americans for “religious reasons”.
            We may have a war on our hands before this is over, but I’d rather we quit provoking it. Time for America to mind America’s business.

          • DaveH

            Millicent’s good guys in action:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqYgHZyPNmc

          • DaveH
          • DaveH

            You can find the 39-minute version of the film here. This is a “cached” version of the webpage at collateralmurder.com which I couldn’t access for some reason or other, so I don’t know how much longer it will be on the Yahoo.com servers. Scroll down to the 39-minute video:
            http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22collateralmurder%22&fr=crmas&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=%22collateralmurder%22&d=4900180096780620&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=2b2d4e4c,5ae75aaf&icp=1&amp;.intl=us&sig=RJbKT6I.evf.4IOZJS3eIA–

        • Millicent

          Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has just introduced an amendment to end all U.S. aid to Israel. The amendment could be voted on before the day is over. I need your help right now to stop this ill-conceived proposal!

          Please click here to quickly and easily send a message to your elected representative urging them to stand with Israel.

          Don’t be deceived. This Ron Paul proposal would not lower our budget deficit. By abandoning Israel while its enemies are gaining strength, the risk of a major war in the Middle East would increase. A major war would cost the U.S. billions and billions of dollars as we have already seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

          The U.S. gives billions of dollars a year to foreign countries that hate us and regularly vote against us at the United Nations. But, Israel votes with the U.S. 97% of the time. They are a loyal ally that shares our values. The aid they receive is used to buy military equipment from U.S. companies so the money comes back to us. Ron Paul’s proposal makes no sense.

          Please right now go to http://www.cwfpac.com to tell your congressman to stand with Israel.

          You may also call the Capitol Hill Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your representative’s office. If you don’t know his or her name, give the operator your zip code and they will transfer you. Tell them to stand with our most reliable ally Israel by opposing the Paul amendment to end all foreign aid. Please take action now!

          • DaveH

            If you want to support Israel, Millicent, fine. Send your own money, NOT mine. I’m tapped out, thanks to blind sheeple like yourself who follow the Leaders wherever they take them.

          • Karolyn

            Thanks for the the heads-up, Millicent, so I know to contact my congressman to tell him to back Paul’s bill!

          • JC

            You’re aware that we give Egypt just as much money as we do Israel right? That was part of the Camp David Peace Accord.
            We need to look after America.

  • Tommy Phillips

    A review of history clearly demonstrates that the warfare state is as big a threat to liberty as the welfare state. Ron Paul’s book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom (available from the Mises Institute), demonstrates Paul’s consistency over the years on foreign policy. The quotes from our Founding Fathers in the book warn us that war poses a great danger to our liberties. Madison thought it may pose the greatest danger – “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.”

    • Troy Crowe

      That is good information. I like that. It is so true.

  • Right Coast Mike

    I love Ron Paul on about 99% – even most of his foreign policy positions. It’s Iran where we have the disconnect. Is his position on Iran’s nuclear ambitions to ignore their very outspoken threats and do absolutely nothing until we see the mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv? If his foreign policy could moderate just a little bit toward the global realities in place, he might get more support – maybe even enough to get elected.

    • Troy Crowe

      That and his willingness to pull out of the rest of the world is my biggest problems with him. We have to have a presence in the world not for force but for deterent. We have friends who rely on us. Those who rely on us but are not our friend by all means kick them to the curb.

      • Bob in Boston

        We just test fired a hypersonic missile that can hit anywhere in the world in 1 hour. Why in the world would we need foreign bases anywhere?

      • JC

        Do you mean to deter the enemies we created by being there in the first place? That’s circular thinking my friend…borderline insanity.

    • PATRIOT 101

      Israel can take care of Iran. Obama has intervened and told Israel to leave Iran alone. Israel will attack Iran as soon as Obama is out of the White House.
      I for one am tired of fighting (and paying for) others wars. Noble, but it has us broke at home. Not a good idea anymore.

    • Geno Zomparelli

      Do YOU really believe that or are you just echoing what you hear from the mainstream media?

      Iran is surrounded by counties that already have numerous nuclear weapons! Come on , be rational! What could Iran gain by building one nuclear weapon and threatening Israel with it when Israel has 100 times the nuclear power?

      Besides, it is the provocative actions of the U.S. that will threaten WW III and a nuclear Holocaust. China has already made it clear that a threat to Pakistan will result in WW III and Russia made it clear that a threat to Iran will result in WW III.

      America is an arrogant out of control child that thinks it has the moral high ground when the truth is America has become a corrupt imperialist nation that is in decline, like the Roman empire. American socialist and neo-fascist policies perpetuated by the corrupt banking cartel are the reasons for the problems in this world. And as long as we support our government’s policies we are accomplices to the evil that is taking over the world. America is where Germany was in the early 1930s. If we do not wake up and see this we will be going down into the trash heap of history.

    • Mark in LA

      Well Rambo Mike, what do you think we should do to stop Iran from getting the bomb? Iran has uranium deposits, they are the most highly educated society in the middle east after Israel, the technology is 60 years old, and they can build underground facilities that nobody can touch in their mountains. The only alternative is a massive unprovoked nuclear strike on the Iranian population killing tens of millions or a massive invasion of US troops. That invasion probably won’t be successful with less than 500,000 troops. It will probably cost 20,000 men and countless casualties and there will be stiff Iranian resistance after “peace” has been declared.

    • DaveH

      Here is a list of countries with nuclear weapons, Mike:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

      Keep in mind that the US has been the only country to have ever used a nuclear weapon against another country. We have military presence in more countries than any other country in the world. Do you think we are in any position to criticize other countries for going nuclear?

    • Lost in Paradise

      Like Paul said, “I would ask congress for advise first”, then decide’

  • http://heconservativecrawfish.wordpress.com Doug Schexnayder.PhD (ret)

    Ron Paul has 2 fatal flaws (and I simply love the rest)….the dope heads want his legal pot and the no shooting war ever utopians want his “no interfering faulty America” stance overseas.

    Even kook OzBama realized after having security access as POTUS that there were many many things he did not know or wrongly assumed about foreign policy.
    Paul can be Sec. of the Treasury all day long.

    • Troy Crowe

      I am right there with you on that. We need him in a position with fiscal control. the only problem is, I believe this is where he stands, he is retiring if he does not get the nomination. We need him controling the purse for sure. We need him for pushing the closing of the many unconstitutional federal agencies to include the federal reserve.

      • Millicent

        I can agree with you on that issue. But, we have been off the gold standard for so long, what would happen if all of a sudden we stopped printing fiat money and put gold back as the standard? Wouldn’t there be a chaotic event? I perhaps think, it should be gradual by first eliminating all the welfare programs that the gov’t has no right to impose on us. All at once, I don’t know.

    • Bob in Boston

      He never said he wanted to legalize pot, he just said that prohibition of drugs should reside with the states, where it belongs. The federal government has no authority to ban drugs.

      And by the way, what is wrong with legalizing pot – that seems like a really weird issue for you to latch onto. It’s far safer than alcohol and most prescription drugs…

      • DaveH

        One would think that most people would have learned from the follies of alcohol prohibition. One would think wrong:
        http://mises.org/books/prohibition.pdf

        • JeffH

          Yepper!

        • Average Joe

          Some folks are just plain special (DS,TC and Millitant)….short bus special……

      • JC

        Prohibition is what is responsible for Drug Cartels, it is responsible for the infringements on some of our civil rights by Federal Policing Agencies that wouldn’t exist without “prohibition”.
        When alcohol was legalized after Congress realized they could never get rid of it…the murder rate in the US fell by 50% almost overnight.

        And I personally don’t care what people do to themselves, it’s their choice. I do believe in education though. people should be taught what the consequences of drug addiction are. Like getting shot in the face breaking into someone’s home to support your habit. Or lethal injection for killing someone while driving under the influence?
        There’s your deterrent…in a “just” world.

        • DaveH

          Most drug-related crimes are a result of the high price of drugs which is a result of the illegality of drugs.

        • Joe H.

          JC,
          While I agree with you, there is one BIG fly in the soup. The bleeding heart liberal judges that truly believe that ” they were under the influence of the demon drugs and couldn’t help themselves”!! the druggie that kills someone in a car when under the influence of drugs would be under bad luck if he got five years and served three!! I had a friend that used to drink heavily and drive. Due to nothing but GOD, he never had an accident. Well he quit drinking, married a good woman, and had a little girl. One night coming home from a movie, he came around a curve coming into Adrian Michigan and a drunk driver went left of center, hit him and killed him and his wife, leaving a little girl as an orphan. Karma, you say? Maybe, but I heard the guy got seven years! now tell me that the druggies wl fare worse!!

          • Karolyn

            Joe – Jail solves nothing other than keeping people off the streets. Then when they get out, they are often apt to do the same thing. The money is much better spent on education. I had a cousin who was in jail for vehicular manslaughter when she was in her 20s. She only did a few years, but fortunately, got sober and lived a responsible life until she died last year. I can’t help but feel thata if she had spent a lot of time in prison, she might have come out more hardened.

          • JC

            As I mentioned above, “in a just world”…but that isn’t what we have.
            What we do have is a system of “laws of control”, not a Justice System.
            Prohibition has nothing to do with morality, it’s become an industry unto itself and just another way to suck money out of the taxpayer under the (ridiculous) guise of protecting people.

          • DaveH

            I’m with you on that one, Karolyn.
            Prison is like Crime College. We put them together with fellow crooks so they can learn each others secrets and immorality. Then some of them who aren’t even in the slammer for much (maybe drug violations) become subject to rapes, beatings, maybe even murder sometimes, including some assaults by guards. And we ponder why they haven’t become nicer people in prison?
            If I was ruler, I’d cut their sentences dramatically and they’d stay in their cells until the sentence was up. I’d install a chin-up bar, a toilet, a decent cot, a TV that only received signals a few hours each day, and let them read all the books they wanted. Their food and books would be supplied without opening their cell doors. There would be no physical contact with other prisoners or guards except in an emergency, and then at least two guards would be present to open the cell and take the prisoner to the infirmary.
            After they were let out, their records would be expunged, so they could easily blend back into the mainstream if they wanted. That way there would actually be an incentive to behave. As it is now, many of them have an almost impossible task to get a job. What else could we expect in such a case then more crime?
            For some real insight into our prison system read some of Radley Balko’s work at reason.com. Here’s a sample:
            http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/20/the-crime-rate-puzzle

          • Jo H.

            karolyn & DaveH.,
            Be that as it may, explain to me the large number of people out there that have 8,9 and over 12 DUIs??? There are some that are incorrigible!! Not too long ago there was a guy on the news that had killed a guy in a drunken driving case, got four years, got out and was under charges for paralizing another guy!! Had he gotten 10 years, served those years without bail, he would nor have had a second victim so soon!!

          • DaveH

            Sure he would, Joe. They’re called the US Taxpayers.

          • DaveH
  • http://Boblivingston Lyle McDaniel

    And ,oh Elwood havnt you read the news lately ,? Slavery was gone from the south long before you came to be. How long do you think any baggy diapered islamic would last on our shores. of course obummer would like to make it possible by taking our guns. Dont you know that is the main reason we have not been invaded . our civillian army. Obama is your weak thinker.

    • DaveH

      No, Lyle, slavery is alive and well. It is being promoted daily by redistributionist Liberals who think that riding on the shoulders of others is a noble event.

    • Millicent

      I am against anything the Commie Obama is trying to do to take away 2nd Amendment rights. However, he is Commander in Chief. The military seems to be abrogating their responsibility to protect us from overthrow of our gov’t from within. They should be going into the WH and arresting this usurper, but they do not do their sworn duty. As long as he has the military to unleash on the citizenry, having your own weapons will not protect you. Did you see the Senate bill that was approved today. It is nullifying the Bill of Rights and gives the military control over your freedom.

  • CP

    I haven’t “studied” Mr. Paul, but just listening to him scares me to death. I HAVE studied a good bit of history, and every time we pulled our heads in and tried to shut out the rest of the world, we got a very rude awakening. The last bit instance of that was Pearl Harbor, which might have been prevented had we been a bit more engaged in international politics at the time. As far as “sealing” our borders, that, too, has been tried once before as well, and Al Capone grew rich and famous as a result. If we would legalize and regulate drugs, there would be far less danger from them, less expense in controlling them, and far more income from the legalized sale of them. When you can go to the corner drugstore and buy something, albeit with a mandatory prescription, you aren’t nearly as likely to support the bootlegger/drug dealer.

    • Troy Crowe

      That is completely correct. Which is why I think his foreign policy is bad for this day and age for sure. Unfortunately our elected officials have put us in the position of being the bad guys to the world. We cannot correct that by simply walking away from the mess we have created. We have to maintain a presence in strategic locations are rebuild our relationships all the while cleaning up our own house.

      • DaveH

        See my response to CP.

    • Troy Crowe

      I do not like your drug ideas simply because one of the largest drug problems we have here has to do with prescription drugs. So legalizing drugs probably will have a better outcome that our current dealings. I am not sure that there is a quantitative benefit from it either. Seal the borders from importing drugs (I mean really seal it), get the community involved, and really drill into our youngest generations the results of drug usage; at a reasonable age of course. Instead of teaching homosexuality in school, show videos of the results of drug abuse in a semi-regular timeline and you will scare the pants off a child not to use drugs. I do not think there is enough exposure of the consequences.

    • s c

      cp, IF you’ve ‘read a lot of history,’ most of the authors you worship share the same, basic credential – they’re INCOMPETENT and couldn’t get close to being objective if their heads if they had a pistol pointed at their pointy heads.
      Your Pearl Harbor angle is at least headed in the right direction, but you didn’t go far enough. In the ‘Capone’ matter, you are way beyond clueless.
      Sealing the borders? BLAH. If they’d been serious about it, Capone’s easy money would have evaporated, and many elected types (including Congress) would have been denied the same easy money that Capone got.
      Prohibition was living proof that politicians can’t be trusted with the simplest of issues – let alone enforcing a politician’s view of ‘morality.’
      Watching segments of The Untouchables will net you a better idea of what Prohibition was and was not.
      The way the Israelis secure THEIR borders is serious, cp. Obs and his herd of untrained monkeys couldn’t secure the front door of a toilet.
      Keep on reading, and read books written by real historians, not the ones who are schooled in politically and socially engineered “history.”

      • DaveH

        Most Historians are Court Historians, i.e. they write to please Big Government, not to tell truth.

    • Mark in LA

      CP, studying history is not the same as watching a movie. The US government wanted Pearl Harbor to happen. Roosevelt was dying for an incident to get us into the war. The Germans never obliged – even after Roosevelt’s acts of war on Germany such as Lend-Lease and allowing US destroyers to be used on convoy duty out to the mid Atlantic. These were acts of war by the US on Germany but Germany did not declare. They sank some of those convoy destroyers and Roosevelt was hoping that would get us in but Congress and the American people weren’t ready to go along yet.

    • DaveH

      OMG, CP. Your Pearl Harbor statement couldn’t be further from the truth. I don’t fault you for that, because you are just one of millions of propagandized Americans who have no idea of what the truth was. Please read this book and learn just how wrong you are:
      http://mises.org/books/pearl_harbor_greaves.pdf

    • Lost in Paradise

      Actually we were involved in world politics, and that is what ticked off Japan. They knew we would, and I think did put sanctions on them, and were going to try and stop the flow of oil to Japan. I would need to go back and restudy our history again, but we were involved.

      I think we were complacent, because we had treaties from WW1. and believed other countries would adhere to the treaties. No such luck!

      • DaveH

        Notable was that we were actually allies with Japan in WWI. Also, Japan in the 1930s and 1940s was very anti-communist.

      • Mark in LA

        We did stop the flow of oil and scrap iron to Japan. That is why their main thrust was south to the Royal Dutch Shell holdings around Indonesia. Their strategy always was to punch us in the nose a few times and hope we would quickly sue for peace and leave East Asia to them. They looked at us as people too happy with their comsumerist lives to make the necessary sacrifices neede for total war. They knew they could not win a long drawn out war of attrition.

        • Joe H.

          Mark in LA,
          With some of the complacent progs we have now if we were attacked it might have a different outcome!! I’m not for foreign interventions, but I believe there is a large section of our country that wouldn’t fight even if we WERE attacked. being willing to defend our country if attacked has gone out of vogue!! now, cut off all their freebies and you would have a war on your hands. such love of our country.

  • lovecookie

    Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. There is a huge difference between the two and many people get them mixed up. Ron Paul wants to maintain open trade and friendly alliances with other countries without meddling in their affairs, having military occupy their territory or telling them how to live. This is stated in the Constitution.

