Time For Republican Moderates To Take Their Own Medicine; Support Ron Paul

Though I share this sentiment, any intelligent reader will have to realize that not every instance of correlation is an instance of causality.

The whole idea that Ron Paul is a racist based on the opinion of what some copywriter thought would work is ludicrious at best.  Rick Sincere some years ago plowed right through this attack when it came up in 2008:

Let me speak from my own experience as someone who has met Dr. Paul on several occasions, all of which were characterized by civility, politesse, and good humor. I have never seen any evidence from Ron Paul the man that he has a hateful thought or possesses an animus against any group or individual. He, like most libertarians, is focused on ideas, ideas principally aimed at promoting human dignity, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.

Did Ron Paul exercise poor judgment in allowing others to publish badly-written newsletter articles under his name? Yes — and that is something that he acknowledged more than a decade ago, and quite explicitly in that 2001 Texas Monthly article. He has taken responsibility for his error, owned up to it, and did not even beg for forgiveness. In fact, he has reacted to this smear attempt in a cool, evenhanded, and direct manner.

Now folks, I will be the first to admit that I do, indeed, lean towards Ron Paul.  His beliefs in concept best mirror my own: human dignity, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.

I believe Paul is 110% wrong on Iran.  I believe many of his so-called “supporters” are obnoxious and part of the lunatic fringe, thus crowding out some of the more sensible Paul supporters.  I further believe that Paul’s ideas on America’s role in the world are dangerous to the Pax Americana — as I firmly believe that the post-British Empire inheritance of world policeman will be gobbled up by powers and interests that are not our own.  Lastly — and probably most emphatically — I do not believe in the decriminalization of drugs of any sort.  Society has a vested interest in protecting itself from irrational actors, and the idea that alcohol, with thousands of years of societal use, comes even close to a gateway drug like marijuana is absurd on its face and disastrous in practice.


The Republican Party is being offered two choices.  The first is a Massachusetts governor struck from the cloth of the Rockerfeller Republican set, a man whose father was so liberal that Richard Nixon was thought to be a better choice for president.  Mitt Romney not only imposed socialized medicine on the citizens and taxpayers of Massachusetts, he is in his core beliefs a pro-abortion Republican, one who views government’s role as active rather than passive, with a terrible record on gun rights, and a lack of moral firmness or consistency in any of his current positions — even to the point of editing his own books without an explanation as to why his position might have changed (thus throwing his “conversion” on life into serious question).

Ron Paul — in total contrast — is pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, demands fiscal accountability from the federal government, will implement real and lasting spending cuts (even if tax cuts are mathematically off the table), will cut the size and scope of the government’s power, and has been remarkably consistent in his views and positions from day one.

Now tell me.  Who would you rather support?

Conservatives and libertarians are constantly told to swallow our convictions to support candidates of dubious quality.  When will the self-appointed moderates and mainstream Republicans do the same?

It’s time to take a serious look at Ron Paul.  I may not agree with everything he believes in (or his supporters would impose upon him), but I agree with Paul a hell of a lot more than I agree with Romney — and no, that doesn’t make me a racist to say so (nice spin, but it falls flat).

Rather, it makes me an American concerned with the cliff leaders in both parties seem unable or unwilling to steer us away from.  Paul wants to do something about it.  Why won’t Romney do the same?

  • Norm Leahy

    Well said, Shaun.

  • Sara

    Well, see, Shaun, I DID take a serious look at Ron Paul a few months back. So that is why I’m no longer supporting him.

  • John Jackson

    Hey! Did Amit hack into Shaun’s account? Who is this?

  • Mike Barrett

    Well Shaun, most of us believe in….” human dignity, individual liberty, and personal responsibility…” but that does not require us to support Ron Paul. To me, he is an ideologue, not fit to be a Congressman much less President of the United States. He is great for a quip or a retort, but Governance requires a person who can build bridges and sustain political relationships; Paul’s ability to do so has been severely limited to a radical fringe element.

