Why Not Ron Paul?

[As I post, I see that fellow contributors have also been writing about the presidential nomination. This is in no way meant to be an attempt at rebuttal to either or any post.]

While every other candidate for the Republican nomination is trying to answer the question, “Why vote for me?” Ron Paul has been burdened with a much more daunting question: “Why not vote for me?”

I don’t believe this was his choice, or his campaign strategy. It is the result of his opinions on policy that seem to stray from the Republican Party line, and the exuberant enthusiasm of his eclectic supporters that make him, upon first glance, appear unviable, unelectable, and selectively unconservative. Shall we disregard the candidate based on his supporters? There is an argument to be made for that, but voters turned a blind eye to this question in the presidential election of 2008 when the Communist Party USA backed then-candidate Obama (not to mention his sundry sullied supporters, such as Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, et al.). I don’t believe we should any more judge the ability of a president by his supporters than we should judge him by his detractors. Our support is much better considered on the basis of a candidate’s philosophy, his policy, and his own words.

The biggest gripe conservatives give against Ron Paul in this regard is his approach to foreign policy. Modern conservatives have grown accustomed to a non-non-interventionist foreign policy, believing that  it is our duty as a country to spread freedom and liberty throughout the world—even at the threat of gunpoint. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that all of our foreign policy over the last century has been abhorrent, but it has become de rigueur for conservatives to advocate a strong national defense, when they really mean a strong national offense.

I will also grant that supporting Dr. Paul would be easier if he were to express something like, “Look, as a general principle, I don’t believe the United States should be the police force of the world, but perhaps there are circumstances that merit intervention when it is truly in the best interest of our country, to which I, as a representative, have not been made privy.” As a representative, Paul does not have the intelligence that the executive branch has or had. But I do believe that given that intelligence he is capable of a wise decision regarding the potential involvement of American citizens on foreign soil. Remember, Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Jefferson campaigned as non-interventionists, too.

So, in this regard, the question must be asked and answered: “What is—at any given time—truly in the best interest of our country?” The fundamental purpose of any government is to sustain its own existence. Before the reader will kindly point out that the frontispiece of John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government copied Cicero in stating “Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto,” remember that this is not a purpose—an Aristotelian “final cause,” if you will. It is a (natural) law—an efficient cause—that Cicero, Locke, and many others felt was the best method of achieving the ultimate right of self preservation. Laws are not purposes; they are agents to achieve a purpose. Nations who have not followed this law have been quickly defeated from within throughout history, thus establishing a newly constituted state, and disestablishing the old.

Ron Paul is alarmingly opposed to refusing Iran the capability of producing a nuclear weapon. But what are we saying when we dictate to any country—whom we ostensibly recognize as sovereign—what they should be or shouldn’t be, are or are not, capable of producing. This elevates us superior to their supposed sovereignty, and makes us a similar object of disdain that our political forefathers (both in America and England) fought against. England refused to accept that they could both be a sovereign state and at the same time recognize the ultimate authority of the Pope. Revolutionary America refused to accept that a distant body of legislators, where they were not represented, had any authority in dictating America’s internal affairs of state.

Ron Paul is also opposed to continuing foreign aid to Israel, another “unelectable” position for a conservative to have. But before a voter immediately discounts him because of this position, would it not be wiser to understand why? Again, don’t get me wrong, I am not anti-Israel, and supporting Dr. Paul would be more attractive if he were to acknowledge there might be intelligence that showed foreign aid in the best interest of the United States. But absent this intelligence, is it in our best interest to at once give aid to Israel while simultaneously giving its inimical neighbors 300% as much? Is it our right—by virtue of being a “superpower”—to negotiate the sovereign rights of others? Is it our right—simply because of the velocity, magnitude, and enlargement of our instruments of defense—to subject another’s sovereignty to our ideals?  Some may say it is our duty, our responsibility as leaders, to negotiate freedom and democracy throughout the world. But freedom and democracy in a foreign nation is no more peaceful or self-preserving for our own country than absolutism and tyranny, if that negotiated and arbitrated liberty is under the constant supervision of a more powerful sovereign state, whose own political priorities are subject to generational mutabilty.

For the evangelical Christian (especially the dispensationalists), are we so vain as to assume that we are the only capable agents of fulfilling God’s supremely sovereign plan, and without us God would fail? For the Jew, would it not be better to carve out organically your own sovereignty than to have it carved for you by another earthly power? Would Joshua’s conquest of Canaan have demonstrated the power of God if it were under the constant supervision of the Hittites?

In reading Ron Paul’s response to his refusal to give Israel foreign aid, I am reminded of a fable given by the Greek poet Theocritus. In this story, a horse was perturbed at a stag’s intrusion upon sovereign rights. The stag would constantly pasture on the horse’s property without his consent, leading the horse to ask a man for assistance against this poacher. The man agreed, on condition that they be mutually engaged in the retaliation, by the horse allowing the man astride him with a spear. Gladly, the horse agreed, and the stag was eventually vanquished. But the horse soon realized, even after the agreement was completed, he was now servant to the man.

These are questions. They are not endorsements. At most, they are exhortations to look seriously at Dr. Paul’s objectionable positions. At a time when the desire for liberty is rising against the intrusions of citizens’ lives, liberties, and properties in our own country, we should not discount Ron Paul right away because of potentialities abroad.

  • I can think of half a dozen reasons off the top of my head as to why not Ron Paul beyond his foreign policy. The fact that he’s never had any executive experience in his life is one. That he’s 76 years old is another. That his economic policies are a non-starter is a third. That he has no experience working across party lines to get things done is a fourth. That he has zero accomplishments in the Congress despite having been there for 24 years is a fifth. That he has run for President on a non-Republican ticket is a sixth.

    The biggest gripe this Republican has against Ron Paul is that he’s wasting a lot of people’s hard earned money on his quixotic runs for the presidency.

  • Princeton Jinglebell

    What is the over/under on links to youtube lecture videos that will be posted by Ron Paul supporters in response to anyone who criticizes Ron Paul in the response area of this blog? Perhaps some recommended reading from economists from the 1850’s? Im waiting!