    • Bob Marshall

      Very well explained.

    • Troy Crowe

      I believe he pushes the envelope between the two. Sometimes intervention is good.

      • Mike C

        Really? Well I don’t like your opinions or view points. I’m going to come over and intervene in your life until you change them. But don’t worry or get upset. It’s for your own good!

        • Lost in Paradise

          Hahahaha LMAO!

        • DaveH

          Good one, Mike.

        • JeffH

          Troy sounds more like the board harpy/troll…just sayin’

      • Mark in LA

        Thats what a declaration of war is for. Thats what an informed Congress is for. Not the lie filled charade put on by the Bush administration to get us into Iraq.

        • Angel Wannabe

          Mark, so what happens when you do have an informed Congress, but are bought and paid for by the TPTB, to do they’re bidding__ then what?_If you don’t clean out the whole closet, it’s still dirty!__There is 74 Known Communists left in the House and Senate, since the election!__What percentage of chance is there, of the people getting a fair shake, with the amont of corruption???

          • Joe H.

            Angel Wannabe,
            I have a feeling that there are a few “closet commies” on the supremes, as well.

  • Angel Wannabe

    Good Article Bob__Everything has been “re-defined”, everything we thought that was normal, is just the opposite. To quote Becks phrase “Bottom up, top down and inside out”.
    The bought and paid for, News Media has done a fine job of confusing the issues and the people. Unless as a hobby you’re a bit of a Sleuth like me, you sift through the mounds of info like puzzle pieces, putting them together, and try to come up with an image of truth.__

    Since Bam Bam has been in office there have been more Countries tossed and their regimes over thrown, than I’ve seen in a long time. Co-incidence?, I don’t believe in them. You had Mubarak, Gaddaffi, and Osama Bin Laden’s, death in the headlines for Um-teenth time in the last 10 years. Although, Hussein was done away with in 06. Personally _ we Need to Toss Obama, 2012 seems like a very good year!

    As far as the Elections go I’m down to Two Candidates, Ron Paul, Rick Santorium and just for the record, before anyone decides to tell me how stupid I am__Go ahead make my day! 
    I salute any Gladiator willing to run for election, only to be thrown into the Viper Pit In Washington. I hope to hell they have A LOT of Anti-Venom & Armor because they’re going to need it. It’s a Deadlock now__they’re not hiding it anymore__NOTHING IS GETTING DONE, except further Destruction of the America……

    The only other thing I have to say about being Normal, we’re down to choosing a side. We need to know the Consequences of each, It’s no longer Right or Left__ we’re down to Good and Evil!

  • evie

    Ron Paul goes according to our Constitution, he does not deviate or go back and forth on issues as the other candidates have done, he stands firm. The only problem Ron Paul has is the Media who does not put him in the best light, or they exclude any of his positive ideas. He wants all the things the American people want for our Country, he sticks to the Constitution in every debate I have seen him in, and he is not influenced by the lobbyists, the thing that is hurting American people. He believes the State’s should have more power rather than everyone looking for a hand out from the federal government which would help in lowering our financial dilemma, he believes that wars are not getting us anyplace but putting us more in debt, when some of the issues aren’t even ours that we are fighting for and losing our American military over. I think everyone should listen closer to his views when debating (if he gets a chance to say anything) that he is not influenced by every agency in the country or taking hand outs from lobbyists, he is truly concerned about the welfare of the American people and our financial situation and jobs. It’s the Media that is downplaying him, his ideas are honest, good, and for the American people. I like him and will listen closer as the Republicians continue to debate, why don’t you too!!

    • DaveH

      The Media Moguls and other Moguls fear Ron Paul for a very good reason. He believes in Free Markets. The Politically Connected Established Moguls don’t like competition. With Free Markets there are no guarantees. A Businessman can be popular one year and gone the next. With Free Markets, the business owners are slaves to the whims of the consumers. It’s much easier for Moguls to buy protection from their Favorite Politicians than to face the rigors of open competition.
      Ron Paul threatens to expose their 150 year old scam to the American People and that understandably terrifies the Moguls.

  • http://facebook Dennis

    The way I see it, Ron Paul would make a great President. He would get this country back to normal. But he is not running as a democrat or republican, so he want get elected. We got these ediot’s in America that think if you are not a die hard democrat or die hard republican, you are nothing. During world war two General George S. Patton refered those two party’s as communist, it got him into a lot of trouble. But in a way he is kind of right. I just about bet if Hitler was still alive. And if he wanted to run for President on either party. The democrats or republicans would be pushing for him to get elected. You no its true.

    • Lost in Paradise

      He IS running as a republican.

      • Millicent

        Sorry, you are incorrect. He is already illegally in the WH

        • Joe H.

          Millie,
          Now I see why you don’t know anything about R. Paul. YOU CAN’T READ AND COMPREHEND!! The post was about Ron Paul not Abummer!!!

          • JeffH

            Mllie might be 47D’s sister or wife…somehow related anyway.

  • Peter Mac Isaac

    As I watch my brothers to the south of my Canadian refuge once again it has become crystal clear your only hope is to elect Ron Paul. His level of honesty and integrity and intelligence is a beacon of hope that once shone from your statue of liberty but no longer can be seen through the dark days of your current administration. Good luck. You folks are certainly going to need it if he doesn’t get elected.

    • Lost in Paradise

      If he does not get elected, we will need our good neighbors to the north to help with the revolution that will follow.

      • JC

        Yep, and despite all the propoganda, Canada is the third most heavily armed nation in the world. Good people to have on your side. ;)

  • amarq

    I have supported Dr. Paul for 25 years and I will tell you he is neither a issolationist, weak on defence nor is he a “kook”. Lincoln’s famous phrase discribes Dr. Paul to a tee…”Walk softly but carry a big stick”…It’s our own house we need to get in order…and ya never know, we may have a few less enemies in the world if we quit invading their countries and assinating their chosen leaders. And those who would choose to remain our enemies, would find us a much stronger foe.

    • Robert A Hirschmann

      I don’t think that quote came from Lincoln. Try Teddy Roosevelt.

    • JeffH

      Ah yes…”Walk softly but carry a big stick”…my take on Paul also.
      As Robert said, it was TR’s quote and not Lincolns.

  • skippy

    I love, love, love this article Bob!!!! Yep, getting our house/home in order is priority ONE. Get people back to work, get the borders secure. Ron Paul would be great for this country, no doubt about that. I have to agree with Sol….I intend to vote for him too!! Thanks again Bob for putting this out there!

  • ThunderFunder

    The USA is NOT the reason Israel exists… God is. He will protect & defend her. The Constitution is the reason the USA exists. Ron Paul will protect & defend it.
    Ron Paul 2012!

  • Gary Haws

    I admire Ron Paul for his tenacity, but if it were me, I would have given up years ago. Just like Allen Keys, Ron Paul tells the truth that the average voter doesn’t want to hear. We have become addicted to a socialist/democractic form of goverment that supplies our needs. As a nation, can we ever desire to embrace our Constitution and reform the original representitive republic we started with?

    • DaveH

      Correction, Gary — We have become addicted to a socialist/democractic form of goverment that presents the illusion of supplying our needs.

  • Doc Sarvis

    Huntsman and Paul are the strongest Republican candidates on foreign policy by far. Perhaps not because of their actual policy stances but because they are knowledgable about the world and global ecopolitics. The rest of the candidates are just blowing steam when it comes to global affairs.

    • Millicent

      Ron Paul knowledgable about the world? LMAO.

      • Joe H.

        millie, I hope the election goes the same way as you are going. Have you noticed you are of a TINY minority?!?!?!?

      • JC

        There’s Milli, spewing her personal brand of poison again.

  • Robert A Hirschmann

    I am 100% for Ron Paul and think that anyone else in the Republican race is just another flip-flopping RINO. In my opinion, if he does not get elected this country will soon be another third world country. The Constitution is what made us great and our current dictator-in-chief is trying to destroy everything about it. If enough people get behind Ron he will get elected! We need to take our country back!

  • KURT

    I would vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat even with his foreign policy…because the House and Senate (be they Democrats or Republicans) would never let him take it to the extremes he expouses. There are always the following questions in my mind:

    1) If we bring everyone home…and there’s another World War…would it cost us more blood and treasure because right now we have “footholds” all over the world…what would it cost us should we remove those “footholds” and then find we really needed them?

    2) As a Christian…we are to preach the Gospel to All Nations…what if the Nation is controlled by a dictator that doesn’t allow it’s people freedom of religion? Should we help the people remove the dictator and then let them decide what sort of government they want rather than have one “suppressed” upon them?

    • Troy Crowe

      You are right on. And for that I will consider him more. I like the guy but I am weary of his foreign policy. I also do not believe he can win the primary election. I am concerned that Romney will default by Paul not winning and although him and Gingrich are a lot alike I would rather have him Gingrich than Romney. With Gingrich at least you know what to expect and I think he is far better equipted to get fiscal order and other things in line than Romney.

      • Lost in Paradise

        Based on his past, I do not think he would be any better than Romney. He is a flipflopper, and liar,so who knows what his real agenda is. Of all the candidates, Ron Paul is the one to vote for. If you would ALL vote for him, he would win. The other candidates are for more government, and more war. Is that what you really want?

      • Joe H.

        Troy,
        If you help elect Gingrich, you will have helped elect the most morally BANKRUPT president this country has ever known!! Think about it, he left his terminally ill wife for another woman, worked for the fed, worked for fannie and freddie during its crisis, and more!! God help this country if he gets in!!!

      • JC

        Troy Crowe says:
        December 2, 2011 at 8:45 am
        You are right on. And for that I will consider him more. I like the guy but I am weary of his foreign policy.

        “His” foreign policy is not “his” foreign policy…it’s the foreign policy outlined in our Constitution.
        You might as well be saying George Washington was a great President except for his “kooky” foreign policy.

    • Joe Loyd

      Our troops are tired and our resources are severely stretched. If we continue our occupation of the rest of the world, we won’t have the energy or capital to fight a world war. We need to get our troops home and rebuild our armed forces and heal our economy. As far as evangelism goes, the government is the last entity we want as our advanced guard. When this country is free and prosperous, we are the most generous and evangelistic nation in history using private resources.

    • Helen2

      Kurt, 1. why in the world do we need a foot hold in 135 countries of the world. That alone by itself suggests aggression to a country, even if you are there with permission. Maybe they are too afraid to say no to a country as big as the US? 2, as a Christian, we are told to go into all the world to preach the gospel, not to go to war with them if they won’t let us in the country. Jesus told us to shake the dust off our feet and leave the place if they didn’t want to hear what you had to say. He did not tell us to change their government so we can go in. He will take care of the people inside the country if they are hungry for God. Walid Shoebat was a devout Muslim who was trying to lead his American wife to Allah. He bought a Bible so he could read it to convince her Allah was greater. Through his study, he found the real God and Jesus without any missionary talking to him. Go to his website and you can read about it there. God is capable of calling people to Him without our taking over their governments. I think Ron Paul is the answer for 2012. If enough people get on board and start talking about how great he is, we won’t need the MSM’s help.

    • Average Joe

      “1) If we bring everyone home…and there’s another World War…would it cost us more blood and treasure because right now we have “footholds” all over the world…what would it cost us should we remove those “footholds” and then find we really needed them?”

      Footholds, mean occupation. What right does the US have to occupy any sovereign nation whatsoever? None. How would you like Chinese army bases set up throughout the US, patroling our streets stopping us and searching us any time they felt like doing so? That is exactly what we do to other nations around the globe. Just because we bring our military home and leave these countries, doesn’t mean we are not going to stop gathering intel and actually use it to stop any threats before they happen.Our troops would be better served right here on our soil. Patrolling the boders, manning all ports of entry in the US as well as every international airport in the nation. We don’t need all of this TSA BS…all we need are a few well trained bomb dogs and a few well trained handlers in every airport. Our military would be doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing…protecting….us.

      2) As a Christian…we are to preach the Gospel to All Nations…what if the Nation is controlled by a dictator that doesn’t allow it’s people freedom of religion? Should we help the people remove the dictator and then let them decide what sort of government they want rather than have one “suppressed” upon them?

      If, as a christian, you feel the need to go to these countries and spread your message…then by all means do it. However, Do not ask our soldiers to risk life and limb for your personal “moral delimma”. It is not our right, it is not our duty and it certainly is not our business. If those people get tired of the oppression, they will eventually fight back and win…or …lose. Again, feel free to preach all you want…but do so at your own peril. Some christians seem to forget that they aren’t the only spiritual belief system in the world and not everyone shares our views. Let other nations work out their own internal problems…and learn to mind our own business for a change.

  • lifelong republican

    Most of the GOP has been hijacked by right wing evangelical nut jobs and have not been representing either their own party or a majority of Americans for a very long time…save for Dr. Paul the best of what the party is supposed to represent. Ron Paul or no one at all!

    • Troy Crowe

      You are a nut job. We were founded on evangelical ideas and did quite well with it. It was not until nut cases without any morals and wisdom, which is a major part of evangelical teaching by the way, thinking process did our country start falling apart. Their is a difference between a true evangelical Christian with proper biblical principles than what you see portrayed in the world by most of those who call themselves Christian. Most people do not walk the walk. Another note on that is that most people can not get it through their heads that just because someone calls themselves a Christian does not place them in a position of perfection; we are human too and have to grow to become what we are to be as followers of Christ. Being Christian is a journey not an magical fix.

      • Mike C

        Wrong again. We were not founded on evangelical ideas. Most of the founding fathers were not christian or religious. We were founded upon NATURAL LAW, or the laws of nature. Figure out what that means.

        • Ted Crawford

          It seems our founders disagree with you Mike!
          “We have no Government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality, and religioun. Our Constitution was made for a religious and moral people. It is inadaquate for the government of any other.” John Adams
          “We’ve staked the whole future of American civilization not opon the power of government, far from it! We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity… to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God” James Madison

    • Bob in Boston

      You’re right, nobody represents what the Republican Party is *supposed* to stand for better than Ron Paul. He is the only true conservative in the race. You can tell a conservative by the way they vote and live their lives, not by what they say when they are campaigning…

  • http://www.healthfreedomusa.org Ralph Fucetola JD

    Thanks for raising this issue that is central to Ron Paul’s candidacy. Truly Americans have a stark choice: restore the Constitutional Republic or do what Rome did, choose Empire.

    And as Dr. Paul says, “empires always end badly!”

    The patriot movement has always opposed foreign entanglements; the past century of “consensus” interventionist policies has been the exception. Time to return to the Founders’ vision of a non-interventionist policy.

    The neocon left also denigrates Dr. Paul, for various illogical reasons. I responded to a recent Addicting Info attack on the good doctor and his supporters here: http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-defense-of-ron-paul.html.

  • Buck

    I must be as kooky as Ron Paul because I agree with him more than with anyone else , plus I trust him way more than the others . If he is not on the ballot when I vote I will write him in with one exception , I would also be willing to vote for Michelle Bachmann . But I prefer RON PAUL first , so vote for RON PAUL for PRESIDENT .

  • http://ElectTheRightCandidate.US Bert Loftman

    Words are important and Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionalist. It is a statist ploy to change the meaning of words be it from the Right or Left.

  • Gary Haws

    Kurt I appreciate your opinion, but keep in mind, the church is responsible (and is the most effective) for spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. Example; 2 million Nazarene Christians had to flee from Irac because of the persecution from the new U.S.A. approved government.

  • Capitalist at Birth

    What will you do when Dr. Paul does not get the nomination? If he runs as a third party candidate, will you vote for him, and insure Obama’s re-election? He has performed poorly in the debates by most accounts (anecdotal from my friends and associates.) His rants are simply that, rants. He is turning people off by the droves. Have you seen the latest polls? You are among the 8&. A small minority of wishful thinkers. Not that unlike the Ross Perot supporters in 1992.

    • Joe Loyd

      Have you watched the debates? Ron Paul has done extremely well in the NINETY SECONDS he was allowed to speak. He has been treated as a persona non grata at most of the debates but does very well when allowed to speak.

    • Bob in Boston

      LOL Capitalist you should really watch the debates yourself rather than citing your imaginary friends. Ron Paul gets cheers every time he speaks at debates. In fact, lately since the media has been purposely asking him fewer questions, he actually gets applause *before* he speaks (when they say his name) and then a standing ovation after he answers the question.
      Not sure what debate your friends were watching, but they weren’t talking about Ron Paul.
      Also you don’t seem to realize that Ron Paul is in 1st place in Iowa and 2nd place in New Hampshire. Anyone who says he doesn’t have a chance is just plain wrong – he has a great chance of winning the primary, and as polls show he would CRUSH obama in the general election.