    Regretfully, the whole cast of characters put forth by the Party is enough to give a centrist heartburn. Anti just about everything, except war of course, and that describes the bunch. The only thing they seem to be for is more help for major corporations which helped put us into the fiscal oblivion from which we are now recovering.

    This bunch of candidates has the potential to destroy the Party, especially when the primaries stop and the chosen candidate has to return to reality and address the needs of the nation, not the radical lunatic fringe.

  • Shaun,

    I am surprised that you would support such a candidate. I think I understand you as being one issue, but what makes you think Ron Paul is going to continue to support your issue in light of all the other things he supports? How do you arrive that he is your savior while considering all of the other positions he has?

    I’m sticking with Obama.

  • This is abject ridiculousness. You have to take into account the direct power, compare it to the indirect power, of the office the person is running for. He is not just wrong on Iran. He is dangerously wrong on Iran and other foreign policy issues where he has very little real check on his power as the president is indeed the commander in chief. Romney is floppy on a number of issues, mostly social in nature, and is a big government guy overall in my opinion, but his direct constitutional control is still foreign policy and he has direct checks on his power in congress as long as we do our job and gets good people in congress. If this were a race for senator, or for congress I’d vote paul over romney in a heartbeat. Not for president.

  • @Mike —

    I think it’s easy to cast aside a person’s beliefs by arguing they are an ideologue, which I am not certain helps us here.

    Your concerns about Paul being able to build bridges and govern is well taken. Obama and Carter are example on the left of politicians who have not been able to do this. Yet I would counter that Paul is not seeking to accomplish anything that would require bridges to be built or sustain political relationships. Paul would more than likely limit himself to the powers of the Executive Office… which would force Congress to govern, something they have been incapable of doing for at least the last 18 years.

    I would agree that the cast of GOP candidates has been lackluster at best, for centrists and conservatives alike. Still, if the only two choices (for Virginians, anyhow) are Romney and Paul? I’d give it to Ron Paul, hands down.

  • Conservativa

    So let me get this straight… in the run-up to Obama’s election we all said that you can tell a man by the people he hangs out with, and complained mightily about the media ignoring the dreadful people Obama hung out with for years…. but it’s okay to ignore the people the Crazy Congressman from Texas has hung out with for years… really? Really?

  • If the choices are romney or paul, there is another option. It is completely irrelevant normally for Virginians to vote as it certainly has been my entire voting life. The other option is to not vote. Which, if nothing changes, will be my unfortunate and most frustrating decision. The only way I will vote is if it looks like Paul could win the nomination.

  • @LittleDavid —

    First, I wouldn’t consider Paul a “savior” on the issue of life — just the least bad of all possible choices on the GOP ballot in Virginia, is all.

    Second, though I have very strong (and dare I say, Catholic) opinions on the sanctity of human life, and I would indeed view my other political beliefs based on my faith, I would like to think that I am more than just a single-issue kind of guy. The dignity of human life is not a mere issue IMO, but rather the starting point for any worthwhile conversation. Disagree on this fundamental principle, and we’re practically talking past one another one both ends and means. It’s why I cannot get along with Randians (or Randroids, if you prefer) — they may agree on some ends, but we vastly disagree on why those ends are moral.

    Last, most folks are aware that there is a rather strong current of Catholic support for Ron Paul via Tom Woods and the opinions of the Acton Institute. Scholasticism — though dead to most American schools of thought — is alive and well in the parts of Catholic scholarship that are… well, alive. Remember it was always the critique of Catholicism by the reformers that we were libertines… too tolerant, too passive, and too indirect. But this was the Scholastic tradition of culture and scholastic ideas of governance still run very deep in the post-Second Vatican Council era. Which is a long way of saying that “Catholic libertarianism” is a commonly misunderstood but very much alive concept. I’d point towards Bellarmine, Aquinas, Acton, Belloc, and Chesterton as leading examples in this regard.