  • MD Russ


    You are a very educated man and critical in your thinking. But this post is way wrong.

    Ron Paul is not just opposed to stopping Iran from producing a nuclear weapon. He emphatically denies that Iran is attempting to do so in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As for their “sovereign right” to do so, they are signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Ron Paul would scrap our economic system and return us to the colonial and post-colonial system of precious metals-based bank notes with no credit-based money supply–eliminating M2 and M3 in our monetary system. He would eliminate the Federal Reserve and allow interest rates to run rampant based on daily booms and panics in the financial markets.

    Ron Paul would terminate the international security agreements that have given us the most stable trading and economic environment that the western nations have
    known since WWII.

    Ron Paul lies. He claims that the Federal Reserve has “never been audited” when it has had an annual internal audit every year that was reported to OMB and was externally audited most recently by the GAO in July 2011. He indulges in various conspiracy theories ranging from whether the gold depository at Fort Knox is intact to alleged secret, world-wide banking cartels controlled by Jews.

    Ron Paul is as big a fraud and lunatic as Lyndon LaRouche.

  • Brian, I agree with you. I do not want another legislator in the Executive branch. That is my main hesitation. The same should be said for Mr. Gingrich.

    As I do not have time to respond to all of these responses at present, please allow me simply to say thank you (and to Rocky) for the responses. Again, these were questions–not an endorsement.

  • Andrew —

    Not to pile on, but (1) Paul would not only allow Iran a nuclear weapon, but (2) would abandon Israel to her own fate.

    The world is simply too small to allow for a regional conflict to plunge the world into war. No longer can the United States watch from afar… it is simply not in the cards.

    Now perhaps Paul would have a Jeffersonian change of heart as POTUS and become much more of an interventionist had he the insight that other members of Congress have. Perhaps.

    Yet I would assert flatly that, should Ron Paul reverse himself and pull a “Barbary Pirates War” in support of an interventionist policy, that many of his die-hard supporters would no longer be die hard supporters.

    …and may God save Ron Paul from his supporters. In fact, I’d go so far to say that Ron Paul would be doing far better were it not for some of his more ostentatious (obnoxious?) supporters.

    I can think of other reasons not to support Paul: surrender on the drug war, surrender on immigration policy, surrender on America as a superpower, no executive experience (haven’t we learned that lesson with Obama?), no ability to work across party lines, would instantly dismantle the American dollar and move to a gold standard without forseeing the short-term consequences (and I support a gold standard… but as a competing currency), and emphatically does not believe the U.S. Constitution protect human life from biological beginning to natural death.

    Now there are a good many reasons to support Ron Paul… he is one of the few POTUS candidates willing to seriously entertain massive, lasting cuts to the federal budget. Even then, the $1 trillion in cuts isn’t enough to get us out of the $1.5 trillion a year hole we’re in.

    I remain very much neutral in all of this. Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Romney, and Bachmann all have their pros and cons. Still… Paul has his blemishes, no question. Do they outweigh his strengths? Not sure.

  • Hey, Shaun…you forgot Huntsman in your list. 😉

  • It is certainly an attractive argument that Ron Paul would be able to put our fiscal house in order faster than almost any of the other candidates. I believe he is brilliant on economic policy. However, we must not only save America from within, but from our enemies as well. What good would balancing our budget and getting our fiscal house in order be if our military defenses are weakened so much so as not to be able to defend ourselves from Iran.

  • Jamie Jacoby

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that reads the plain language of the Constitution, the duties of the Presidency, and the limitations on federal / Congressional power, and takes them to heart. He would actually execute those duties according to the document itself. I realize that is an unacceptably radical notion to many of you, a fact which you do not seem to grasp the significance of.

    The remainder of the candidates would gladly swear an oath to do so, and then embrace the imperial presidency.

    If one dares to read the language of the actual document and then compare it what we have wrought, the only way to reconcile the two is with rationalizations and justifications about this or that “need” or “crisis” or situation “that couldn’t have been foreseen.” All of those things have rendered the Constitution irrelevant. Most recently, witness the NDAA and the suspension of Habeas Corpus, something expressly forbidden in the document itself, along with the incremental suspension of the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth amendments. All of those things were put into place with great effort and specifically to prevent our arrival at our current location.

    Which candidate, other than Ron Paul, would defend them? Citations, please.

    There is nothing in the Constitution about “defending American interests,” a term so broad as to be able to be stretched to mean anything…and it has been.

    As to Ron Paul’s “legislative accomplishments,” He has been the “lone voice in the wilderness” for American liberty. His current popularity, which brings blind rage to the neocon right, is a testament to the nation’s increasing receptiveness to his message.

  • Old-geezer

    Would rather have Ron Paul as Fed Chairman.

    A thought for the Christmas season. Get 5 Christmas cards and put $10 in each of them and give the Christmas cards to people that you do not usually give a gift to. Like the people who pick up your garbage or deliver your mail. Or that “special” bank teller who always goes out of their way to help you.

    And you can send a card to Bearing Drift.

    make your check payable to “Virginia Line Media” and send to:

    Bearing Drift
    PO Box 16828
    Chesapeake, VA 23328

    Or send two $50 dollar bills.

  • He’s brilliant on economic policy…if he were living in the 1890s.

  • Jamie, the suspension of habeas corpus is not expressly forbidden in the document. Before you lecture folks on not reading it, you may want to read it yourself.

  • Old-geezer

    I would think that the economic policies of the 1890s might look rather good to the Greeks of today.
    What if the Chinese peasants decide to stop lending us their pennies?
    We gonna look like Greece.


    Many people compare the economic problems that caused the fall of Rome to US current economic problems. However it took 400 years for that economic trainwreck to occur.

  • Steve Vaughan

    His foreign policy is the only thing remotely appealing about him.
    The idea that “America was never meant to be an empire” is something we need to hear in our political debates…although I’m under no illusion that a majority embrace that idea.