    • DaveH

      To answer your question, Capitalist, YES. I will vote for Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson, or the Libertarian Candidate for President. I will NOT vote for unprincipled politicians merely because they might beat Obama. We have suffered throughout my lifetime because dummies have convinced others that somehow the lesser of two evils is not evil.
      If I can’t vote for somebody who truly represents what I want, then I will not vote at all. Unlike yourself, Capitalist, I have Principles.

    • Millicent

      You are correct. Nutjob Paul could very well be the nail in the USA’s coffin that keeps the Commie Kenyan Muslim illegally in the WH.

      • JeffH

        Millicent, it’s obvious that you are a “right wing” wacko extremist.

  • KURT

    Gary…as long as the people have the choice of what government they want and those who don’t agree with the government have the option to flee rather than be murdered…I can live with that.

  • KURT

    And with that said…that’s one of the things I like most with Ron Paul…he believes in our Constitution…and those who want the US to be Socialists have the right to flee…

  • Eric Bischoff

    Well said Bob.

    There is a certain irony/hypocrisy in that picture of the Occupy Tahrir Square movement when every year we pay $1.2 Billion to the Egyptian military which is now cracking their heads and killing their own people. They also just ordered a very large quantity of American made tear gas that they will use on the Egyptians just like our American police are now using on our American Occupy movement citizens.

    It is a sad that in this time of crisis, the field of potential leaders is so weak and pathetic in their ideology and solutions(not).

    Ron Paul only has two good ideas I would stand behind. He is the only one who would stop the wars, bring the troops home and hopefully repair our world standing, that is if it came with an honest apology and a promise to be better neighbors and leaders and to mind our own business. He would also try and get rid of the Federal Reserve and for both of these things he would more than likely be assassinated.

    The rest of the GOP candidates are pathetic. Newt being on top now just shows how disfunctional we’ve become.

    I did not vote for Obama but I can recognize and appreciate intelligence and potential but unfortunately his Goldman Sachs crew is ruining the world economy and they have infiltrated our government. Goldman Sachs and the big Bank(sters) should be broken up, heads should roll, people should go to jail.

    Are we brain dead,? Isn’t it obvious that this government is still pursuing the NeoCons agenda which is all about controlling the dwindling oil resources and now they are cranking up the Iran WMD propaganda machinery. Do we ever learn?

    You know what America, it’s time to stop operating from fear and muster up some courage to do the right thing and to stop being the bullies of the world. It’s time to remember and live by some basic natural laws like: Do what you have agreed to do and Do not covet other people’s stuff.

    I am sorry but this country does not deserve the right to survive unless it drastically changes it’s behavior. I venture to say that just like most people were surprised by the break of the USSR, and unless things change, they will be surprised by the break-up of the US and the EU.

    We need to get our heads out of our arses and finally face some truths. Capitalism is not sustainable, Free markets have never been free. It’s time again for a new and better system one that is based on people and this finite and fragile environment first and guess what profits will always follow but in a more equitable way.

    We should be spending our money on education and healthy sustainable ecological living not on the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, the chemical drugs industrial complex.

    • s c

      e, blatant stupidity via utopianism is not sustainable. What you call ‘capitalism’ is a twisted, manipulated leftover created by politicians who hate freedom. So are you a natural-born horse’s ^**, or do you have to work at it 24/7? Inquiring minds want to know, comrade.

      • Angel Wannabe

        sc, Agreed, I’m so sick of these idiots blaming Capitalism, when Crony Capitalism is the cause and lack of Morals!

        • Mark in LA

          All Capitalism is crony capitalism. Belief in “pure” free markets is also utopia. In a true free market there is nothing to stop monopolies, cartels and market corners. It is only your limited thinking that believes they are “impossible”. Why, the invisible hand is going to come out of the sky and crush them. Monopolies don’t exist because of government regulations like you brain limited think. They exist because of the high cost of entry into a business or industry. Regulations just add to the cost so they do have some effect. Stanard Oil was a monopoly without government regulation. Intel could have used its massive profits to crush AMD or anybody else making x86 based processors after the AMD second source contracts ended and the microchip was the real breadwinner in the chip world. They didn’t because of the government and the loss of profit while they drove AMD out of business.

          • Angel Wannabe

            So in essence Mark you’d be happy that we would become and all together Consumer Country and not produce anything??, ANYTHING ANYONE PRODUCES OR PROVIDES A SERVICE FOR IS CAPITITALISM???__
            OWS SYMPATHEZIER PERHAPS?

          • Mark in LA

            Angel try making some sense. Even a tiny little bit would be OK. There is no perfect ism. They all depend on the vices and virtues of the people in charge of them. Socialism started because of the evils of a much purer form of capitalism than we have today. It’s only your limited knowledge and dependence on talking-head sound bites that makes you believe capitalism is inherently good and socialism is inherently evil.

          • Angel Wannabe

            Mark_ and may I too add, everything we see going on today has been in the works for years and years. Each time a Marxist/Progressive gets in the mix, they further the agenda.Sadly they’ve infitrated ALL excuetive branches including the Supreme Court. Our downfall is a mutitude of problems and the lack oo teamwork. The Family has been reduced to divorce court, and the kids are being raised in pre-programmed day care centers, what a better way to get a head start on indoctrination_ than in a daycare?!___After day care, they go to school, more indoctrination and with Mothers and Fathers both working and/or absent, to set the kids straight, the kids are non the wiser.
            They see and grow to tolerate everything including homosexuality,
            and thus another generation of foolish non-thinkers has been produced.
            They eventually join the workforce and become out leaders, such as Bill Ayers who blew up the Penetgon and got off and now helped to determine whats taught in in schools. A lot this problem is our fault, non-vigilance is the reason and trusting ANYONE to represent us that comes up the alley.

          • Angel Wannabe

            Mark_ Really…___You cite, you don’t side with socialism and seem to be anti capitalist_-you’ve spouted alot of words and REALLY have endorsed NOTHING, yet, I have limted knowledge….just sayin..

          • DaveH

            “All Capitalism is crony capitalism”, Mark? Crony Capitalism is when certain politically connected businesses buy favors from Politicians either through direct bribes or indirect bribes such as campaign donations. To say that all businesses do that is just plain ignorant.
            In a true Free Market, what stops monopolies, cartels, and market corners is called “Competition”. Also consumers stop them by not buying their products. There have been no examples ever of a natural market monopoly. The only way a monopoly can exist is through the force of Government. Your belief, Mark, in controlled markets is the “Utopian” belief. With controlled markets, the winners are the Politicians who do the controlling and the Crony Capitalists who benefit. The losers are their competitors, the taxpayers, and their consumers.
            And Mark, the idea that Standard Oil was a monopoly is just propagandist trash promoted by their competitors who couldn’t stand up to Rockefeller’s efficiency of production:
            http://mises.org/daily/388
            Please quit being “brain limited”, Mark, and read the book “How Capitalism saved America” by Thomas DiLorenzo.

          • Geno Zomparelli

            Mark, on the surface your arguments are compelling. But you lack the depth to make a solid argument against capitalism. True capitalism is based on man’s inherent nature to be selfish and greedy. But in a free market man’s selfishness and greed are controlled by competitive forces. If Intel got greedy and asked for outrageous prices for its microprocessors a competitor would find a way to make the chips cheaper. I over simplify here but the point is socialism assumes man has an altruistic and benevolent nature. And this is simply not the case. Besides, true socialism will not foster technological advancement and innovative products. Life in a socialist world would be boring. I recommend you read Ayn Rand’s book “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” and Adam Smith’s book “The Wealth of nations.”

          • DaveH

            What could be more morally pure than for people to be allowed to trade goods and services freely among each other?
            Sure, there will be bad guys and gals. But there will be bad guys and gals under any system. The question is which system would give them the most opportunity to practice their evil? There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that Socialism gives them that opportunity.

          • Mark in LA

            Sorry Geno but it is you who lacks the depth of thought to see why your ideas are wrong. It costs BILLIONS to build one semiconductor fabrication facility and hundreds of millions of dollars a year to upgrade it and keep your products viable. Semiconductor companies go out of business all the time such as the original Fairchild. Intel could crush any upstart in its infancy and go about its business after the mess was cleaned up. Japan and South Korea were only able to muscle into the memory chip business because the government made it a priority and underwrote all their losses for years. No private company could afford to do that. Look at Airbus for another instance of private companies not being able to compete.

            Standard Oil became a monopoly by forcing people to the wall and buying their assets or merging them in. It was just the legal version of the the bullet or the silver that the drug cartels use.

            Now maybe the hand made shoe industry can’t be monopolized, but anything requiring modern machinery has such high start-up costs that it is virtually impossible to get in. Companies like Johnson and Johnson BUY other companies in lucrative business areas like medical products because building a business is much more risky than paying twice what it would cost to build it from scratch. I know this because I worked for a pacemaker company when J&J wanted to buy Guidant and Advance Bionics massively overpaid for them. Either of those companies had the resources and brand name to enter the field on their own but chose to buy an existing company instead. What does that tell you about your notion of competiton regulating the free market. Competition did not regulate the non-bank related mortgage market did it? No it actually made things worse by lowering the standards. This was the same thing that happened to the junk bond market in the 80s after other brokerages saw how much much money Drexel-Lambert was making and wanted in on the action. Soon everybody was underwriting crappy deals to get the comissions.

            Maybe you don’t understand but people don’t really want to compete. They want to collude and maximize profits. They don’t care about bringing you the best products at the lowest price. The free market perfection is just as much a fantasy as the socialist fantasy of people selflessly working for the betterment of all.

          • Geno Zomparelli

            Mark, Thank you for your thoughtful in depth reply. It pretty much reinforces what I said. Even Adam Smith spoke about barriers to entry and how that limits competition and tends to lead to monopoly. But think about it – How much computing power did you get for your money in 1982 compared to today?

            I realize there are problems with capitalism because people are basically selfish and greedy, but if we accepted the utopian socialist ideal what would drive innovation? Did you see the movie 1984? Did you ever see a car made in Russia or Yugoslavia?

            Yes, there is a lot wrong with capitalism today because the principles of free markets have be perverted by the central bankers and slave labor in China. China has slave labor because the IRS in the U.S. takes too much in taxes from businesses. It is all part of the globalist agenda to bring America down.

            In truth, capitalism and socialism are really just 18th century ideas. We are on the cusp of a major awakening to a new kind of world. A world like the world depicted in Star Trek. But we have to get through this age of corruption. I believe capitalism is the only economic system that works with the principles established by our founding fathers. Socialism is antithetical to our Constitutional Republic.

            As son as we rid ourselves of corrupt bankers and government cronies capitalism we open up more innovation that will transform the world with new technology. Imagine hydrogen fuel cells and unlimited energy? All this can be achievable in a true free market system run by an honest government.

          • Mark in LA

            Well Geno you do have one misconception. That somehow the communists were behind our consumer lifestyle because of no competition from a defect of communism. This is a commonly held belief but it is wrong. The reason why consumer goods in the USSR were inferior was because 80% of the countries industrial capacity went to the armaments industry.

            If the jets amd tanks of the USSR were as far behind the west as their consumer products, then your thesis would make sense. But a lot of Soviet equipment was quite good. We often point to Israeli success or Desert Storm to show that our stuff was so much better. However, Israel has our front line stuff and Iraq had Russian export stuff, not the stuff the Red Army uses. If you do some research you would see that Soviet weapons systems were very respected by the west.

            The Russians had very deep diving attack subs with titanium hulls, they built and abandoned as “ground effects” craft which was a hugh aircraft like vessel that skimmed above the water at 400 mph and was designed to attack our carrier forces before long range sea skimming cruise missles came into being. The ill-faited Kurst was using a liquid sodium cooling system for its reactor. These were things we didn’t have. The Russians have good scientists and engineers.

            Also communism does not eliminate competition. There were three main jet aircraft suppliers in the USSR – MIG, Sukoi, and Tupolev.

    • DaveH

      Capitalism is not sustainable, Eric? Please explain to us why it isn’t.
      Socialism has proven to be a failure throughout modern history. Big Government doesn’t work now, and it never will. Experience is the best teacher. See here for reality:
      http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

      Logically, how could Socialism work? There always must be people deciding who gets what with Socialism, and it has proven time and again that those in the decision positions quickly become corrupt. People have different expectations, work-ethics, abilities, and risk tolerance. The inevitable result of forcing “equality” on them is that the slackers slack off more, the producers produce less, and the leaders and their pals consume more. A sure recipe for a greatly reduced economy.
      You claim to be an avid reader, Eric, so how about reading this book and awakening from your stupor:
      http://mises.org/store/How-Capitalism-Saved-America-P260.aspx

      • Eric Bischoff

        Why sure Dave.
        It is not sustainable because it’s basic premise or tenet is perpetual growth which is impossible living on a finite system which is what earth is. Already we are running out of resources. 90% of the large fish have been caught out of the oceans, our top soil is blowing away, the forests are being clear cut… should I go on….

        • Mark in LA

          Eric – you left out water. There is a worldwide water shortage but we haven’t faced up to it yet. Right here in this country the Oglala aquifer is being pumped dry to maintain our grain farmers who export. What happens when the water in unavailable at any price. Sure we can return the Mississippi to its natural state but who would want to live there with all the bugs and yearly flooding.

          • DaveH

            Free Markets would address all those problems the most efficient way possible. Or we can listen to the Socialists and turn our country into an impoverished country with a dirty environment where everybody is equal, equally poor that is.
            Even the population problem (if it is a problem) would be better served by Free Markets and Limited Government where people would pay for their own mistakes, be it unwanted children or other mistakes, rather than being allowed to ride on the shoulders of those who make the right decisions.

          • DaveH
        • DaveH

          The sky is falling! Now where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah:
          The Cyclamate scare.
          The Acid Rain scare.
          The Ozone Depletion scare.
          The Global Cooling scare.
          The Global Warming scare.
          The Liberal Running Our Lives scare. Oh wait, that one’s true.

          Do you think the Liberals/Progressives have any more credibility, Eric?

        • DaveH

          I asked you, Eric, why Capitalism is not sustainable?
          All you gave me was hypothetical conjecture straight out of Karl Marx’s writings which has never been demonstrated in real life. The examples you used could be manifested under any political system, and in fact have occurred in a world which is by far more socialistic than capitalistic.
          Under Capitalism (Free Markets, strict Property Rights), where Government exists only to prevent force and fraud, the citizens trade voluntarily and contract voluntarily with their fellow citizens, and the property which they accumulate can not be taken forcibly from them. Everybody can become what they want to become if they put the necessary effort into it. As a result, people work harder and produce more, so the economy grows. Also, as a result of fully respecting the property rights of others, everybody (with a brain) knows that their wealth (or lack of it) is solely due to their own efforts or lack of them. So there is maximum peace.
          With Socialism a minority of citizens (the Leaders) decide politically who should get to keep their property and whose property they will take (usually to the Leaders’ benefit). Since people cannot keep what they made great effort to produce, there is little incentive to work hard, thus production declines dramatically. Everybody has much less. And because rewards are no longer based on effort, everything becomes political, with the impoverished citizens arguing and fighting for their share of the scraps. Oh, for sure the Leaders and their Favored Cronies are always on top, so why should they care? And this isn’t just conjecture, as Eric’s Karl Marx propaganda is, it has been demonstrated over and over in real life in countries such as the USSR, Korea, Cuba, China, and even in non-communist but heavily Socialist countries such as Argentina and Venezuela.

          • DaveH

            And I will add that Eric’s dream system demands force. People do not willingly give up what they worked hard for.
            Also note that our current system is much more Socialistic than Capitalistic. It has become that way thanks to pie-eyed Progressives who have been sold a bill of goods, and those Progressives who are in Leadership positions and selling the bill of goods (for their own personal gains) to their naive followers.

      • Eric Bischoff

        I like interacting with you Dave and I would like it even more if you would not limit yourself to Mises and Heritage.

        • DaveH

          I would like it, Eric, if you would post some references, any references to back up your fabricated and unsupported facts.