    No surprise you’d stick with Obama. Still, I’d rather have a good contest of ideas rather than a choice between Romney in Obama — whose only distinguishing characteristics are party affiliation and great hair.

  • Conservativa

    So you’re okay with his intellectual fellow-travelers?

    And you’re okay with his foreign policy ideas?

    You’d vote for this guy?

  • Shaun,

    I am surprised that as a conservative Catholic you would support Ron Paul’s belief that anything goes and anything is acceptable. If we support Ron Paul’s belief that prostitution is OK? Well then I guess we end up with more abortions when contraception fails when the money changes hands. Nothing will stop the revenue of the prostitute like having a baby to care for.

    I doubt the present Pope would endorse prostitution to somehow think it might overcome abortion.

  • Shaun this is your piece de resistance. I too support Paul not as the ideal candidate but the one I disagree with the least who also shares my views close enough on pro life issues. I agree with Paul about 50% at best of national security and about 80% on domestic issues. Iran is not so much an issue though and Paul is on record calling out china, france and russia as Irans enabler that are far more of a concern. Iran is a mere proxy for china, russia and yes I said it.. France.. French nuke material kept on finding its way to Iran while they stalled the UN preceding Iraq war 2..

  • EM Barner

    And this is why Shaun Kenney remains one of the most thoughtful and engaging political writers in Virginia. Paul vs. Romney is a matchup I’d have never wished for precisely because almost no one can win on principle due to substantive disagreements with both candidates – but such is politics. And the situation does demand Paul at least receive serious consideration – he met the petition signature requirement, after all, when people I’d rather vote for in a primary didn’t.

  • Mike McKay

    Have any of you Ron Paul supporters seen any of the debates ? I want Obama gone as bad as anybody but he will destroy Ron Paul in the first debate.

  • @LittleDavid —

    So what you’re saying is that the prostitution of the public trust to the tune of $4,501,696,211,078 (that’s $4.5 trillion, folks) in favor of government spending and financial bailouts is something to be opposed?

    I didn’t think so. 🙂

    Guess it’s different when the prostitution is of the public dime… that sort of prostitution is OK, right? Just checking for consistency.

  • William Bailey

    You Asked: I vote for Ron Paul in the primary given the options.

  • Nate Boyer

    Wow! Shaun Kenney, I have to say I never thought I would hear such sentiments from you! You are full of surprises! I’m very close to you on this one. This particular matchup is not one I would ever have chosen but I’m inclined to vote the same way for a lot of the same reasons. I love your calling out the establishment moderates also. Your stock at RPV is probably dropping dramatically. Good article!

  • Shaun;
    Though I prefer Bachmann or Santorum, it looks like i won’t have that choice here in VA. That being the case, it’s Paul all the way for me, considering my liberal alternative Romney.
    Well said on all points, my friend!!

  • VA Patriot

    Shaun: looking forward, who do you think has a better chance of winning the general….Paul, or Romney?

  • MD Russ

    Take a deep breath, everybody. First, we are not electing the POTUS on Super Tuesday. We are not choosing the Republican nominee. We are not even choosing the Republican delegates slate between Romney and Paul since Virginia apportions its delegates based on the primary outcome by Congressional district. Second, Paul may very well win Iowa. So what? Mike Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 and was still out of the race by early March, despite winning six states on Super Tuesday. With Ron Paul polling nationwide at less than 10%, he has about as much chance as Michele Bachmann as being the Republican nominee. Finally, if you look at the head-to-head polls between Obama and Ron Paul versus Obama versus Mitt Romney, then a vote for Ron Paul is nothing more than a protest vote that will ensure that we get to enjoy four more years of Barack Obama.