  • Economic problems didn’t cause the fall of Rome. They were a symptom of a much bigger problem, namely, no stable political structure and civil wars every ten years.

  • Steve Vaughan

    Brian: and overextending itself militarily.

  • Old-geezer

    So us “Ron Paul” Republicans do not understand economics.
    Considering that I gave you money for your political campaign, you might be right. 🙂

  • Mark Kredell

    Like the Aflac insurance commercial, where people needing insurance can’t see or hear the Duck quacking “Aflac Aflac”; the conservative pundits disparage the most conservative constitutionalist canidate running in the Republiccan primary. Even a sight impaired Duck can see that the Federal Government has a very serious spending problem. Ron Paul is the only canidate who is credible on reducing spending and government ! If radio talk show host like Mark Levin, Rush and Hannity would stop with the hypocrisy and promote the constitutional conservative , maybe we can keep from going completely bankrupt.

  • Paul is right when it comes to reducing spending. He isn’t right when it comes to ending the Federal Reserve, going back to some kind of gold standard or otherwise completely changing the monetary system. He sounds like William Jennings Bryan when he gets on the stump talking about the dollar.

    It isn’t about not understanding economics. It’s about advocating something that has a legitimate shot at being passed and actually solving the problem. That’s Paul’s biggest flaw. Sure, he’s been the voice in the wilderness, but a lone voice in wilderness is worthless if it doesn’t actually get anything done.

  • @Steve — to the contrary, Rome fell because of the Battle of Adrianople. Before that event, Rome’s borders were well maintained in a system of mercenary provision that worked for the empire for 400 years or more.

    Once the barbarians made it across the border, it would have been relatively easy to pry them out… were the Romans not effectively compromised with mercenaries of their own.

    Worse still, during the Republic the Romans were very keen to impose Roman law, Roman justice, Roman customs, Roman legions, Roman education, Roman language, Roman everything on conquered peoples. After the time of Aurelian, the Empire simply ate itself from within… its prosperity spent on war, emperors, and the mercenaries that ultimately brought foreign laws, language, customs, and arms to Roman lands. In short, Roman policy reversed itself by means of expediency.

    Ironically, historians typically point to one singular event that causes the fall of empires like Rome: the debasement of their currency. Once that begins, whether it’s the sesterces or the drachma (or the dollar?) — decline is inevitable.

    Add to this the advent of Christianity in the West and the the moral crisis which followed, and Roman survival was simply not in the cards in the Western half of the Empire, and very nearly was not in the cards for the Eastern half either had it not been for Roman engineering and the Theodosian Walls at Constantinople.

    Meanwhile… Rome truly did fall. But it was not the overextension of Rome’s military that did it. Rome’s military was always overextended throughout her history… but Rome always bounced back. In 410, she didn’t because she lost what it was to be Roman, rediscovered it, and lost it again by the time the 14th century rolled around. By 1453, Constantinople was a shadow… fallen prey to the very same weaknesses that collapsed the Romans themselves.

  • Steve Vaughan

    Shaun-In saying they were overextended militarily I was specifically thinking of the need to hire mercenaries…who revolted and sacked the city…a country that is not militarilly overextended would not need mercenaries….after all the Roman Legion had once been the finest military force in the world ….and, hey weren’t we using mercenaries in Iraq? Hmmmmm…

  • Shaun, you need to pick up Goldsworthy’s How Rome Fell – a lot of what you said there is outdated Gibbons theory.

    The barbarians didn’t break through the borders – they were already in the borders because they were often living within the Empires borders. Alaric himself was a Roman general. The issue was simply that there were far too many civil wars that bled the Empire and made tax collection and the legal system untenable. A lot of the cultural issues that Gibbon pointed out were his attempts to draw parallels between Rome and Great Britain during his time period. They aren’t really historically tenable.

  • Jamie Jacoby


    “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.”

    Is there a rebellion or an invasion? I didn’t think so. And so, the conditions not met, the document prohibits the suspension of Habeas. And I can’t help but note that you did not disagree that Habeas had in fact been suspended. Are we going to engage in a semantic debate about what an “invasion” is or, for that matter, what “the meaning of ‘is’ is”?

    As to advocating something that actually has a chance of passing, I can’t help but note that no actual solution to the economic crisis, or the deficit, has been passed, either. So is the problem that which we can pass, or that which we are advocating? Shall we advocate something we know is wrong, and which will not fix anything, simply because it can pass? Or shall we advocate reality / truth?

  • Ask your friends who think illegal immigration is the biggest threat facing us if there is an invasion or not. All joking aside, you made a categorical statement that was incorrect. If you are going to be arguing legal issues, you have to be precise.

    I do not believe the NDAA represents the suspension of habeas corpus, but if it does, it will be challenged and overturned on the same grounds that previous attempts were in Hamdi and other cases.

    There is no silver bullet to solve every problem. Advocating massive wholesale changes that will likely cause as many problems as they solve isn’t the right answer. We need incremental change, because that’s how the damage was done. You can’t unwind these things over night. And you also have to do it in a politically feasible way and that generally means slowly. That’s my biggest complaint. Paul and his supporters wasn’t to rewrite the entire economic system and they want to do it tomorrow, unintended consequences be damned. I think that is irresponsible, and that’s why he doesn’t get much traction with the bulk of the electorate.