    • DaveH

      Capitalism is not sustainable, Eric? Please explain to us why it isn’t.
      Socialism has proven to be a failure throughout modern history. Big Government doesn’t work now, and it never will. Experience is the best teacher. See here for reality:
      http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

    • DaveH

      Logically, how could Socialism work? There always must be people deciding who gets what with Socialism, and it has proven time and again that those in the decision positions quickly become corrupt. People have different expectations, work-ethics, abilities, and risk tolerance. The inevitable result of forcing “equality” on them is that the slackers slack off more, the producers produce less, and the leaders and their pals consume more. A sure recipe for a greatly reduced economy.
      You claim to be an avid reader, Eric, so how about reading this book and awakening from your stupor:
      http://mises.org/store/How-Capitalism-Saved-America-P260.aspx

      • Angel Wannabe

        Daveh, Capitalism is the best chance for success (as as the GUV stays the hell out of it!), with Socialism there is the Rich Slave Masters & slaves!

      • Karolyn

        You are absolutely right, Dave. In today’s world, true socialism or communism cannot work. In a more enlightened world they could work, and there are mulitudes of people working towards enlightenment. Will it ever happen? quien sabe? Nothing is impossible. There are many saying that there must first be total collapse and starting over to have meaningful change in the world. I have read of previous societies (Atlantis being one) that destroyed themselves. We may be the next.

        • DaveH

          Karolyn,
          That is the stuff of dreams. In a truly enlightened world we would need no Government at all.

          • Karolyn

            You’re right, Dave. Nobody has any success without first dreaming the dream. Never say “never.”

          • DaveH

            I prefer to keep my feet on the ground.

  • Gary Haws

    It is still sad to see the Nazarene Cristians whom may be the oldest community in the world uprooted because of the U.S. invasion. The same thing is happening in Egypt.

  • http://verizon.net budman

    Mr. Livingston: The problem with our government is their willingness to interfere in other countries affairs and a very poor record in recognizing when and when not to get involved in military action. You must agree that some wars had to be fought like World War II and others were started due to economic or strategic issues. Our involvement in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan should be considered terrible decisions and many lives and trillions of dollars lost as a result. History should have told those in power it would be a wasted effort and Democracy as we know it will never exist there.

    I don’t think Ron Paul would be a good president. While he has some good views, he has as many kooky views. If he thinks he can talk to Iran, it is wishful thinking as they have a militant president and cleric. Their intent is to control the entire middle east and the destruction of Israel. Do you think the other countries in the middle east are going to accept this? So, what happens if they continue on this course? It is fairly obvious with all the turmoil and the rise of Islamic rule in those countries that it is only a matter of time that the entire area explodes into war. Someone suggested that China and Russia would intervene for Iran. That may be so but not in the manner in which they think and in fact may be pitted against each other in who controls the oil interests there. Military intervention by either would certainly turn this into a major conflict and that likely will not happen as western powers would be obligated to protect their interests as well. I would not want Ron Paul as the sitting president should this develop as I believe it will but hope I am wrong and Iran changes course.

    • Buddy

      Budman: “You must agree that some wars had to be fought like World War II…”

      This is a propagandist’s line that comes right out of the military-industrial-complex’s ideology. I’m sorry, but I completely & firmly reject your hypothesis.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear budman,

      You turn logic on its head.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

    • Millicent

      Have you read through some of these posts? These people are
      a%sholes.

      • Average Joe

        Yes I have and…yes you are.

        • JeffH

          I’ll double that Joe.

          • Average Joe

            ;)

        • Joe H.

          Average,
          from one Joe to another, EXACTIMUNDO!!!

  • Mirage

    Congratulations, you acknowledge the hypocracy, illogic and irony of people and nations … basically life as we know it!
    Life can never be corraled like a math equation where 2+2 always equals 4, and if we do the “right thing”, we’ll always get the desired result: people and nature don’t work that way.
    Nations/leaders/people being overly nationalistic can be a dangerous path, that throughout history, has lead god fearing men to create attrocities against their necessary,and evilly painted enemies: i.e. Germany’s Natzis, Stalin’s Russia, America’s Indian Wars … ad infinitum, ad naseum.
    As for Ron Paul, I suppose he is one of the best of the Republican field, along with John Huntsman. Unfortunately our corrupt political system is too powerful to be changed by votes.
    Positive change for Main Street will only come about by movements like Occupy Wall Street, “Get Money Out”, and or, with violence.
    To think that simply voting “our guy” into office, is going to clean-up politics and buck the 30+ year trend of the dissolution of the middle class, is clearly NAIVE, and or, dishonest.

    • Angel Wannabe

      M, Although I’m inclined to go along with our voting process, in the hopes we still have a say, but the skeptic in me says, our vote is token and has been for some time. The TPTB let us believe we have a say.__ Wasn’t it Stalin that said, “those that count the votes, wins the elections?_-We aren’t locked in any more on right and left, it’s good vs evil. We need to fire the whole damn lot of them and start fresh.

  • http://don@revivalsounds.com Don

    If Ron Paul is the nominee, I will vote for him. There is much in him that bothers me: his stand on drugs, the Jews, porn, defense, and more. But the greatest objection to him that I have is that he is not even willing to say he will support the GOP nominee if he is not the nominee. In other words, he is willing to risk another Obama term of destruction to our nation, if he (Paul) does not get his way. No one is perfect, the weakest one running on the GOP side is a thousand times better than Obama. We much rid out nation of the curse of Obama, who is doing his best to ruin America. There is no good reason to vote for his having a second term, but if we decide the we will only vote for our special person on the GOP side – no matter what – that is not a wise choice. We have no assurance that the USA will survive another Obama term. By then the dollar could be worthless, and with destroyed economy, we would be weakened on every side: jobs, food, fuel, shelter, defense, etc. The world is an evil and dangerous place, and much of the world depends on a strong America. We must unite and vote Obama out, or it could be too late in four more years. thanks

    • Bob in Boston

      Don – you’re making the HUGE assumption that any of the GOP candidates besides Ron Paul would be better or in any way different for the country than Obama.
      They wouldn’t.
      They are all a party of the establishment in one way or another.
      Vote for the best man for the job, according to your conscience, not according to party lines. The GOP is no different than the democratic party – they are all controlled by the special interests.

    • DaveH

      Better that our nation be destroyed sooner rather than later, Don, when those of us who have actually experienced some Freedom are dead and gone. If we leave it up to the establishment Republicans, the destruction will be slower and less perceptible, and once accomplished will be opposed by only a very few Unbrainwashed people.
      I say bring it on, and let’s get it over with.

    • Millicent

      Thanks for a very intelligent post. I am terrified that these Ron Paul fanatics will insure the Kenyan retain power illegally again. What a bunch of fanatical fools.

      • JC

        I’d actually rather see the Kenyan Commie win over Newt or Romney.
        The Kenyan at least has the effect of getting America’s blood boiling.
        We need that. What we don’t need is to be placated by the same kind of socialist / globalist crap just because it is wearing a blue tie this time (again).
        Screw that. If not Ron Paul for Constitutional change then maybe The Kenyan to stoke the fire…We need Americans to be ROYALLY ANGRY at this system…not play along “again”.
        GO RON PAUL, or LOCK N LOAD. There’s just no getting around it if we are to save America from….people like Millicent.

        • DaveH

          Ditto, JC.

  • Gary Haws

    Budman; WW2 may have been inevitable, but we allowed U.S.S.R. to become a super power because the socialist elites of the day decided to. We cant trust the gov. and their motives.

  • Gary Haws

    Mirage makes an excellent point

  • Larry

    I am sick of hearing about Ron Paul. I was on his stirring comm. before redistricting. He is NOT what everyone thinks he is. He likes to attach “Riders” to bills he knows will pass and then vote against it to make himself look the man who votes NO on everything. He is sneaky and in this point, dishonest. His views on foreign policy are totally naive at best. You can’t just close the door and lock it. God help us if he get’s the nomination. He CAN”T WIN. And we get another 4 years of destruction fron Obama.

    • Angel Wannabe

      Personally, I think Bam Bam is gonna get another four years anyway.

    • Realist

      So, when are you running Larry?

    • DaveH

      You make a lot of unsupported accusations about Ron, Larry. Can you back any of them up?

    • Millicent

      There is no reasoning with Ron Paul fanatics. He is known as Porkulus Paul because of all his feeding at the trough. He is a fraud and very dangerous to our security in the world.

      • DaveH

        As JC said, cite your source, Millicent. I say you’re lying.

    • JC

      Cite your source. You can’t can you?

  • KURT

    I only hope we can all get behind whoever is our option to President Obama…he is merely a puppet being manipulated by some very evil people…and if we have a third party candidate…that would certainly mean Obama would win the election. What we need to do is load the House and Senate with “non-establishment” women and men who can block our new president should she/he get “off-track” like President Bush did…

  • James

    President George Washington said: “Trade with all nations,entangling alliances with none.” The government we have now is the exact opposite of that. (By “trade” Washington meant “bartering” exchanging one item for another, not allowing foreigners to sell their wares here.)

  • Greg

    Good article. I’m a little confused on the foreign policy part though. I totally agree that we need to get our financial house in order, priority #1. Nothing makes me more upset than providing “aide” to other countries when we have so many in dire need here. But why is isolationism such a bad as a foreign policy? We are the self-appointed world’s policemen. Why? Mind our own business and focus on the US. If a foreign country posses an immediate threat, then contemplate intervention with other countries. And not just “oh, they’re designing a nuclear bomb”. Did anybody tell us we couldn’t do it back in the 40′s? No. I understand that we were on the eve of WWII and that was justification. It’s almost like “do as I say and not as I do”. And if his foreign policy is so bad, then have Bilary take care of that part. Unfortunately, I don’t think Dr. Paul will get nominated. If he is, then he’s got my vote for sure. Maybe VP?

    • James

      My approach is simpler, there is no constitutional authority for Congress to tax Americans and give it to foreigners. Nor is there any such authority to depose foreign leaders we don’t like, or wage war against countries that embrace a form of government we oppose. Who even knows why we entered WW I? The Axis in WW II was no threat to the United States, why did we join with the Soviet Union to defeat anti-communist Germany? I could go on…

  • Kimberly Boldt

    I used to call myself a “Conservative”. Now I don’t. I know better now. I know now that I am really a “Federalist” with libertarian leanings. And I also now know THAT was the mindset of the Founding Fathers. They were not “Conservatives” by today’s definition, but “Federalists”. At least John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, were, as they wrote The Federalist to convince the State of New York to adopt the Constitution with a LIMITED central government. James Madison, of course, is the one who drafted the Constitution. James Madison, who was also a professing Christian.

    Ron Paul, also a professing Christin, is the most misunderstood person by Conservatives on the face of the earth. Why? Because of the how the media portrays him, their ignorance through our education system, AND our churches. Are we going to let the media dictate how we think? Are Conservatives nothing more than “parrots”, mimicking what the news media says. Or are they doing the homework for themselves and actually reading history, studying The Federalist and the Constitution? Even the Bible?

    Do Conservatives understand that the base law of our land, the Constitution, is rooted in the government God set up at Mt. Sinai? What did God say about going to war? What is God’s “foreign policy”?

    Conservatives say they stand for the Constitution and believe what the Founding Fathers believed. But when it comes to war and using violence, they throw it out. Conservatives say they are Christians and followers of Jesus, but actually know very little about what was taught regarding war, violence, etc., even God’s Law.

    How do I know this? Because most reject Ron Paul. Ron Paul is speaking the very language and the thoughts of the Founding Fathers, The Federalist, the Constitution, and yes, even the Bible. But Conservatives don’t recognize that because they don’t read and study anymore. They rely on other people (like radio talk show hosts and Conservative pundits) to tell them “how it is.”

    We have gone so far astray from what the Founding Fathers believed, thought, and taught that what they said is now “foreign” to our understanding.

    We now have someone who is truly standing for the Constitution, God, and the spirit of the founding of this nation, yet Conservatives are rejecting him. Is he perfect, no? But he is as close to a Constitutional candidate as we are going to get so far.

    So my advice is don’t say you stand for the Constitution if you are going to reject everything in it including proper foreign policy and how we conduct ourselves in war. And don’t say you are Christian if you are going to reject what God commanded us to do.

    It’s time to read and study and KNOW and UNDERSTAND what you are talking about, by your OWN brain and reasoning. Turn off the TV and the radio talk show hosts, reading pundits, and think for yourselves!

    • Gary Haws

      thanks everyone. It is refreshing to have a spirited debate without all the back stabbing. I appreciate all the views and the history lessons.

    • Bob in Boston

      Wow, excellent post Kimberly – you hit the nail on the head!

    • DaveH

      You need to do some further reading, Kimberly. Alexander Hamilton wanted a Strong Federal Government. Being the pragmatic politician that he was, he settled for a Weak Federal Government.
      Please read this book:
      http://mises.org/store/Hamiltons-Curse-P534.aspx

      • Kimberly Boldt

        No, Dave, I prefer to read what Hamilton actually wrote in his letters, The Federalist, and other documents, notably, The Federalist No. 84 from The Federalist. NOT what some writer’s “interpretation” of what Hamilton wrote. Hamilton was NOT a “big government” guy as many have led us to believe today. It’s clear in The Federalist No. 84 Hamilton wanted a “strong, but LIMITED” federal gov’t. Hamilton understood very well how big governments abuse power– “men born to usurp.” I suggest you read that first. Hamilton may have been for a bigger government in comparison to those Anti-Federalists of his day, but compared to today Hamilton was a LIMITED government guy. I spent 25 years in this. I know about Mises, Hayek, etc. You’re not telling me anything I already don’t know or haven’t already heard.

        • DaveH

          See no evil ….

          Kimberly, I judge people by their actions, not their words. You must have been truly blessed to have known only people whose words were pure. I, on the other hand, have experienced two evil people very close to me who had others around me fooled by their words.

          • DaveH

            Don’t be afraid, Kimberly, read the book. You are obviously well-read and intelligent, so there’s no reason to fear what Thomas DiLorenzo has to say about Hamilton.

          • Kimberly Boldt

            Dave, maybe you should take your own advice. “Don’t be fooled by other people’s words.” That is exactly why I cut to the chase and read from the “horse’s mouth” by reading what the Founding Fathers actually wrote in their letters, documents, etc. You should try that. You know, reading from “their” perspective instead of your own? Save yourself a whole lot of time. I can tell by what you say and how you write you are a young man. I’m not slamming you, but you have much to learn. You may not like what I’m telling you right now, but I was in your place once.

          • DaveH

            OMG, a person who makes judgements about a book without reading the book is dressing me down? You have no clue what I’m saying apparently. Lincoln also made grand speeches. Then he proceeded to condemn 600,000 people to death to have his way.
            Expand your brain, Kimberly. I know you can do it.

          • DaveH

            By the way, Kimberly, I’m 62. I’ve got two 4-year degrees, Biology, and Math (honors in both). I’ve also taken a year of Computer Science recently. And I have a lifetime of home study in matters economic and politic.
            Perhaps, instead of trying to take the debate to personal attacks, you could stick to logic and facts.

          • JeffH

            DaveH, based on your comments she thinks you’re a young man…not that 62 is old or anything but, but… :)

          • Kimberly Boldt

            Then Dave, you’re educated derelict who needs to grow up. Now that IS a slam. ;-)

          • DaveH

            I’m feeling older all the time, Jeff, lol.

          • Karolyn

            Kimberly – Was that necessary?

          • DaveH

            It was, Karolyn, because personal attacks in lieu of facts are all that Kimberly has to refute my comments.

        • Average Joe

          Kimberly,
          A bit of a history lesson is in order. First, I would like to point out that no matter what you’ve read in the “Federalist Papers”…it makes no difference ( yes, it give insight to what our founders thought)….because the Federalist Papers…were not adopted as the law of the land…The Constitution was…period. And now to continue with your education:

          From Team Law @ teamlaw.org.
          Before you come whinning back to me with your uninformed rhetoric…I invite you to do as they suggest….research what they’ve said…and disprove it if you can and send them the (so called) factual information that you’ve gathered to prove them wrong ($5 says you can’t do it…or are too lazy to do it).

          Historical Outline

          1st: Martial Law is declared by President Lincoln on April 24th, 1863, with General Orders No. 100; under martial law authority, Congress and President Lincoln institute continuous martial law by ordering the states (people) either conscribe troops and or provide money in support of the North or be recognized as enemies of the nation; this martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today. This martial law authority gives the President (with or without Congress) the dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This conscription act remains in effect to this very day and is the foundation of Presidential Executive Orders authority; it was magnified in 1917 with The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917). and again in 1933 with the Emergency War Powers Act, which is ratified and enhanced almost every year to this date by Congress. Today these Acts address the people of the United States themselves as their enemy.