  • JG

    Ron Paul appears to be in a world of his own fabrication, colored by events that surround him. But then, that is the way it is with all of us. Short of governing ourselves by astute observations, “Why not Ron Paul?”, “because I don’t like Ron Paul”.
    I believe it is easier to assess persons by personal likes and dislikes. Would I have them in my home, could I trust my children to be around them. Were it necessary to rely on them in a physical confrontation against person desiring to hurt us, could I rely on them to be aggressively fighting off the foe, rather than passively attempting to quiet them while I am getting my butt kicked.
    I see none of this in Paul and do not find him believable.
    I know if someone were to threaten my family, wife or children, I would not be worrying what the outcome might be once the authorities show up. You don’t do that.
    As for my family, they have been instructed in both duties and responsibilities to craft a successful life and be contributors in the society in which they live. In short, meet life head on, but do it justly.
    As much as we are human and subject to the frailities of life, I recognize that things are not always going to go as planned, but at the same time, I will continue to move forward with as little inconvenience to others as possible.
    I am not going to concern myself if the neighbors kids have a filty mouth or drink beer, and speed up and down my street, but they are not going to abuse me with these things. They will not successfully speed past my home for any period of time except and until such time as I decide to put a stop to it and then the risk shall be theirs. Neither will they stand cursing in front of my home, or throwing their beer bottles and refuse on my front lawn.
    I will not solicit their better natures to no longer do that.
    Other than that, I am a very pleasant person, and most persons find me agreeable. I expect to be treated in no less favorable manner than I believe others expect for themselves.
    This country has issues to be reconciled far beyond Ron Paul’s abilities and frankly I don’t know if we may be able to restore ourselves to health as a nation.
    Time will tell.
    I just read the “borders” remark and as a closing remark have suggested to Governor Jan Brewer that she is in a “State of war”, and to stop petitioning the government for assistance. The government is hostile to the state of Arizona and its inhabitants. She must recognize this, and do that which is necessary to quell violence and intrusion of violence from across the border. There is a provision for her to do that in the Constitution, and she should exercise that right. I commend her for a strong response to illegal immigration, but she has not done enough. It is regrettable that the residents of her own state recognize this, but she yet believes she is compelled to seek another solution.
    Mexico is like the harried mother who has no control over her own kids, and troubles her neighbors with their bad behavior. We have not said the “good kid” cannot come over for milk and cookies, just that appropriate respect be given to the one providing them. If you can’t do that, stay off my property.

  • Mike

    I like many things about Ron Paul, but the thing I like the most is that he is the only guy on the stage at the debates who is willing to defend our civil liberties.

    Live Free or Die.

  • Tim J

    One of the issues which Paul hasn’t addressed, except peripherally, is how he is going to unwind the damage which has been done by the Obama administration with his laissez-faire approach to foreign policy. “Tough Love”, “Cold Turkey” and isolationist policies won’t work and will be perceived as weakness by both friendly and hostile countries who have been polarized and aggravated by Obama’s comments or lack of them, whether they were on purpose or by accident. And then there is the diplomatic grandstanding in the UN against us by those who have been “occupying” our foreign policy. If Paul can provide some assurance that he can unravel or cut Obama’s foreign policy “Gordian Knot”, then maybe he has a shot at the nomination.

  • @Schoeneman;

    To state the obvious, we’re two gentlemen that happen to enjoy discussing and debating the policies best suited to put our country on the right track. Furthermore, our ideas are generally in stark contrast to one another. But there’s one thing that binds us at the end of the day: The Republican Party.

    That leads me to ask you a quick question. I’d prefer a yes-or-no answer, if possible… 🙂

    In the purely hypothetical situation that Ron Paul is the nominee for the Republican Party, would you support him?

    Just curious…

  • Of course, Chris.

  • Sara

    This was great: “Mexico is like the harried mother who has no control over her own kids, and troubles her neighbors with their bad behavior.”

    As far as RP. I think his age is beginning to finally catch up to him, sorry to say. At the last debate he was doing the old man thing with his mouth and tongue and it, quite frankly, grossed me out. I think he has so much to offer to the country, just not as President. Part of the role of the Presidency is the personal ability to restore/maintain calm in the face of escalating situations, and I wouldn’t say that is his forte.

  • Jamie Jacoby

    I think it’s important to come to terms with the stark nature of the situation we’re in, as inspiration to come up with real solutions, sooner rather than later. I cannot speak for all Paul supporters so I will speak for myself.

    The thirty year long regime of steadily falling interests rates (steadily cheaper credit) is at an end. The era of easy money is over. As a nation, many of those things you once believed you could afford are now out of your reach. Economic growth, spurred in the nineteenth century by actual productive growth, was spurred from the 80’s onwards mostly by the thirty year regime of steadily falling interest rates. For the past fifteen years especially, the federal deficit has steadily grown. This deficit spending was a deliberate act to keep the economy on an upward path: Keynes incarnate.

    It’s over. What do we do now? Incremental change? Paul Ryan’s plan to balance the budget in 2041 is very nice, but can we really keep borrowing this much deficit spending money until then? Where will it come from? The EU is starved for “capital” to “recapitalize” their banks. They are unwilling to have ECB print, so they are concocting leverage schemes so absurd as to be openly ridiculed by member states, pundits and the markets alike.

    Growth in China is slowing, and their purchases of Treasuries have slowed as well. Where will we borrow from?

    How much time do you think we have? More importantly, which presidential candidate besides Paul truly has a clue?

    Once the EU breakup, about to begin, is over, the current rush into Treasuries will run its course and then end. Either that, or the Fed will bailout Europe with what has been estimated to be about a (freshly printed) required $1 Trillion in dollar-denominated ‘swaps’. Either way, the Fed winds up printing more.

    You may have noticed, these can-kicking operations seem to be getting bigger and coming on a reduced time cycle. Baby step incrementalism isn’t working.

  • I do agree age is a factor with me on Ron Paul, but I had the same concern about Reagan.

    I think Ron Paul is a little naive on how human and vicious people running other countries are. They are far less hampered by a constitution than our imperial warlords in America are. Steve Vaughn makes excellent points on being over extended and using mercenaries, I thought.
    The Federal Reserve is beyond control. I trust internal audits as much as I would trust Enron to self-police. Take a look at our dollar. Take a look at our economy. Take a look at all the printing of currency and pretty much loaning money to yourself so you can pay your bills. I do think we could end the Fed Reserve as we know. Give Congress the appropriate powers or just clear the Feds and start again from scratch. The system is broken and all the damn geniuses in the Fed did was prove Freidrich Hayek to be correct about the “Pretense of Knowledge”. That said, Ron paul is also wrong about the gold standard. He suffers from the pretense of “zero lag” in free market balances. People can manipulate commodity prices (like oil). To tie the price of your currency and limiting supply in that fashion totally screws you when your market truly does need more currency to reach or maintain a new level. If your population doubles, do you maintain the same amount of free flowing currency just because somebody couldn’t find more gold? If your currency becomes a global reserve currency, do you ignore foreign demand and limit your supply due to an arbitrary tie to a commodity?
    I disagree with some of Ron Paul’s positions, but a President Ron Paul is not the emperor. He still must also deal with Congress and the Supreme Court. Some of you act as if America would be subject to his every whim or fantasy. I do think given the entire package, Ron Paul might be ideal at THIS particular time. One gesture that a Republican nominee other than Ron Paul could make though, is announcing early the intention to make Ron Paul the next Sec. of the Treasury and set the Fed’s worst nightmare upon them. It would kinda be hard for a Ron Paul guy to not support that nominee, now wouldn’t it?

  • Rachel

    Well said, sir. 🙂

    I however WILL make my endorsement here,
    RON PAUL 2012.

  • why not Ron Paul? because we all want the govt to take care of us from cradle to grave.

  • I like your thinking Amit!

    Why not Ron Paul?

    Because we think George W. Bush and Barrak Obama are economic brain trusts.

    We say “no”, to Ron Paul, because the Federal Reserve under Bush and Obama did a masterful job and we believe our currency and debt is stronger than ever.

    Why not vote for Ron Paul? Because we think getting into new wars during every administration and never truly ending them is a good idea. At least Clinton eventually stopped his war. That is something neither Bush nor Obama did. Heck, two active wars wasn’t enough for Obama. The great man of peace,Obama got us unnecessarily involved in Egypt and Libya on top of still being in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would we ever want war to end?

    Why not Ron Paul? Because his policies would be obviously different than Bush and Obama and we think things right now are just unbelievably awesome and prosperous!

  • MD Russ


    Precisely what was our involvement in Egypt? Other than CNN, what Americans were deployed there?

  • MD Russ, precisely where did I say deployed Americans. I believe we had “advisors” there and other than CNN as you say, didn’t Obama take an active role in regime change? Granted it wasn’t the same as boots on the ground, but it is unnecesarily entangling ourselves in the civil wars or near civil wars of others. Mubarek wasn’t exactly an enemy of the US. Do I need to break out the google results of Obama urging Mubarek to bring about an orderly transition? We topple leaders for a hobby now. Eventually, somebody might get pissed.

  • MD Russ, the US involvement in Egypt was over $80,000,000,000 from 1982 to 2009. just sayin.

  • VA is for Politics

    A) How about a question for @ J Christopher Stearns: If Ron Paul abandons his campaign for the GOP nomination and runs as an independent / Libertarian candidate, would you still support the GOP nominee?

    B) my all time “Ron Paulism” is when he declared that Abraham Lincoln was at fault for the Civil War.

    Yeah, real electable people.

    Now watch all the Ron Paul supporters defend this statement. And prove my point about Ron Paul supporters

  • MD Russ

    Britt, Amit,

    The involvement in Egypt that you describe (and the funding since 1982) is the US contribution to the Multinational Force & Observers on the Sinai Peninsula. This is a treaty obligation force that maintains a four-zone demilitarized buffer between Suez and Gaza and resulted from the Camp David Accords in 1979. The only other military involvement we have had in Egypt has been Foreign Military Sales cases and International Military Education & Training grants which fund Egyptian military personnel to attend US military schools. The MFO is neither a US task force nor a UN peacekeeping force but a collection of international forces organized under a headquarters in Rome. The MFO is highly regarded in the Middle East, more so than the UN. In fact, when MFO personnel take leave in Israel they are required to travel only in official MFO-marked vehicles because both the Israelis and the Palestinians consider them “good guys.”

  • Which potential POTUS candidate is best able to
    A) affirm the Republican Party creed of Virginia and
    B) has the character needed to maximize its uniting power without squandering that unity in unnecessary provocations and opposition?
    “I, _______, believe :
    1) That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice, That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society, (Tea Party Free Markets core value)
    2) That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government, (Tea Party fiscal responsibility core value)
    3) That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations, (Tea Party Constitutionally Limited Government core value)
    4) That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense,
    5) That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation.”

    Bob McDonnell is the man.

  • OK. Either Ron Paul or Bob McDonnell

    Considering the kind of strength that is in the Republican Party Creed in Virginia – now give it enough backbone to work with a Republican Party every-member oath that is a merge of the oath of citizenship, and oath of office, and respects the duty under that law as it actually is NOW:
    I, _______________, affirm that I WILL bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, and Virginia (or my state); and to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend said constitutions against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
    I will bear arms or perform noncombatant service on behalf of the United States and my state when required by the duly authorized law.
    I will diligently perform my ‘hue & cry’ duty defined in the United States Code 18USC4, ‘Misprision of Felony’ ; such that crimes arising from alienation shall become scarce, particularly, that felony against MY Constitution and its duly authorized law known as US Frauds & Swindles; effected by “Resisting the execution of the laws under the color of its authority”, defined as “Virginia Statutory Treason” and “Virginia Statutory Embezzlement”.
    I affirm this duty freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of citizen and voter; and trusting with firm reliance on the Providence, Witness and Counsel of “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” pledge my life, my fortune and my sacred honor.”
    Which potential POTUS candidate is best able to
    A) affirm their existing duty under our law, and
    B) has the character needed to remove all said causes for recrimination so we can get on with what must be done if we are to be free, prosperous and secure once again?

    Either Bob McDonnell or maybe Ron Paul.