          2nd: The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a “municipal corporation” to govern the District of Columbia. Considering the fact that the municipal government itself was incorporated in 1808, an “Organic Act” (first Act) using the term “municipal corporation” in 1871 can only mean a private corporation owned by the municipality. Hereinafter we will call that private corporation, “Corp. U.S.” By consistent usage, Corp. U.S. trademarked the name, “United States Government” referring to themselves. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 places Congress in control (like a corporate board) and gives the purpose of the act to form a governing body over the municipality; this allowed Congress to direct the business needs of the government under the existent martial law and provided them with corporate abilities they would not otherwise have. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District of Columbia. Follow this link to see the effect of the District of Columbia Act of 1871.

          3rd: In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national constitution’s 13th Amendment and the national constitution’s 14th, 15th and 16th amendments are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in the Corp. U.S. Constitution. At this point take special notice and remember this Corp. U.S. method of adopting their own Constitution, they will add to it in the same manner in 1913.

          4th: Corp. U.S. began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay their debts so the 7 families that bought up the bonds demanded payment and Corp. U.S. could not pay. Said families settled the debt for the payments of all of Corp. U.S.’ assets and for all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.

          5th: As 1913 began, Corp. U.S. had no funds to carry out the necessary business needs of the government so they went to said families and asked if they could borrow some money. The families said no (Corp. U.S. had already demonstrated that they would not repay their debts in full). The families had foreseen this situation and had the year before finalized the creation of a private corporation of the name “Federal Reserve Bank”. Corp. U.S. formed a relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank whereby they could transact their business via note rather than with money. Notice that this relationship was one made between two private corporations and did not involve government; that is where most people error in understanding the Federal Reserve Bank system—again it has no government relation at all. The private contracts that set the whole system up even recognize that if anything therein proposed is found illegal or impossible to perform it is excluded from the agreements and the remaining elements remain in full force and effect.

          6th: Almost simultaneously with the last fact (also in 1913), Corp. U.S. adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th amendment. Tax protesters challenge the IRS tax collection system based on this fact, however when we remember that Corp. U.S. originally created their constitution by simply drafting it and adopting it; there is no difference between that adoption and this—such is the nature of corporate enactments—when the corporate board (Congress) tells the secretary to enter the amendment as ratified (even thought the States had not ratified it) the Se3cretary was instructed that the Representatives word alone was sufficient for ratification. You must also note, this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our national Constitution, which already had its own 16th amendment. The Supreme Court (in BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)) ruled the 16th amendment did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations and government employees. We agree, considering that they were created under the authority of Corp. U.S.

          7th: Next (also 1913) Corp. U.S., through Congress, adopts (as if ratified) its 17th amendment. This amendment is not only not ratified, it is not constitutional; the nation’s Constitution forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators are elected, which is the subject matter of this amendment; therefore they cannot pass such and Act and then of their own volition, order it entered as ratified. According to the United States Supreme Court, for Congress to propose such an amendment they would first have to pass an amendment that gave them the authority to discuss the matter.

          8th: Accordingly, in 1914, the Freshman class and all Senators that successfully ran for reelection in 1913 by popular vote were seated in Corp. U.S. Senate capacity only; their respective seats from their States remained vacant because neither the State Senates nor the State Governors appointed new Senators to replace them as is still required by the national Constitution for placement of a national Senator.

          9th: In 1916, President Wilson is reelected by the Electoral College but their election is required to be confirmed by the constitutionally set Senate; where the new Corp. U.S. only Senators were allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote confirmation the only authority that could possibly have been used for electoral confirmation was corporate only. Therefore, President Wilson was not confirmed into office for his second term as President of the United States of America and was only seated in the Corp. U.S. Presidential capacity. Therefore the original jurisdiction government’s seats were vacated because the people didn’t seat any original jurisdiction government officers. It is important to note here that President Wilson retained his capacity as Commander in Chief of the military. Many people wonder about this fact imagining that such a capacity is bound to the President of the nation; however, When John Adams was President he assigned George Washington to the capacity of Commander in Chief of the military in preparation for an impending war with France. During this period, Mr. Adams became quite concerned because Mr. Washington became quite ill and passed on his acting military authority through his lead General Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Adams was concerned that if war did break out Mr. Hamilton would use that authority to create a military dictatorship of the nation. Mr. Adams averted the war through diplomacy and the title of Commander in Chief was returned to him.
          (See: John Adams, by David McCullough, this book covers Mr. Adams concerns over this matter quite well. Mr. Adams was a fascinating man.)

          10th: In 1917, Corp. U.S. enters W.W. I and passes their Trading with the Enemies Act.

          11th: In 1933, Corp. U.S. is bankrupt, they force a banking holiday to exchange money backed Federal Reserve Notes with “legal tender” Federal Reserve Notes the Trading with the Enemies Act is adjusted to recognize the people of the United States as enemies of Corp. U.S.

          12th: Some time after 1935, you ask Social Security Administration for a relationship with their program. With the express purpose of generating Beneficiary funds to United States General Trust Fund (GTF) the Social Security Administration creates an entity with a name (that sounds like your name but is spelled with all capital letters) and an account number (Social Security number). They give you the Social Security card and let you know that the card does not belong to you but you are to hold it for them until they want it back. If you are willing to accept that responsibility over the card you activate the card by signing it, which gives you the ability to act as the fiduciary for the cards actual owner Corp. U.S. and you can use the card’s name and number to thus transact business relations for the card’s actual owner. You are also to note that though the card verifies its agency (you as the single person with authority to control the entity so created) it is not for use as identification. On review: notice the Social Security Administration was the creator of the entity, they offered you the opportunity to serve its Trustee capacity (by lending it actual consciousness and physical capacity), they gave you something (the card) that does not belong to you to hold in trust and they reserved the actual owner of the thing (Corp. U.S.) as the beneficiary of the entity—by definition, this only describes the creation and existence of a Trust. More importantly: the name they gave this Trust is not your name, the number they gave the Trust is not your number and your lending actual consciousness and physical capacity to this Trust’s Trustee capacity does not limit you or your capacity to separately act in your natural sovereign capacity in any way—what you do, when you do it and how you do it is still totally up to you.

          13th: In 1944, under the Bretton Woods Agreement, Corp. U.S. is quit claimed to the International Monetary Fund, and becomes a foreign controlled private corporation.

          14th: In 1962, considering the states were forced to carry out their business dealings in terms of Federal Reserve Notes (foreign notes), which is forbidden in the national and State constitutions, out of the necessity the states began protecting themselves from the people by forming corporations like Corp. U.S. Accordingly, those newly formed corporate state administrations began adopting Corp. U.S. suggested uniform codes and licensing structures that allowed better and more powerful control over the people, which thing the original jurisdiction governments of this nation had no capacity to do. Our Constitutions secure that the governments do not govern the people rather they govern themselves in accord with the limits of Law. The people govern themselves. Such is the foundational nature of our Constitutional Republic.

          15th: By 1971, every State government in the union of States had formed such private corporations (Corp. State), in accord with the IMF admonition, and the people ceased to seat original jurisdiction government officials in their State government seats.

          Now, having stated these historical facts, we ask you not to believe us, but rather prove these facts for yourself. We then ask you to contact us and share your discovery with us.

          When you find there is no error in this historical outline, then remember these simple facts and let no one dissuade you from the truth.

          The Bottom Line: when you speak about these private foreign corporations remember that is what they are and stop calling them government.

          Further, it is very important that we cease to attempt to fix them. It is far more important that we learn how to reseat our original jurisdiction government and spread the word about the truth. By reseating our State and national governments in their original jurisdiction nature, we gain the capacity to hold these private foreign corporations accountable. They owe us a lot of money, in fact they owe us more money than there is available in the world. In fact it is impossible for them to pay and that gives us the leverage we need to take back our nation and put things right. The process is a simple one. The difficulty is in getting our people to wake up to the truth. That’s why we ask you to prove the truth for yourself and contact us with your discovery.

          That means that you must stop acting and communicating like you are anything other than the sovereign that God created you to be. And, stop referring to Corp. U.S. or the STATE OF ‘X’ as anything other than the private foreign corporations that they are. And, finally, stop listening to the Bigfoot Patriot Mythology that is espoused by those that only give these facts lip service.

          It’s time to wake up and follow the truth, time to repent and become a moral and honorable society instead of lauding our Piety while we stand guilty of:
          a) not knowing the truth;
          b) not living the truth;
          c) believing God will save us even though we have the tools to know the truth the ability to use the tools but we refuse to live by the truth and use the tools we have to save ourselves and thereby become free.

          The biggest problem with that get all excited about uniting against the tyranny of Corp. U.S. is that they are blind to the truth having no remedy so they bail out of “the system” hell bent for a rebellion even the scripture says cannot be won with conventional weapons of war. Would that we could instead follow the admonition of the King of Kings and unite with truth to legally, lawfully and peacefully reseat our original jurisdiction government thereby taking back the control our nation in accord with law.

          • JC

            Well done Joe.

        • JC

          Hamilton was an excellent actor. In order to ingratiate himself to the newly forming government of the USA he was very pro-Constitution.
          In reality though, he was a bought and paid for agent of the bankers and instrumental in bringing the first Central Bank to America.
          Andrew Jackson eventually struck down the charter of the Bank of the United States…which begins a new chapter of American history…
          But Hamilton should very likely have been hung as one of America’s original traitors.

          • DaveH

            I believe, JC, that he was taking whatever he could get in an atmosphere of hostility towards Central Governments. Many of the States’ citizens wanted very little Central Government:
            http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=346

            From the article: “He bemoaned the limited powers given to the central government under the Articles of Confederation and continually agitated for a new scheme of authority. At the Constitutional Convention, it became clear how radical were his plans. He favored a permanent president and senate and wanted the federal government to have the power to appoint state governors”.

          • JC

            He was certainly an opportunist of low moral character.

  • Alex Frazier

    For those of you still whining about Ron Paul’s foreign policy, I want to use Switzerland as an example, because they have maintained a foreign policy of neutrality, much like what Paul espouses.

    In the years preceding WWI, Switzerland, on an average population of approximately 3,850,000, had a relatively balanced budget with state revenues and expenses to the tune of S₣100,000,000. In 1914 with the rise of WWI, the state revenue on the same approximate population was about S₣80,000,000 while the state expenses had climbed to S₣224,000,000. By 1919, on still the same approximate population, the state revenue (i.e. taxes and duties) had risen to S₣322,000,000 against state expenses of S₣573,000,000.

    Over a period of a mere six years, they went from a balanced budget to 43.8% deficit. Taxes rose 68.9% on a population that had increased by 10,000, barely a quarter of a percent.

    And that’s just defending their own borders.

    Due to their non-intervention, they didn’t have the issues related to post-war troop reintegration, wartime/peacetime market economies, massive inflation, or unrest amongst its laboring citizens. Meanwhile, the rest of the world was in bad shape, and there were revolutions in Italy and Germany, hyperinflation in Germany and Austria, and massive recession and/or depression in countries like Britain.

    Via their policies of neutrality, Switzerland avoided occupation by Germany, even when Switzerland was surrounded by Axis forces after the surrender of France in 1940. The Kaiser didn’t attack them, Hitler didn’t attack them. Thousands of the Jewish population in Switzerland were spared the holocaust.

    Today, Switzerland has one of the strongest economies in the world. Until recently with the major currency wars that have been going on, the Swiss Franc was one of the strongest currencies in the world. With their policy of neutrality, the few instances when they’ve been threatened have resulted in international outrage.

    And the most amazing thing of all … terrorists don’t attack Switzerland. Go figure!

    What this tells us is that we can preserve our integrity, our respect, our country, our economy, our money, our sons and husbands, our sovereignty, AND our might … without having to fight any wars that don’t come to our own borders.

    The swiss policy … Every man in the country is required to own a military issue rifle. The president has no power, except to declare war. Immigrants are given passes to work, but not become citizens. And they don’t get involved with wars that don’t come to their doorstep.

    That’s what Ron Paul supports. And Switzerland is proof positive that the policy works. It’s proof positive that wars cost too much money. It’s proof positive that if you get the hell out of the Muslim countries, they’ll stop trying to attack you.

    • Bob in Boston

      Excellent post Alex – I hadn’t heard the Switzerland analogy before, but it fits really well.

    • DaveH

      Very Good, Alex. Thanks for pointing that out.

    • JeffH

      Alex, thanks. Always enjoy reading your well balanced comments.

    • Alex Frazier

      Thanks guys. Always nice to know you’re appreciated.

    • Eric Bischoff

      Yes Thanks Alex, minding your own business does have its benefits. I will also add that they have a military policy of making as many expert marksmen as they can and a mandate to take out the heads of the military first which is why the German generals wanted nothing to do with invading Switzerland.

    • Millicent

      Switzerland hides the world’s money. They are a small nation with no power. The analogy is specious at best.

      • Alex Frazier

        A small nation with no power that warded off a Nazi invasion and earned themselves enough respect from the international community that no one bothers them. Whether or not they hide money is irrelevant. We’re talking about foreign policy concerning war.

      • JC

        Your nasty hate filled one liners are specious at best.

  • Mike

    At the risk of being politically incorrect I for one believe that Abe Lincoln had absolutely no right whatsoever to invade the Confederacy “to preserve the Union”. If he had used common sense he would have realized that the Union no longer existed the moment secession was decided on and despite what some people believe the Constitution nowhere says that any state must remain in the United States regardless of what it’s citizens desire. In my opinion most if not all of our problems in our country can be directly traced to the forced subjection of the Confederacy for the simple reason that once the Federal Government realized that it could be the supreme ruler over the states it began to seize power until now we live under a degree of oppression that the Founding Fathers could have never imagined. Until politicians of whatever party quit acting like they think they’re God Almighty it really won’t matter who is or isn’t elected. The end result will simply be more of the same.

    • Kimberly Boldt

      I agree, Mike. Lincoln committed “treason” by sending armed troops to fire on his own people, which is why Karl Marx wrote Lincoln to congratulate him on his re-election. Marx and Lincoln corresponded often. Hmmmm. And we wonder why the “marxist philosophy” has infiltrated our government even as far back as 150 years ago. The “tares were planted among the wheat” a long time ago, and NOW we are seeing them pointing straight up in the Harvest, because the wheat, bearing fruit is bowed over, while the tares, bearing no fruit, are standing upright and now easy to spot.

      • Karolyn

        Lincoln’s “own people” fired on their brethren first at Fort Sumter.

        • DaveH

          Fort Sumter was a provoked event, Karolyn, and nobody died in that event:
          http://mises.org/daily/952

          • Kimberly Boldt

            Dave, you’re stuck on Mises.org. You need to get out a live a little. ;-) There’s literally 1000s of publications out there. Make it easy by actually reading the eyewitness accounts of the Civil War, from “other” sources.

          • DaveH

            I quote from Mises, Karolyn, because I can trust that their articles are well-researched and factual. I would pit my variety of reading over my lifetime against yours any day of the week.
            By the way, note that your comment was a personal attack. Instead, why don’t you just read the article and learn something?

          • DaveH

            Sorry Karolyn, I meant to say Kimberly.

          • JC

            John V Denson’s “A Century of War” covers the Fort Sumpter event very well. Lincoln provoked a war.

      • Millicent

        I used to think that Lincoln was a great President Of late, I think I have been incorrect. He suspended habeus corpus and behaved like a common dictator. The states that wanted to secede had every right to do so under the Constitution. What would have happened? There would have been no war. Slavery would have collapsed under it’s own weight. The south needed the North. Trade sanctions could have been imposed on the secessionists. In time, the south more than likely would have applied to rejoin the north.

        • JC

          Trade sanctions could have been imposed? How?
          The Union States would have had to blockade a thousand miles of coast line…and act of war in itself.

        • DaveH

          Actually, Millicent, the North needed the South. Why else would they have fought such a bloody war to force the South to be part of the Union?

  • http://explorer Scout

    I like Ron Paul. He’s better than what we have. We’ve always want to elect someone from the good ole boy school. Newt has politics as usual written all over him. I’m still undecided. I do know Newt has been in Washigton for 40 years. Ron has a lot of positive attributes.We simply have to stop electing lawyers.

    • Average Joe

      Hopefully, by this time next year there will be a new sign in front of the White House….The Dr. is IN!
      Ron Paul / Andrew Napolitano 2012!