    Which one of those two has the chief executive experience needed? Bob McDonnell

  • My current dream team – one that would have the strength to prevail in both campaign and administration – is:

    Ron Paul for Secretary of Treasury in the cabinet of
    POTUS McDonnell
    Cuccinelli as proposed AG
    West as proposed Secretary of Defense
    Palin as proposed Secretary of Interior, Energy & Agriculture
    Gingrich as proposed Chief of Staff
    Bachmanm as proposed Secretary of HUD & Education
    Huntsman as proposed Secretary of State
    Romney or Perry as proposed Secretary of Commerce & Transportation
    Santorum as proposed Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Unorganized Militia & Homeland Security

  • @MD Russ, so we should not only pay Israel but all of its neighbors to play nice with one another? am I the only one that thinks that sounds crazy, counter-productive, and wasteful?

    @VA is for politics, why was America the only Western civilization that required a war to abolish slavery?

  • MD Russ


    Would you prefer that instead of spending $80B over 30 years that we had spent $1T and over 4000 American lives in 8 years?

    • @MD Russ, those are false choices, I prefer to do neither.

  • MD Russ


    False choices? Okay, I’ll give you choices. Spend $2.6B a year maintaining a fragile peace accord or allow the Middle East to explode in war every 4-6 years causing the death or suffering of unknown numbers of innocent civilians and disrupting the world’s energy resources and economic stability. Six Presidents, Democratic and Republican, and 15 Congresses have chosen the former. If the latter is your preference, then Ron Paul is your man.

  • JG

    We need a President who will not ignore the issue of the border. This is far beyond the smarmy, feel good, handwringing, over who is poor and disadvantaged.
    The cartels are not our big problem. It is the motive force behind the cartels, and make no mistake, there are other influences beyond drugs involved.
    Sheriff Joe Arpaio is absolutely correct in his assessment regarding the treatment of Arizona by the Department of Justice and DHS as irresponsible.
    The beheadings and dismemberments along our border should well serve notice, that border needs to be slammed shut. It is not just illegal Mexicans coming across. The cartels could care less about any allegiance to either Mexico, or any need to respect Americas borders. They will bring anyone in, as well drugs.
    Obama and his administration are traitorous and should have been removed long ago. I believe the reason he has not been impeached is because the whole of the government is corrupt.
    The border issue is subterfuge, and driven from this side, out of Washington.
    Jan Brewer needs to support this sheriff and honor her citizens. The Constitution gives her the right to do so, once she firmly contemplates Article 1, sec. 10, “Enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Looking closely you will see danger is capitalized.
    New Mexico, Texas, and California, should all step shoulder to shoulder with her and if not, she should act in the State of Arizona’s own best interests. The government has abandoned the border states.
    American citizens should respond to Arizona’s need because indeed, the threat to Arizona, is a threat to us all.
    At the same time there are hints of a looming threat against the lawful citizens of the United States should a corrupt administration be able to mobilize civil forces to act against them. A recent news account speaks of the use of surveillance drones within our borders. On the face of it, that may seem appropriate, news reports are only on recognizable lawful use, the apprehension of criminals. Most recently, these were American citizens, stealing cattle.
    However, during the fiasco known as Katrina, citizens were having their civil rights violated on every side most notably in the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms without issuance of receipts.
    The below however bears our attention.
    I believe it is discreet sabre rattling to let Americans know an ominous force is available to defeat any resistance to the government should the reigning government be thought injurious to our best interests. The government has already shown it does not have our interests at heart, and the recent government endorsement, by the President no less, of OWS demonstrators, should give us pause. The right to demonstrate does not constitute abandonment of decency and good order.
    It is clearly evident given the hostile acts of DOJ and DHS against Arizona and the lawfully constituted enforcement officers of Arizona..

  • @MD Russ, if you think a peace accord is what prevents people in the Middle East from killing one another then I have a bridge I can sell you. and if I recall correctly those same 6 presidents and 15 congresses are the ones that have plunged our country into so much debt that the biggest threat to national security is ourselves.

  • MD Russ


    Don’t try to change the subject. There has been no major Arab-Israeli conflict since the Camp David Accords, certainly nothing on the scale of the 1967 Six-Day War or the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Do you favor continuing to support that peace accord or want to pull the plug?

    And if you think that the debt is the biggest threat to our national security then wait until we and our major trading partners can’t get access to Middle East oil. I suspect that you are far too young to remember the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973.

  • @MD Russ, I prefer peace agreements among foreign countries that don’t milk the US for billions in aid every year because economic trade is the best enforcer of peace agreements. Today Israel has to deal with proxy wars through Hamas and Hezbollah and as recently as 2006 was in a large scale war with Lebanon so the Arab-Israeli conflict is ongoing. and frankly if China has trouble accessing Middle East oil, I say they should solve that problem instead of us borrowing money from them to do what they should do.

  • Amit, the china tiger is gearing up for future intervention in the mid east. They will not remain so diplomatic if we disengage. When we leave china and russia win.

  • Thomas Conway

    This isn’t the country i grew up in – the GOP and many of the commenters here let fear and insecurity influence all of their policy choices, from our economy to foreign policy and choosing our next POTUS. That type of sentiment isn’t what carried the day when our founding fathers fought for our liberties – it is more in line with the spinelessness of those loyalists who only fell in line after the die had been cast. Much as the current situation will be defined once we have our nominee : Ron Paul; ONLY then will you (you know to whom i refer), support Ron Paul – not out of conviction for choosing the man because he is the only one of the current field willing and proven to defend our constitution but only because you’ve been left no other choice.
    Its truly a sad day that you can’t even bring yourselves to see the value in his positions given the obvious failures of our current policies, both fiscal and militaristic. Many of you quote events in history and give analysis that develops those histories in a static, isolated bubble, rather than as would be prudent, LEARNING from those histories.
    Do what you will – there are many of us who have waken up to the situation and will vote for Ron Paul no matter the situation – not as a choice between lesser evils but as the ONLY sane choice.

  • Jamie Jacoby

    Fear is a powerful motivator; I have told my children that it is the most powerful motivator in the lives of most people, and that they must not allow themselves to be ruled by it.

    Absent that fear, it’s possible to view the actions of the (federal especially) government and the so-called two-party system through a different and much more discriminating lens. Politics becomes not about “winning,” but rather about the purpose of government in the first place: defending our liberty.