  • BigBadJohn
  • dan

    Gee, I see a lot of common statements among all the posters here. “It’s no longer Democrat or Republican, rathre good vs. evil”…agree, but a little dramamtic, “RP cannot win the R nomination”…if you believe that then why bother participating in the election process. Just turn on your boob tube and just watch the media put into office who they want. “The american government is corrupt and needs redirection” Duh! “If RP gets nominated or elected, then he will be assasinated”….another fear tactic…lets not vote for him cause we don’t want to be responsible for his death.
    I am not sure whart scares me more…the choices for candidates, the existing administration, or some of the comments exspoused by the populace.

    The other dan

  • Holland Simms

    I will vote for Paul in the primary. I am tired of the Republican status quo-NEO-CONvict drivel.I am sick of the waffling retorict,and people with CFR-NWO allegiancies.RINO-fools,and people chicken sh– to call Obama out.I am sick of the tools of the people that are distroying our freedom and liberty for the excuse of security.
    What about all the fraud going on with wall street-bankers-16 trillion disappearing-Federal Reserve-Goldman-Sachs employees always in ‘control’of Treasury and the Fed.
    All the all the Republican mainstream lackies always saying Paul is this derogatry thing or another when the REALITY IS IS THAT RON PAUL IS THE ONLY ONE THAT EVER SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING THAT HAS REAL MEANING OR SUBSTANCE.I am tired of the Democrats defemation of character and same of the lack of Republican calling on the rail weakness-spineless lack of will to counter malignant nastyness of the Left-Liberal bias.I am tired of the elections lasting for 2 years or more.I am sick of the bias of the media and lack of equal time given to all candidates .

  • FreeHumanity

    Obama will have my vote, again, unless you bring to the table Ron Paul. He is the only Republican candidate I’ve truly resonated with. I suspect Repubs could actually win in 2012 with RP since a lot of us “leftys” respect his integrity, intelligence and his willingness and bravery to end the Fed. His plans are radical compared to what the business as usual politicians from both sides have to offer. He is your only choice from what I can tell.

    • Millicent

      How can you say Obama will have your vote again? Do you like seeing the USA falling under a Commie dictatorship? Your do or die attitude is typical of Ron Paul idiots.

      • FreeHumanity

        Your negativity WILL kill you, you know? Good thing Obamacare may be able to help with that. LOL

  • FederalistNo84

    Bob Livingston,
    If Ron Paul was President we would know the veto coming and see it happen. God help us all!

    From Rep. Justin Amash:
    UPDATED: Here’s the roll call for S 1867, National Defense Authorization Act, which grants the President new statutory authority to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at his sole discretion. I voted no on the House version of this bill, H R 1540, on May 26, 2011 [http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll375.xml]. The Senate bill, S 1867, passed 93-7.

    Some have asserted that the defeat of Sen. Sessions’ amendment, S Amdt 1274, means that the egregious detainee provisions have been defeated. That is incorrect. First, logically, the defeat of an amendment cannot change the problematic language in the underlying bill. Second, S Amdt 1274 provides that even if a detainee (American citizen) were to receive a civilian trial and be acquitted, he STILL could be held indefinitely in military custody. In short, it was an effort to make the bill even more destructive of our Constitution. That is all that was defeated.

    Others have asserted that Sen. Feinstein’s amendment, S Amdt 1456, protects the rights of American citizens and preserves constitutional due process. Unfortunately, it does not. It’s just more cleverly worded nonsense to preserve the status quo, which, according to the Obama administration, permits the President to deny constitutional due process to American citizens without having to provide any justification.

    Although the President has threatened to veto this bill, he actually does not object to the most egregious provisions related to the indefinite detention of American citizens, so those provisions are not likely to be removed without further public outcry.

    • Bob in Boston

      I read the text of that bill, and any congressman who votes for it should be detained indefinitely!

      • FederalistNo84

        The Constitutional lawyers and lawyers in general believe that “Rights” may be regulated. I believe Hamilton had some thing else to say. I submit the following:

        “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.” The Federalist No. 84 – Alexander Hamilton

        • DaveH

          Hamilton didn’t want the Bill of Rights, because his true intentions were for a strong elite Federal Government. The Bill of Rights presented another obstacle for his ambitious desires for power.
          Read “Hamilton’s Curse”.

          • FederalistNo84

            Dave,
            The Federalist No. 84 was written by Alexander Hamilton. These are his words and warnings. You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Hamilton didn’t really mean what he said? I spent months in debate with myself and my wife about his position on the Bill of Rights and he was absolutely correct.

            Point one, remove “should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained” and insert “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. After all we are talking about a Bill of Rights so I have all of the amendments to test. Open your eyes and look at what has happened, infringement on a massive scale by the Federal government. His warning was absolutely correct.

            Point two, “There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.” Let me help you here. Hamilton said the Constitution IS a Bill of Rights.

            The powers of Congress are encapsulated in Article 1, Section 8. Question, where is Congress authorized to regulate firearms of the people? The answer is very simple, NOWHERE. The best Congress can hope for is clause 3, the commerce clause. Problem is that doesn’t work because the commerce clause was designed to prevent war between the states over the movement of goods. Since this is the case the Second Amendment is unnecessary.

            You know full well why these 85 pamphlets were written. Now, go back and read The Federalist No. 84 with an open mind.

          • DaveH

            Are you related to Kimberly?
            I don’t give a rat’s butt what Hamilton said. I judge him by his actual deeds.
            “Hamilton’s vision for the nation included a strong sense of nationalism, zealous protectionism, enthusiasm for central banking, and methods of constitutional interpretation like the doctrine of “implied powers” that essentially stripped away the Constitution’s restraints on the central government”:
            http://mises.org/daily/5074

          • DaveH

            More on the Real Hamilton:
            “as Treasury secretary under Washington, he dropped the façade of government restraint. As long as any proposed legislation was “in the public good,” he considered it lawful under the Constitution”:
            http://mises.org/daily/3254
            He was a Mercantilist who believed that the elite should run the lives of the great unwashed.
            Read “Hamilton’s Curse” to learn more.

          • FederalistNo84

            Dave,
            I should all so add you’ve missed the point entirely. I suspect your bias against Hamilton got in the way of your reading. Congratulations, you shifted the focus of the tread. I’ll be watching for you in the future.

          • FederalistNo84

            Run along now. The adults have conversations to continue. Remember, play nice in the sand box.

          • DaveH
          • DaveH

            As with all good Liberals, FederalistNo84 must resort to ridicule instead of just stating the facts.

          • FederalistNo84

            Dave,
            LMAO!!!

          • DaveH

            Here’s still more evidence of the Real Alexander Hamilton:
            http://mises.org/daily/3164
            “Hamilton argued for a large standing army not because he feared an invasion by France or England, but because he understood that the European monarchs had used such armies to intimidate their own citizens when it came to tax collection. Evidence of this is the fact that Hamilton personally led some 15,000 conscripts into Western Pennsylvania (with George Washington) to attempt to quell the famous Whiskey Rebellion. He was eventually put in charge of the entire expedition, and rounded up two dozen tax protesters, every one of whom he wanted to hang. They were all pardoned by George Washington, however, to Hamilton’s everlasting regret”.

            Okay, now I sit back and wait for another personal attack from FederalistNo84. As if his personal attacks make him correct.

          • DaveH

            Those who can’t argue with facts must instead use personal attacks. Talk about playing in the sand box.

          • FederalistNo84

            Dave,
            I stopped caring about what you had to say after said you “I don’t give a rat’s butt…”. You aren’t worth engaging in conversation. You act just like a little child. I also suspect you won’t let this go and will continue on for some time. I have better things to do than deal with you. I suggest you have no further contact with me.

          • DaveH

            Then go away, FederalistNo84.
            There are plenty of adolescent Liberals to take your place personally attacking me.

      • FederalistNo84

        In reference to The Patriot Act I submit Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 – “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

        Has there been an act of rebellion? What is meaning of Rebellion with respect to the US Constitution? Have we been invaded? What Federal public declaration have we heard regarding an invasion? Since the Federal government has made no such claims and public safety is not an issue from the stand point of such claims where is the cause for the Act?

      • Karolyn

        Lindsey Graham, a Republican much favored by conservatives, is it’s main proponent.

        • libertytrain

          I don’t. He’s scum.

          • Angel Wannabe

            Libertytrain, Hear, Hear, a Complete RINO!__

        • Alex Frazier

          I’m in South Carolina. I can’t stand the bastard.

          • Karolyn

            Me too!

  • Gary Haws

    I really hope ther are those on the left that appreciate Ron Paul’s intergity. Thanks to all for spirted and honorable discussion.

  • davidL

    I don’t agree with many of his views, but I respect Ron Paul. He is the only candidate in this republican circus who is neither fact-challenged nor a hypocrite.

  • Jonkon

    My two sons have served in Iraq, and I have had many missionary friends to the Muslims, including one who was murdered because she was running a hospital for Muslims in Yemen. Ron Paul displays a dangerous ignorance of Islam and the threat it poses to our way of life. While most Muslims are perfectly good Muslims as long as it does not pose an inconvenience, it is the extreme radical terrorists who actually represent mainstream Islam and take the Koran seriously. Sura 5:51 forbids Muslims befriending Christians and Jews. It is pointless to try to negotiate with Muslim nations because suras 3:28 and 16:106 teach that it is the moral duty of a Muslim to lie to advance the cause of Islam (the doctrine of Taqiyya). Ron Paul is flat out wrong that we can expect Muslims to leave us alone because the prosperity of the US and Israel are existential threats to the credibility and authority of Islam. Suras 3:22, 3:56, and 9:29 teach that non-Muslims will not prosper and will suffer terrible agony in this world and the next. Given that it is impossible to avoid a fight with Muslims, the best strategy is to take the fight to Muslim lands. Our military, unlike Ron Paul, would much rather shoot terrorists in Baghdad markets than in the Mall of America.

    • Karolyn

      Taking into consideration the interviews I’ve seen and people I’ve talked to, it would seem that there are a lot of Muslims who do not strictly adhere to the Koran, just like there are a lot of Christians who do not stictly adhere to the Bible. What of the growing movement of young Muslims to become more liberal? Sorry I don’t have the link to that info; I heard and read of it months ago.

    • DaveH

      All the more reasons to quit impoverishing our nation by being the World’s Policemen. What will keep those Muslims, who have been conditioned to hate us for our constant interference in their lives, from overrunning our country after we have been impoverished?
      The same has happened to every Great Empire in history. Must we always repeat history?

    • ronpaulican
    • Joe H.

      Jonkon,
      He has also said we should seal our borders. If all who come here have to come through the front door, it’s going to be a whole lot harder to attack us!

  • Ted Crawford

    All philosophical arguements aside what good can come from a nuclear armed Iran? We feel safe because their dilevery systems, clearly can’t reach anywhere near us! What about Isreal, though probably not their primary target? Can they afford to “wait and see”? I know they have nuclear capabilities, that may be the problem! What happens if they feel they need to use them? Will China just ignore all this happenning in their backyard? It seems that their economy isn’t doing as well as many thought and they have increased their military spending by 400% over the last decade, their delivery systems WILL reach us!
    If, as I hope none of that happens how about the neighbors? will they be content to allow Iran to posses nukes without wanting their own? This thing could snowball in many different directions, wouldn’t it be much simpler to just stop it now?

    • Karolyn

      Any country that would send nuclear destruction is as good as dead itself, so why worry about it? If they’re stupid enough to commit suicide, there’s not much to be done about it. Then we’ll all be gone to a better place.

    • DaveH

      What good ever comes from militarist Leaders? What good has come from any of the wars? What good comes from Perpetual War?

  • http://www.moshcustom.com moshcustom

    Thank you for your sanity, Bob. I always love your articles, in general. But I’m getting sick of hearing Americans who claim to love freedom call one of the smartest men in this country a kook! It really says a lot about the level of brainwashing that must be taking place in some for or another. With most “reputable” news outlets slighting Dr. Paul, bashing him or just plain ignoring him, it’s refreshing to hear a truly respected voice, such as yours, give credit where it’s due. I often think, “I’m sure Ron Paul would rather spend his golden years on the links or enjoying his grandchildren, but the only reasonable explanation for his running for president must be his undying devotion to righting as many wrongs in government as possible.” He’s not in it for the money, obviously, and not for glory or fame, that’s apparent. Not to mention, when was the last time you listened to a politician speak and were convinced he was telling the truth?!?! Only one man is truly willing to make real changes that lead us back to Constitutional principles. I’m voting for Ron Paul to be my president. I trust him and I like him.

  • Spyder dalton

    We live in a day and age where both domestic and foreign policy are of equal importance. Our candidate must understand that we are at war with people that want to kill us on the outside and people that want to destroy on on the inside. We must vote for the candidate that understands the danger of both. Ron Paul is not that man. Don’t waste your vote, he can’t win.

    • Karolyn

      Hisssssssssss! Boooooooooo!

    • Angel Wannabe

      Spyder Dalton, Ron Paul could easily win, if the TPTB stay out of it!
      Remember votes can be and are skewed!

      __Too many voters are pre-occupied with how a candidate looks and public speaking ability, rather than, whether or not the Candidate has a good understanding of the Constitution, and whether they’ll make good on promises they made on the campaign trail, once in office.

    • DaveH

      The people who want to destroy us on the inside are those who advocate Big Government and trample the Constitution.

      • Angel Wannabe

        Daveh, It’s two fold Dave, in the past we’ve had the opportunity to cast informed votes, but we stopped being vigilant, and hoped like hell those who were elected, truly represent us, until we finally figured it out! Our Representatives now, are tempted and fall like never before and with open arrogance!
        the arrogance of TPTB no longer tempt from the shadows either…

  • Jose S

    SAD, SAD SAD :[
    I support Ron Paul and will vote for him weather it is as Rep. candidate or write in.
    But it will be Obama or Hillary that wins.
    When Obama was elected all the talking head Republicans on Fox and the radio saw the light, people didn’t want their lies anymore so they all became Libertarian minded, then took over the Tea Party. Now they are all going back to the same old garbage. They don’t want a good economy, or peace. Who will watch or listen to them if they don’t have Obama or someother arch enemy. They love drama and people are addicted to it. Ron Paul=no drama, peace and POOR RATINGs!

  • Kimberly Boldt

    Regarding our foreign policy toward Iran: Let’s try to use some common sense and reasoning here. Iran right now has NO nuclear weapons. Every time they try to build a nuclear plant, Israel secretly bombs them. They have no long range missle capabilities (one that could deliver a nuclear bomb). Iran has a loud mouth dictator who has control with military force over his country, and nothing else. Yeah, he’s a bad man, talks big, but has a “small stick”.

    China is continuing to build up it’s nuclear arms arsenal in total disregard for any nuclear arms treaty, and China with the help of the Clinton Administration NOW has long-range missle capabilities. Did China fire off a missle off the coast of California not too long ago as a show of muscle? Or do you believe that was just some vapor-trail hoax story?

    Pakistan is a rogue nation in possession with several nuclear bombs which at any time could fall into the hands of militant rebels, the Taliban or Al-Queda, for example. Pakistan isn’t happy with us right now, because we’ve invaded their nation, bombed their people, and are telling them what to do. We give them money and expect them to capitulate. But they don’t. Pakistan is out of control.

    Russia, who also has a stockpile of nuclear weapons, is voting to go back to it’s communist rule. They are impressed with how Obama and his Administration have taken over our government and now they think they may some power again.

    North Korea now has the technology to build a nuclear weapon, has had a couple of tests, but China says, back down, because WE have enough to cover you when the time comes, to blow up the earth 3 times over.

    The State of Israeli has several nuclear weapons, AND we helped build them a nuclear defense system, to protect itself.

    Thinking through each of these scenarios, which countries are the most “dangerous”?

    What we believe about Iran is coming from WHERE? The news media. And what do we always say about the news media? It’s biased or misinformed. Who knows the truth about anything anymore, but what the news media says.

    Now I tend listen to those in Congress who are closer to knowing the truth than the news media, but often they lie.

    So it’s up to us to sift through all of the untruths, half truths, and garbage and think about just WHO is the bigger threat.

    Again, are you going to let the news media dictate how you think?

    So for those who think Ron Paul is naive about Iran, may I remind you that he’s closer to knowing the truth than you are, as he sits in Congress. Also, he served in the Air Force, so he has military understanding. The rest of the candidates do not. They are ignorant when it comes to war and foreign policy.

    • Chris Layne

      You are absolutely correct on every point you make.Israel is more than capable of taking care of herself. We don’t need to do anything about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.Dr. Paul is right about the whole thing.The Iranians talk trash,but they aren’t stupid enough to attack Israel even if they had a nuke.
      The media spread whatever makes them money.The Republican establishment and old boy’s club and the media have annointed Romney and Gingrich as people who can beat Obama.Any true conservative knows that they are the bad guys,but the media would have you think they are favored somehow among the people. Dr Paul is the only man fit to be president out there running and is the only one who tells the unvarnished truth about what is happening and what needs to be done.
      You mentioned how the candidates are ignorant on military and foreign policy…. Step back and carefully examine the people in Washington,from senate/congress through the white house and you will be astonished at how generally incompetent, ignorant, stupid and just plain dishonest the majority of these people are. Thats why we need Ron Paul for president.

      • Vigilant

        “Step back and carefully examine the people in Washington,from senate/congress through the white house and you will be astonished at how generally incompetent, ignorant, stupid and just plain dishonest the majority of these people are. Thats why we need Ron Paul for president.”

        You’ve implied the following, and didn’t even realize it: the election of Ron Paul would not change the “generally incompetent, ignorant, stupid and just plain dishonest” majority in DC. Dr. Paul realizes better than anyone that ours is a constitutional republic, and that fact alone (unless he became a dictator) would impede him from EVER instituting the changes he wishes and changes this country needs.

        His unwavering principles and fidelity to the Constitution would result in a plethora of vetoes and a constitutional gidlock would ensue that would make the current situation look like a meeting of Evangelists.

        No sir (or ma’am), unless and until the dysfunctional, anti-Constitution Congress and courts are wiped clean of the traitors they harbor, you will not see a change in the way DC conducts business.

        Placing your faith in one person to get us back to a reverent respect for the Constitution is pie in the sky. And a write-in or third party vote is a vote for Obama.

    • jerry sweet

      what is the basis for your belief that iran has no nukes.wishful thinking

  • old as dirt

    It is heart warming to see so many people with passion on the subject even thou they disagree on some points. I would like to return to “the shadow figures behind the curtain. You can find the answer at “iamthewitness.com” and their 200 year history of the Rothschild family and the greatest criminal conspiracy of the world. It all started with them and continues to this day. This is “required reading” if you want to understand what we are up against. Another link from that site is to a book titled “the barbarians are inside the gate”. Its a free e book and it also goes to the root of the problem. My conclusion is that we need a military coup and a bunch of gilliotines but right now lets elect Ron Paul as our last chance to save the republic

  • jerry sweet

    i agree.i think the only time we should enter into any conflict is when an ally like ISRAEL is being threatened with obliteration.we knew what was being done to them in ww2 and didnt care, until we took a hit at Pearl.with our weapons today we could have stopped all despots,china,russia,cuba,darfur,somolia all of them,but when you have GUTLESS wonders running things,coupled with the greedy needs of the rich corp.who make money on war and death you then have despots who are as strong if not more so than us.why was mao allowed to enslave all of china.stalin.how many of his own did he murder,70 million,or these muslims who are allowed to murder in the name of their? god.WHY! why did great military leaders have to answer to fancy pants whiners sitting as presidents,not be allowed to end the aggression and the build up of nukes,so that now everything on the planet is doomed.should we be the worlds police.heavens no!!! espescially since they are becoming tyrants in our own land,too late for that.but GOD does mean what he told abram when he started the Jewish nation,that whoever blesses you i will bless.BUT whoever curses you I WILL curse.GOD is not a clown as so many think today.we as a nation became doomed when we began going against the JEWS.dont cry to me.GOD said it.i believe it.and that settles it period.tell it to HIM.but unless you change your attitude and start serving the KING OF KINGS JESUS you too will become a tag on the toe!remember.GOD runs thing down here not YOU or ME

  • Ridge Runner

    There is i think no cleaar cut answers to all of our problems but one thing is very clear is that we the people have to take control of this out of control bunch of just thives and out laws if we are to survive. We need to get our nose out of the other country’s business as much as we can and if they stick their nose or a&& into ours cut them off. Treat the world fairly work with the ones that you can but take no bull sh** and give none. Any one in the usa that wants to do business with foreign countrys will be treated like the companys that are doin business here.Im ports will have a tariff to protect the mfgs here because they can’t compete with cheap foreign labor. It has to be that way or you will have our standard of living lowered.Call it protectionism if you want to but a lot of things have to be considered as well as cutting corporate taxes and regulations to rebuild our mfg base. No exceptions and no special government money given to the mfgs if they can’t cut the mustard then some one else will get a chance. It worked before and will again if you can keep these thiving politicans out of corporations or the corporations out of politics.Dismantle these corrupt unions and get these lobists out of washington dc stop the corruption.

    • jerry sweet

      there is an answer to the problem.HIS name is GOD,but since most americans dont want HIM,oh well you wont like what He replaces HIMSELF with.

  • Kimberly Boldt

    Here’s the Ron Paul you’ll never hear from the mainstream media. This man knows the Bible, too! Ron Paul Speech-Bible, War & Federal Reserve Bank http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsFhG7FThsA&feature=share

  • Linda

    Those who can not assimilate to the American way of life should leave America period.

  • Speak2Truth

    The Republican approach makes perfect sense.

    1) Become energy self-sufficient. Democrats continue fighting to prevent this. Most recently, Obama used his power to chase US drillers out of the Gulf of Mexico then invited Brazil to move in and take our oil – and enrich George Soros via his investments in PetroBras.

    2) Stop rogue states from rampages of conquest. Saddam’s invasion of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait was no different from Adolf Hitler’s blitzkrieg. This time, we stopped the international aggressor early.

    3) Convert the USA to Hydrogen as the mainstream fuel, produced from Geothermal energy and water. GW Bush made good progress on this, got the car and energy companies (Shell, GM, Ford, etc) on board – and Democrats went ballistic to stop it. We still have some Hydrogen fueling stations and vehicles in major cities but Democrats absolutely had to stop progress in that direction because it would have deprived them of their “Green” wealth redistribution schemes by which they are pillaging the US treasury and burying us in unrecoverable debt.

    As long as we are dependent on foreign nations for our survival, as long as we are willing to defend weaker nations against aggressive bullies like Saddam or Al Qaeda or Iran’s leadership’s proposal to bring the 12th Imam to this world via nuclear holocaust… we will be involved in foreign affairs.

    We no longer live in a world where oceans, rivers and mountain ranges keep us relatively safe by impeding foreign armies. We must be realistic in understanding the consequences to ourselves when foreign aggressors do their dirty deeds. We must defend our nation’s interests, even on foreign soil.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest az-ike

    On last night’s local news, Jesse Jackson was in Phoenix supporting the Occupiers. He stated that with OWS, we are seeing democracy in action. He’s right. Democracy is mob rule.

    America is NOT a democracy. It isn’t even a democratic republic. It is a Federal Republic with representational government by The People and the Sovereign States in which supreme power is held by The People. America’s government is based on God’s natural laws that include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    If America has been ‘spreading democracy,’ we are doing no favors to other countries. The United States can best help the world by ‘living’ according to our Constitution. In order to do that we must restore our constitutional government and protect our rights to live by God’s natural laws—instead of letting them be used against us. Unfortunately, during the past century, The People have elected a ‘ruling class’ of career politicians and allowed them to usurp the supreme power that belongs to us.

    Ron Paul supports our Constitution. If the GOP and conservatives believe he is an isolationist, they should learn the difference between isolationism (an abstention of international political and economic relations) and international alliances (coalitions to promote common interests.) International alliances do not include ‘foreign entanglements’ or universal foreign aid—especially to countries who are enemies and/or critical of our government, culture and religious beliefs.

    Unless Ron Paul is against friendly international alliances, as well as eschewing ‘foreign entanglements,’ he is not an ‘isolationist.’ If we are sure of his position, his supporters had better get busy correcting those who believe he’s an isolationist and continue promoting his true constitutional, conservative values. To do that, we must go outside these conservative forums to reach the ‘sheeple,’
    because they won’t be bothered to inform themselves.

    • Alex Frazier

      “He stated that with OWS, we are seeing democracy in action. He’s right. Democracy is mob rule.”

      lol @ Democracy is mob rule. Ohhh so true. It’s also the last phase in the deterioration of a solid republican state as it shifts from freedom to tyranny, which itself eventually leads back to an aristocracy and republic.

  • Alex Frazier

    You know what I think is a real hoot, is that there is all the talk of invading Iran because of their potential for nuclear weapons. Yet, Pakistan has them already, has shown us defiance, has sheltered our #1 international wanted criminal, and is friendly to Al-Quaeda.

    I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if we wanted to take out Pakistan and rid them of their nuclear capabilities, we could do so. The attack would be so swift and devastating they wouldn’t know how to react. The fight would be over for them before it barely got started.

    So since Pakistan is an actual nuclear power rather than a might-be nuclear power in the future, and since we essentially pay them money in order to keep them friendly, why are we even talking about Iran at all?

    If there’s a threat to be had in the middle east, it’s Pakistan. So why invade Iran and not Pakistan? Why attack the defenseless country with no weapons rather than the terrorist-friendly country with weapons who is being defiant and harboring war criminals?

    Anyone who takes the time to think about that will begin to understand that an attack on Iran is politically motivated rather than defense motivated. We could take out Pakistan as easily as Iran, and our reluctance to do so has nothing to do with the fear of reprisal. The real problem is, we can’t carry on a sustained war effort in Pakistan because they have nuclear power. We’d have to fight a real war and finish the job. We wouldn’t be able to occupy them for ten years while war profiteers get rich on the conflict.

    But we can do that in Iran, who doesn’t have nuclear weapons.

    • JeffH

      Alex, well said. I agree and believe Pakistan to be our next victim. As soon as the info on Bin Laden’s death was announced and that the Pakistani gov’t knowingly allowed his refuge there I felt that the writing was on the wall in big bold letters.

      After the raid, a resolution adopted during a joint session of Pakistan’s parliament condemned the U.S. action. It also called for a review of its working agreement with the U.S., demanded an independent investigation and ordered the immediate end of drone attacks along its border region.

      U.S. lawmakers have questioned how the world’s most wanted terrorist managed to live in plain sight for years in Pakistan – near the country’s elite military academy – without being detected.

      2+2=4

    • Joe Loyd

      BINGO!!
      But the warmongers would reply that it’s Achnutjob’s (or Achmenijad? whatever his name is) stated intention to obliterate the “Great Satan”,us, and the “Little Satan”,Israel, from the face of the earth. So far, the Pakistani leadership is at least pretending to co-operate with us. Oh, and Iran would supposedly hand off the weapon to non-state actors so they couldn’t be blamed. I have a feeling we have the technology to trace the weapon’s origin by it’s radioactive signature and/or it’s characteristics, but you won’t hear that from those who would profit from a war and occupation.

    • Mike

      The current “leaders” in Washington, D.C. need a war to keep the people in line. As long as we have troops to support somewhere, and an enemy, our government can get away with outlandish violations of our Constitution.

      I agree with every word you said. Iran would be doable, because we wouldn’t have to use nuclear weapons on them. We might have to on Pakistan. There’s your difference.

    • jerry sweet

      because pakistan isnt threatening to wipe out ISRAEL,get a life.

      • Alex Frazier

        What need was there for “get a life”? I made a valid point. If you disagree, then disagree. Make a counter argument. Insulting me isn’t going to accomplish anything at all.

  • Kimberly Boldt

    “My friends, you don’t need to do nation building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. You don’t need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves. You’ve been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own.” ~Benjamin Netanyahu

    • jerry sweet

      and the prime minister is right,but they have never been put in a pincher movement like obama has them in.but no worries when God dstroys all of the invaders,those who are not slaughtered on the battlefield will die of heart attacks.keep on thinking God wont fight for ISRAEL.if you think He wont you are just being a bunch of ignorant fools.your hate for ISRAL really shows from some in this bunch

    • JC

      Netanyahu has more integrity and intelligence than 90% of Congress.
      We need to stop telling Israel what it can and can not do.

  • DaveH

    Important for Freedom Lovers:
    http://gunowners.org/a12022011.htm

    • JeffH

      Everyone should pass it along and sign it if they care for freedom.

  • Mike

    Ron Paul is so obviously the best candidate for President that I don’t know how to debate those that oppose him. His ideas on foreign policy are strictly in line with our Constitution. Anyone that calls him a “kook” is just plain wrong.

    I am one of the Average Joes. I’m just a regular guy with a family. Most people seem to think that the Average Joe is a brain-dead moron that will do whatever the MSM says. They are wrong. Most of us are totally pissed-off at the direction in which our country is going.

    America is becoming the world’s largest bully; done in the name of corporate greed. Ron Paul is right. We need to get our troops out of everybody else’s business and stop getting them killed so companies similar to Halliburton can turn a profit.

    The most important thing any of us can do to get him elected is to vote for him in the primaries. If he loses there, he will not run as an independent. If he runs as an independent, he ensures Obama another win. He knows this. Vote for him in your primary or all of your support online will mean nothing.

    Ron Paul 2012.

  • LK

    All in the name of keeping the peace ? HUH !

  • Stephen Ray Hale

    RCASTON says what I say, concerning foreign policy. We leave folk alone until they hurt us and then we destroy that nation to the ground, literally. And like he says, that might take but one or two offenders, and if this is Ron Paul’s position, then it is mine.

    BUT, you knew it was coming, the CAVEAT. He is wrong wrong wrong concerning Israel…and for that matter, the real Islamic agenda. We do NOT try to make little “democracies” that is the Progressive agenda, and were we to make little “republics,” and I think we are supposed to guarantee that for the states alone, we would have to make the country people of those nations we desire this, to be for the most part Christian, Protestant type…as far from the Catholic model one can get. The people have to me truly moral and have a very established sense of self governing, so that they will look over their shoulder at an omniscient, omnipresent, God instead of around the corner in look out for the constabulary…which for the non-Christian world, a draconian constabulary.

    It may be a bit untidy but we might have to figure out a way for the People who love Israel and what it means to God to be able to benefit her in some manner outside of government. How foolish to think we can get ANY economic house in order when we, the government that is, are currently standing on two of God’s nerves: Abortions or the shed blood of the innocents so abhorrent to God, and our government’s hatred for Israel, only seemingly helping her because of the people whose understanding God’s love for that land is vociferous though complicating to government’s agenda to have mastery over the people. The complicated affair concerning the Liberty, which Israel had to attack when it discovered the American treachery of this communications spy ship mission to obtain tank communications and give this to the British who, in turn, make a type of war map to give to the Egyptians, is case and point. The hatred for Israel is so strong in some of our people that they do not understand the significance of our government recalling the air support already scrambled and in route to assist this ship. Israel found out about it and confronted the government who could not recall the ship…it was tasked by the NSA or some spook agency to make those interceptions of Israeli tank communications guarding the border with Egypt during that war with Israel.

    I would wish Ron Paul to also consider 1 Samuel 8:15-17 concerning our tax structure. If to God, ten percent of the increase of the farmer and the rancher in this case, but that of whatever is considered the increase of the American citizen, is God’s threshold for slavery, then we must have a tax system where the three taxing entities, Federal, State, and Local, can take a share of up to 9.99% of the increase of the citizen…but when ten percent is breached, then we take our rifles off the mantel or over the door, and clue our governments to back off, because 1 Corinthians 7:20-24 tells us if we are to be made free, to maintain it, and never be in bondage to men again…and at ten percent, this is being in bondage to government…not to mention our debt based money system…if we were to ever figure out who we are in debt to…according to the Bible, that is our master as well.

    The Ron Paul types ought to consider the ONE common point (the Bible) that is truly common to all the Christian and Pseudo-Christians (Christian wannabes), and that is the Bible, and use these to unite us. I will NEVER consider Ron Paul, though right on Abortion, yet, so wrong on Israel, as my President…though it is true no one else seems to get it as well. It is a case of true national security and taking away any pretence of God to destroy us when we go awry concerning His agenda to Rule over the ethnic Israel FOR HIS NAME’S SAKE (Ezekiel 20).

    • jerry sweet

      God is going to bring ISRAEL to national repentence and I pity those who try and interfere with this plan.God has in the past,is right now in the present time and will in the future destroy any and all who mess with ISRAEL.believe it or lay on a slab with a toetag.now about these poor palestinians,whose land ISRAEL has stolen.where are there original borders,what was/is their currency,what period in history did they rule,in fact who are they.in 1948 the arabs told those arabs living in ISRAEL to leave so they would’nt be killed when the ISRAELIES were destroyed.only thing is the Jews beat them so bad they ran like hell.than these arabs who were supposed to just come right back in and take all that belonged to the jews were left out to dry.they are from lebanon,syria saudi arabia,jordan etc.these countries woudnt let them come back, so people like arafat the pedophile called them poor palestinian and they have tried 1948,1956,1967,1973 and so on and they still in they’re hatetred think they can win.oh and its happening real soon.this world is going to be set on fire.GOD says to bless the jews and you will be blessed.curse the jews and man watch out the curses coming your way, will go down in history.so you just keep hating them.