    Seen through this lens, a list of paradigm-shaking questions rushes to the fore. We can, but do not need to, use current events for this examination.

    1. Why is it OK for the president to order the murder of any American citizen anywhere?
    2. How can Congress authorize and fund an endless war without declaring one? How can we “be at war,” giving the government unprecedented power, when war has not been declared? Cui bono?
    3. How can Congress vote to give the president the power to snatch and indefinitely detain American citizens, from / on American soil, and even send them to foreign prisons or military areas, without arrest and hope of trial? How can this ever be Constitutionally challenged, when in order to challenge it one must have “standing,” and in order to have “standing” one must no doubt have been spirited away and be held incognito?
    4. How can Congress allow the obvious law enforcement double-standard, where robbing a bank with a gun gets you ten years, but robbing a bank AND ITS CUSTOMERS AND THE TAXPAYERS with derivatives gets you $Billions in bonuses, which you can then recycle some small measure of into “campaign contributions” and “lobbying”? (never mind about this one, I’ve answered my own question).
    5. Why is Fast and Furious, for example, not one of the Congress’ top priorities?
    6. Wealth cannot be redistributed that has not first been produced. Why is Congress unwilling to take the steps that would actually give the economy a chance to grow, enable wealth production by actually allowing productive economic activity? (deregulate, slash corporate taxes, SOUND MONEY, BALANCED FEDERAL BUDGET, PROPERTY RIGHTS / RULE OF LAW)?

    Absent “fear,” there still is recognition of threats. Right now, the government is clearly more of a threat to me, my well-being and my liberty than either the cartels or the terrorists, both of whom I also abhor.

    Meanwhile, the war drums beat for war against Iran because “they want a nuke” and because “they want to destroy Israel.” And because of anything else we can think of to convince the public, just like the runup to the Iraq invasion, which I remember quite well: propaganda dribble accompanied by constant polling.

    Fewer and fewer of us are fooled by this.

  • JG

    Iran does want a “nuke”, and they do want to destroy Israel. That is not even relevant to anything having to do with America because were we not even to exist, it would yet be Iran’s desire to destroy Israel.
    What brings this to the fore in America’s case, is that we are knowledgeable of Iran’s intentions. They are unmistakeable.
    America didn’t even exist when the quran decreed war on Jews and Christians. You must be perfectly clear about this. Too, unless you are living on a mountaintop somewhere, Ahmadinejad’s pronouncements regarding his desire and that of islam, is the complete and total destruction of the Jews. If you can’t believe him for what he is saying, listen to his cronies and watch as the slaughter continues under the banner of jihad.
    There was an incident some years ago in Skidmore , Missouri. A man by the name of Ken Rex McElroy victimized residents and troubled law enforcement alike. His bullying came to an abrubt end outside a bar and with it, the terrorizing of the community of Skidmore.
    Everyone knew McElroy’s reputation, and more than a number suffered his wrath. They did not need an education in diplomacy or appeasement, because in both cases these options brought no relief. He was responded to in the only option left open to them under the circumstances.
    Ron Paul is wrong both on Ahmadinejad, Israel, and the Jihad. We may be unwilling to, or cautiously reluctant to address this very real threat in the world, but it is a threat indeed, even should we choose to ignore it.
    I included the foregoing article for the obvious reasons. “Vigilante” justice is frightening to contemplate for its necessity, especially on a world scale. There are just some persons and regimes however, that Chamberlainesque policy will not contain, and Ahmadinejad and the Jihadists are of the same temperment and character as McElroy.
    The years shall prove this out.
    I am not discrediting Jacoby’s remarks, but I do disagree with opinions regarding certain actors, be they American citizens or not. If you are an American citizen, behave like it, if not, the consequences are yours to suffer.
    You say something about “Fast and Furious?”;the borders should be slammed shut.

    • Thomas Conway

      Its hard to remain polite when you’re speaking to an idiot – “unmistakeable”?! iran’s intentions are unmistakeable… hmmmm, let me get this straight – Iran, who wound up fighting a war against our puppet, Iraq… who attacked them with chemical weapons, who, when their military leaders proposed attacking in kind, by weaponizing chemicals as they COULD have, but didn’t BECAUSE their religious leaders said that it would be immoral to use such weapons on fellow humans/muslims…. these guys (the iranians) who have not launched an offensive attack in over a hundred years… these iranians whom the DOD AND CIA have both released reports stating that their military would barely allow a defensive posture… would NOW, for the sake of “destroying israel”, now (if they had one) actually launch a nuclear offensive on israel, THEREBY making ALL of the ARAB inhabited lands in the entire region uninhabitable…. hmmmm yeah, i see where you’re going with this- i see where this is beginning to make sense….. lol – listen, these middle easterners have had ample opportunity to lay a ground war against israel (which as a matter of fact they did – uh… the 6 day war – remember that?) – why would they NOW launch maybe ONE nuclear warhead of a ridiculously small megatonnage (because at best, even if they were able to develop one, everyone agrees it would impotent on the scale of current technologies) ?? oh, thats right… getting back to your point about Ahmadinejad’s threat… lol – you have to concede at this point that you HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT – its been proven that Ahmadinejad’s exact quote as correctly interpreted didn’t say that at all (look it up on wikipedia) – and EVEN if he had – Ahmadinejad isn’t the supreme leader – he is a puppet at best – first there is the supreme leader… and THEN the leaders council of a dozen or so members… and THEN Ahmadinejad – he is the political equivalent of our Secretary of education! oh but wait – you had more – in order to substantiate your claim that iran unmistakably is a threat – you go and give an example of Americans acting crazy! to give reason to why the iranians would? in either case – it seems as if ONLY WE’RE the ones getting crazy! btw… lets put this in perspective – lets say you and i have words outside a coffee shop – you say you’d like to punch my face in…. and then you make no move… but i THINK maybe you might in the future try something – so i preemptively beat the crap out of you… do you think that holds weight? not as a matter of law .. and not as a matter of principle. When you defend you are ALWAYS in the right – when you do as YOU prescribe – we have never any way of knowing if we erred or not. Because anybody anywhere can always change their mind – its called free will. God gave us that – its what defines humans – we are not automatons doomed to react to external manipulations. And by what we do, defines who we are – and if we follow your fearmongering tactics, all we will prove is that we are the worst that man has to offer. The country i grew up in and was schooled about always rose to the challenge and represented the best of man – not the worst (the USA in case it wasn’t clear to you). and btw – before you judge iran too quickly, you ought to take the time to study our involvement in the region dating back to the tail end of WW2 when we forced out the original Shah and hijacked iran’s oil (for the sake of world safety); coerced contracts to british oil interests; our CIA organized coup of their elected prime minister; our aiding our tyrannical puppet shah to evade iranian justice… etc, etc… i think they’ve had their fill of us telling them we’re the good guys.

  • Thomas Conway

    @jamie jacoby – well said – we are fighting apparitions of our own making

  • JG

    “I am not discrediting Jacoby’s remarks, but I do disagree with opinions regarding certain actors, be they American citizens or not. If you are an American citizen, behave like it, if not, the consequences are yours to suffer.
    You say something about “Fast and Furious?”;the borders should be slammed shut.”

    Whoa, pilgrim. Being a little sensitive aren’t you? Too, you must have missed the statement regardingabout listening to his cronies. In the end it shall be the authority over Ahmadinejad, as it shall be in any islamic jurisdiction. There is no exception for any person to be a “ruler” deciding religious law such as Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad must submit to an Ayatollah. In the case of sunnis, it would be the mufti.
    What the West is ignorant of is the particular doctrine of the coming of the Mahdi. Interestingly, there are some persons of islamic persuasion who see the “filty and unwashed” who use police cars as toilets, and invade the public places of commerce, as portents of the return of the mahdi. I understand that you may view this as ridiculous, but unfortunately, that is the case.
    Ahmadinejad desires the return of the mahdi. There are certain prerequisites that must be met and the mahdi shall then unite the ummah under one worldwide islamic banner.
    In case it has escaped you, the mocking claim of islam and certain of its leaders, is that they love that which discomfits us the most. They are speaking of death.
    It borders on the blasphemous to call a “suicide bomber” precisely what he is, because the blood and flesh of such an one being distributed upon unfortunate victims, is that of a “holy warrior”. Before the first drop hits the ground, he is said to be in paradise.
    This is where you err.
    Death and destruction mean nothing to Ahmadinejad and those others who anticipate the return of the mahdi. The mahdi’s return is to be precipitated by death and destruction on a grand scale.
    Israel is to be eradicated from the face of the earth.

  • Thomas Conway

    @JG – i’m not sure if your last email was a response to my previous one…. as for what i do or don’t get – i think you are the one missing the point – do you spend your entire day or plan your life’s event in anticipation of a holy war? are you suspicious of your muslim neighbors? their community? do you punch every muslim you meet in the face? or tell you children to punch first and ask questions later? do you walk down the street and the minute you feel threatened by a stranger’s presence, you beat feet or attack them? i hope the answer to all of those questions is an unequivocal “no”. Because “no” would be the only sane answer. If you wouldn’t prescribe that sort of violent irrational behavior to yourself or to your children, why do you think the ENTIRE country should live by that sort of reasoning? preemptive strikes? there’s always going to be someone possibly thinking of us in a negative light – it just so happens that most of the negative feeling the mid east has towards us right now is ONLY because of our actions. Not only that, but you so conveniently (as most neocons do) ignore the fact that the “holy war” bunch that you are so fearful of, are only NOW in power because of our unsolicited involvement and manipulations in the region over the last 60 years! you may THINK you know a thing or two, but just because you now how to count to a hundred doesn’t mean you’re going to understand calculus – you need to formulate hypotheses based on ALL the facts – not leave the inconvenient ones out because it would skew your desired outcome. I mean, whats so bad about trying peace? you act as if its been tried and blown up in our faces or something. What we HAVE been trying and failing it is this idea of nation building; preemptive strikes; policing our own citizenry; crony capitalism; fiat money and quantitative easing…what we know from the results is that THESE aren’t working! what is so difficult to grasp that maybe we should try something different? This nation has collectively been playing the roadrunner since WW2 and time is running out – unlike the cartoon, there isn’t just going to be another script written with our falling off a cliff – our story is just going to END. What we ought to do is follow the Chinese model – which they actually got from us! they ARE everywhere, just as we are – in just about every country; but instead of being there with military bases – they are there with engineers and laborers and advisers, building infrastructure, hospitals, ecological planning and development – they are making a TON of money AND friends…. while WE on the other hand are bombing the sh$t out of everyone and instead of building roads, are selling weapons so that while we’re not bombing, the natives can bomb themselves. Is that the America you envisioned growing up? is this the America you want for your children? you need to have a serious internal discussion with yourself because we are on the precipice here and this isn’t about making a political decision between parties or running the house – this is a decision we need to make between good and evil. What we have become as a nation… where we are going… its EVIL – its against every tenet of the constitution which our forefathers gave everything they had to defend to deliver to us. If we return to those tenets, then that means a chance at peace not only for us, but for the whole world – and if you can’t see that possibility and why its there – then you’ve already lost.

  • JG

    Actually not, Thom’, I really don’t concern myself much about how I may be troubled, inconvenienced, or affected by a “holy war”.
    You seem to have some preconceived notions of your own.
    I am just blown away by your overwhelming command of issues and am left virtually speechless. Too, your excellent grasp of the foibles of human nature and the who may possess the best or the worst of attributes is stunning. I problably should quit while I am just behind, and not way, way behind.
    I am not sure either if my last Email was a response to your previous one? I guess we will both have to remain in the dark over that.
    Violent irrational behavior arises out of violent, irrational dogma.
    I think I will take a closer look at mine, and amend it for its weaknesses where necessary.
    All the best this New Year Thom’


  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.