  • http://www.realcolorwheel.com/ Don Jusko

    Sorry, I didn’t read any posts. I’m still going to reply to the article.
    Listen, You know Ron Paul is the only one running for nomination that will follow the Constitution, the only one that is against the unconstitutional wars, the only one that will bring our troops home now and protect our borders against a North American Union and the only one that will stop spending money that we don’t have, he will balance the budget.
    You and your war-mongering ways call him an isolationist on foreign policy. You commie pig licking AH. You think because we are all over the world nation building and being the UN’s police force that we have to be there with a big military. Well we don’t AH. Our forefathers were not cowards and neither are followers of Ron Paul. We want our troops home, after all of our fighting we have made more enemies than friends. STOP IT. Stop the UN and NWO, Keep our sovereign state of the union, don’t give it to the UN. This is following the Constitution and you Progressive Liberal war-mongers are just what Eisenhower warned against, the military complex has become too large and this writer Bob Livingston and the personalliberty.com are urging it to grow larger.

    • Alex Frazier

      Don … WTF! are you talking about?! Did you even read the article? It defends Paul’s non-intervention policy. Bob Livingston supports Ron Paul and his platform. I’m appreciative that you are for Ron Paul, against the wars, etc., like many of us on here are. But don’t be so nasty without reading what it is you’re being nasty about.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Don Jusko,

      I take it your school grades in reading for comprehension were below par.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

  • Dr Alan

    There are two quick points I would like to make:
    1st: Look at all of the candidates Congressional, Senatorial and Presidential voting records. There is only ONE candidate who has been totally steadfast in his allegiance to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and that is Ron Paul.
    Secondly: The Globalists who are the true ‘ruling elite’ have been steadfast in their stated policy of a One World Government/Regime/Oligarchy—-these lunatic psychopaths have essentially destroyed the world financial system, put the world into war on numerous false pretenses and have completely lined their own bank accounts, whilst putting the world in debt and telling us that we have to pay back, by austerity measures, higher taxes, the raiding of our pension funds. Why has NO one been put in jail—not the war criminals nor the financial criminals. And lastly, the US Senate has just passed 93-7 The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act which basically declares war on all Americans, allows indefinite detention and shreads Habeous Corpus. Very Scary. Vote Ron Paul 2012

  • Eric Bischoff

    I think it’s time for many of you to grow up and stop daydreaming and be sonly enamored with the founding fathers. They weren’t perfect and they made mistakes. They could never predict what we are faced with today. A Democracy should be a living system that adapts. If we are going to be sentimental for anything we should long for Thomas Paine whose Common Sense was the real catalyst for the American revolution. Everything after that was a mediocre compromise. We should model success regardless of where it comes from. Unfortunately in America we are too arrogant and we can’t acknowledge that any one else may have a better idea or mouse trap. Thus our healthcare and education systems.

    • jerry sweet

      this is supposed to be a REPUBLIC,dipstick,not a democracy.thats why it cant change ITS NOT SUPPOSE TO PERIOD, no matter what gumby land world it gets itself into.man the people on this site who know nothing about the truth about the founding of this nation.quit reading what the revisionist pukes have done to our history and our heritage.a living document.with that mentality every human on earth could come up with a different definition they could in their drugged out mind could conciev..get off the dope and your soapbox lib.were sick of you.a living document,how utterly vain and stupid

    • Alex Frazier

      Eric, the founding fathers didn’t have to predict any of the things we are going through today. They lived through them themselves. The things they put in the Constitution were put there to prevent them from happening again.

      Amazingly enough, big government, the welfare/warfare state, etc. are all derived from the same source, which is government spending. And the government spending is done through government borrowing. It’s the one amendment Thomas Jefferson said he would have made if he could have gone back. He would have taken away Congress’ ability to borrow.

      We have the freedom of speech because people were put to death or imprisoned for speaking their minds.

      We have the freedom of religion because people were put to death for believing differently, sometimes even within the bounds of the same religion.

      We have the freedom of the press so the government can’t suppress information to the public.

      We have the freedom of arms because governments inevitably become tyrannical and have to be put down.

      We have the right to our homes because Britain was quartering soldiers in the houses of the citizens.

      We have the right to privacy in our persons and effects because governments use that invasion of privacy to deprive undesirables of their freedom.

      We have the right not to incriminate ourselves because governments have a history of torturing people for confessions.

      We have the right to a speedy trial because governments would imprison innocent people for years on end without charges, evidence, or trial.

      We have the right to confront witnesses so there can’t be arbitrary anonymous claims or denouncements free from scrutiny.

      We have the right to a trial by jury so our fate is not in the hands of a tyrannical government, but in the hands of the people.

      We have the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment so there won’t be drawing and quartering, beheadings with a dull implement, or people being tied up in a sack with a snake and thrown into the sea.

      We have the right to any rights understood by a reasonable person as natural so that our government cannot say that our enumerated rights are the limit of our liberty.

      We have the power not given to the United States or to the States individually, so that our government never endeavors to over-reach itself. The power belongs to the people.

      There are reasons for everything they wrote. Anyone who would believe it is a living document that has to change with the times is ignorant of history. With the change in the Constitution comes a change in our freedom. The change in our freedom becomes a step towards tyranny.

      The fact is, our Constitution has been so neglected by our politicians that we are on the verge of being under the exact same conditions that prompted us to declare our independence from England. Go read the list of complaints in the Declaration of Independence. It’s quite sad.

      But hey, maybe we should change the Constitution so the politicians can live out the tyranny to its fullest extent.

      • DaveH

        Very Good, Alex Frazier.

      • JeffH

        Alex, HEAR HEAR! BRAVO!

    • DaveH

      Eric,
      First, do you think you have any credibility when you start your comment with this adolescent manipulative statement — “I think it’s time for many of you to grow up”?
      Secondly, we aren’t a Democracy. In Democracies it’s easy for Leaders to propagandize a raw majority of voters to get their way. And in Democracies the majority can force their whims on the minority. Our Wise Founders knew these things, so they purposely created a Republic to protect the citizens.
      Thirdly, if by “A Democracy should be a living system that adapts”, you are implying that the Constitution should be a living document, I would like to know why you would want to put the power of creating laws into the hands of a relatively few Unelected Jurists? Don’t we already have enough problems with a few hundred elected politicians who pretty much do as they damn well please in order to enhance their own lives and those of their Cronies at the expense of the rest of us?

    • JC

      Get real Eric…The Founder’s absolutely predicted what we face today. It’s exactly what inspired them to write the Constitution in the first place. The problem now is how to clean up this mess.
      Answer: back to the Constitution and back to the founding principles.

    • JeffH

      Eric the Red :(

  • William

    Well since our support of “democracy” in the Arab/Muslim countries is now blatant Imperialism who would the world want to see in control of the world, Islam or the USA and or——-Israel? USA and Israel would certainly be better for ALL than Islam who kills you or makes you a slave if they’re in charge! We nor Israle do that!

    • JC

      I don’t want to see anybody control the world.
      But our concern should be America first.
      We have an invasion on our southern border and communists in the White House and we need our troops at home.

  • John Hand

    I would rather push than be pushed. Get real.

  • Abe

    Bob

    Drawing a parallel between what Lincoln did and what these regimes do is taking it too far.

    What happened here was a civil war where both sides had the possibility of winning. Had the confedarates won things would have been different.

    These repressive regimes are simply butchering people for raising their voices for freedom, liberty and better living standards. While we have no right to interfere in the legitimate affirs of other countries, turning a blind eye to wanton killing and genocide is not the America we know and we will cease to be the leader of the free world when we do that.

    • DaveH

      Bob’s parallel isn’t extreme at all, Abe. Honestly. Abe Lincoln in his vain efforts to “save the Union” was willing to sacrifice the lives of over 600,000 people. He even allowed his Generals to commit war crimes by directly killing innocent women, children, and yes even Blacks. He jailed hundreds of people in the North for the crime of daring to question his actions. And he plotted and schemed to get his way with such shams as the Emancipation Proclamation which only freed the slaves in the Confederacy (which was another country) while not freeing the slaves in the Union (the North).
      All that because the citizens in the Southern States did not want to be a part of the Constitution trampling Union. Remember we fought and lost over 58,000 soldiers to protect South Vietnam’s right to be a sovereign country. And 30,000 soldiers died to protect South Korea’s right to be sovereign country.
      Comparing Lincoln to the Muslims might even be an insult to the Muslims.

  • bob wire

    Lively thread, ~ Ron Paul and pushing back the hands of time frightens people. I think that he frightens more republican then he does democrats.

    I’ve always maintained the GOP was loaded with a fearful bunch of wussies and their biggest enemy were themselves. They are Venture Capitalist without the “venture”! LOL! They favor “fixed” game and winning assurances and hedged bets.

    I’d very much like to be able to take my grievances directly to the party in question and stomp a mud-hole in his assets without interference of law officers, ATTORNEYS and court systems myself. Cutout all of these “middlemen” that bleed us dry and render poor results at the speed of February molasses. -

    The grave yard would experience a brisk business for a while but in time, people would get the message. “Don’t bite off more then you can chew”. The business climate would improve and life would be less entangled with frustrating government.

  • John Gould

    Watch the movie ‘The War on Democracy’ and you might reasses your thoughts about how the world views America. We wouldn’t want another country stirring our sh– up. So, why do we stir up everyone else’s? Knock it off. Stop raping foreign lands of their natural resources and focus on our homeland. Vote for Dr. Paul and invest in liberty.

  • Thinking About

    As soon as Ron Paul speaks about all the accomplishments he has the House of Representatives will be should he win the presidency. Who has he worked with in Congress? He should expect the same. All the bleeding heart crying will not change this.

    • DaveH

      Morality can’t be compromised, TA. I realize that’s a foreign concept for you.

      • Thinking about

        Daveh, I did not speak of morality and you sure do not know what is or is not foreign to me, you apparently do not have a proper answer to the fact Ron Paul does not have any accomplishments in the time he has been a member of House of Representatives. As I stated the bleeding hearts can not change these facts. The best judgement of future behavior is past behavior.

        • DaveH

          Come on, TA, fess up. You said “Who has he worked with in Congress? He should expect the same”, as if the fact that few in Congress share his high principles somehow makes him wrong, and he needs to sacrifice his principles to get votes. Hence, my response.

          You cannot compromise morality. You either are moral, or you’re not.

          • Thinking About

            The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Ergo zero accomplishments equals zero future accomplishments. You want to talk about morality, where is his morals for wanting a position of doing zero.

  • Jim C.

    Ron Paul is not now, nor has he ever been, a conservative. He is a true “RINO”, that is, a “Republican In Name Only”. Decades ago, he rejected Ronald Reagan and moved to the party which represented his own values – the Libertarian Party, a party whose official platform for the 2000 election was to abolish the Border Patrol and keep our borders open. It (and Paul, as I understand) advocates the legalization of all “recreational” drugs. Further, his absolutely nonsensical ideas about foreign policy would be deeply dangerous for America. In 1803 Thomas Jefferson sent U.S. Naval vessels all the way to North Africa to protect U.S. merchant ships against the Barbary pirates who were attacking them. Though Jefferson’s own beliefs leaned “libertarian”, he didn’t hesitate to use U.S. military force to protect the national interest. The U.S. Constitution does not require a Declaration of War in order for the President to use military force for the safety and security of the American people. It simply says that only Congress can declare war, but not all military action is “war”. Jefferson’s military action against the Barbary pirates was not a war, and Congress did not declare war, yet Jefferson acted in accord with his authority as Commander in Chief of the military. Of course, Congress must appropriate the necessary funds for any military operation, which gives it some control in the event of an actual breach of the Constitution by the President. In an extreme case, the President could even be impeached, if Congress so chose.

    The belief that we Americans can hole up inside our borders and ignore the rest of the world, and be safe in doing so, is absolute lunacy. It wasn’t true in Jefferson’s time, and it’s certainly not true now. More than ever before in history, we need to be vigilant and pro-active any time and anywhere necessary to ensure our freedom and safety. Any Presidential candidate who does not fully embrace that idea is not fit for the office. (The national defense budget is certainly large, but it is not the cause of our present financial problems. The cause lies with domestic fiscal policy, such as massive social programs, excessive spending, and burdensome regulations, many of which are not even a proper function of the Federal government.)

    • DaveH

      I’ll tell you what’s “lunacy”, Jim — The belief that we can intervene in other countries’ politics and not expect to create enemies. Your kind of “lunacy” has kept us in Perpetual Wars for most of the last 100 years. The idea that War brings Peace is “lunacy”. Wars are good for nothing buy enriching the military industrial complex and giving the Leaders more power at the expense of the rest of us. Eventually, all great empires collapse as a result of spending too much money on wars and creating too many enemies to combat in their financially weakened position.
      And your kind of “lunatics” have been fighting the Drug Wars for 40 years now with no end in sight except the end of our Constitutional rights. Not to mention wasting $30 Billion of our financial resources each year in the futile Drug Wars. And for what? Illegal drugs kill about 1/2 the number of people that prescription drugs kill. They kill less than 1/4th the number of people that alcohol kills. They kill less than 1/20th the number of people that tobacco kills:
      http://drugwarfacts.org/factbook.pdf

  • Denise

    Does Ron Paul support Israel?

    • DaveH

      Ron Paul believes it is not Government’s money to donate to any foreign countries. Those who believe in supporting one country or the other should do so with their own money not ours.

  • Travis

    Look, as I sit here reading this I sence the truth coming from Ron Paul, and all in me feels he is a Constitutionalist and an American like unto those who founded this country. God bless him.
    My sence is to advocate him and to vote for him. He is not agressive currently to gain the prominence needed to become president in my view. So. Who can come to him for his stance and support him so that his voice is understood? Who bigger than I ? Who bigger than him? Ron paul needs to be represented before he is elected to represent. The American people need him. They do not know it. So again, who has the power to make him known as he needs to be known so that he can free this country before it is put asunder; Handcuffed by knew laws, and Godly people betrayed. This worlds whoes will begin soon as prophasized, but even God almightly says it need not happen. So again, if Paul is not eloquent enough or loud enough, who can make him known and understood. Is there a supporter with prominence that can sppeak loud enough where he is not loud enough? Come forth then. Are there supporters that can produce this result? Then come fourth. Please come forth now.
    God bless this Counrty and it’s constitution, the manuscript of man for a free world. Thank you God most High.

    • DaveH

      Donate here, Travis:
      http://ronpaul2012.com/

      It’s up to us, the citizens, because the media sure isn’t going to willingly give him exposure.

  • Mark Are

    IT seems to me that today being normal means being a psychopath.

  • Chrisxxx

    I heard on Fox News that Ron Paul has stated that he will do away with social security and medicare. Is that true? If so, will they be replaced with some other assistance for those who depend solely on them?

    • Pat

      I think that has come up in every debate so far. That isn’t true. He is pushing for legislation that lets those 25 and younger opt out of Social Security and Medicare.

  • Pat

    You either misunderstand the word isolationist or are deliberately attempting to manipulate public opinion about Ron Paul.

    Isolationism: “NOUN: The policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.”

    Ron Paul advocates for free trade with all countries.

    Ron Paul advocates Non-interventionism not Isolationism.

    Non-interventionism: “noun
    1.
    abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions.
    2.
    failure or refusal to intervene.”

    All definitions from Dictionary.com

    • Arten

      Bump!!

      It’s important to understand the difference here. Choosing not to intervene in the affairs of another country is not the same as not paying attention to what is happening in another country.

      Non-intervention is not antithetical to national security.

  • AJ

    Ron Paul for President 2012 write in vote let the Rinopublican party go to h_ll.

  • http://www.infowars.com/ Some User

    The word ‘normal’ just means that on a graph, you fit within the ‘norm’ – ie, that you are ‘average’. Normal therefore, means average. Successful people, are not average – they deviate from the ‘norm’. All ‘successful’ people are, therefore, deviants (like Henry Kissinger, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. – you know, all those ‘successful’ people with pictures in the school history textbooks)

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.