    Now, let’s switch gears and play the “telephone rings at 3 AM” game from the last election cycle. Today, Iran is threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz, the critical passage for almost 20% of the world’s crude oil supply. Who do you want answering the phone at the White House if they try that in 2013? This afternoon the US 5th Fleet HQ in Bahrain issued a statement that we will not stand by and let them do that. Under President Paul, there won’t even be a 5th Fleet within 10,000 miles of the Straits of Hormuz. How many of you dear readers are old enough to remember the OPEC oil boycott of 1973 and the recession it triggered? Or the Arab Pearl Harbor attack on Israel that followed it in October 1973, the Yom Kippur War, in which the Israeli Cabinet reportedly came within 30 minutes of issuing release authority for nuclear weapons?

    This is serious stuff we are dealing with here and it demands serious attention from the voters, not slogans, conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve, or platitudes about the Constitution.

  • I’ve always said I was a party man, and when Chris Stearns asked me last week if I’d support Paul if he won the nomination, I said of course. I stand by that. Just like I did when McCain won the nomination.

  • Brian Kirwin

    Shaun, these people think you’re serious.

  • Tyler Spires

    If moderates are key to winning elections, why didnt McCain win in ’09?

  • MD Russ

    Tyler Spires,

    Jerry Falwell and Sarah Palin. They cost him the moderate Independent vote.

  • Jumping Jack

    If Romney can’t beat McCain…and McCain can’t beat Obama…

  • “Shaun Kenney

    “Shaun Kenney is the Vice-Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia”

    Now I finally get it. Shaun, this is the most disjointed piece of sophistry ever to come across my desk. I would have received a better grade in my sophomore year of high school high on pot with an essay like this.

    I would love to debate some of your points, except there aren’t any. Who put you on the BD board of editors? Better still, what are they smoking and where can I get some?

  • Edward of Huncote

    You have surprised me with this post Shaun. I don’t think I could have said it any better. Like button pressed.

  • Matt

    Ron Paul is what the future of the Republican Party looks like. He’s making college-aged students, young adults, and minority voters a well-earned second look into the GOP. He ties Obama in most head-to-head polls, and even polls against Obama better than Romney in some – especially when independents are polled. Perfect candidates do not exist, and truthful ones are few and far in between, which is why Ron Paul deserves so much credit. His proposed budget would cut spending by one trillion dollars the first year and balance the budget in three years (not another one of these pitiful IOU budgets that are given a decade to balance out). Our national defense would be headed by a Commander-in-Chief who has actually SERVED his country and receives more active duty military donations than the other candidates combined, and would create a stronger national defense by not spreading ourselves too thin being the world’s policemen. If we were attacked, Paul would lay down the law in a hot second – he’s no pacifist, he just doesn’t favor pre-emptive war. Why is following the Constitution such a terrible idea?

  • How about the third option? Go to the primary but don’t cast a vote for either candidate. This should send a very clear message. When the general election comes around, we can still make the decision we have to (and folks, I have been hearing some Republicans say they would vote for Obama if Ron Paul was the nominee, so that certainly cannot be ignored), but maybe the message Virginia sends is that the field of candidates must show that one of them has earned the nomination, or none of them will.

  • MD Russ


    Please provide a link to where Ron Paul ties Obama in a head-to-head poll or where he out-polls Romney among Independents. Finally, what is the source of your assertion that Paul “receives more active duty military donations than the other candidates combined?”

  • Catherine Crabill

    The Constitutionalist is THE greatest threat to this administration and the power lords in DC. The Constitution, being a document of liberty, has as its only aim, to guard those liberties against tyranny. It has no political affiliations or sympathies; it protects left and right alike.
    In fact, if ALL of our elected officials were forced by threat of indictment and prosecution to uphold their Oath of Office, there would be no need for political parties and their polarizing, nefarious, influences. They could not play left against right. All of our elected officials would be bound by the constructs inherent in it to maintain the balance of power that protects us.
    Thus, on the subject of Ron Paul’s foreign policy I, too, have my concerns about his seeming lack of legitimate alarm about Islamic infiltration, influence, and nefarious agendas throughout the world and here at home. Yet, I cannot help but be encouraged by his consistent Constitutional track record. In fact, I think it fair to say that he is the only member of Congress who frames every decision based on its Constitutional merit.
    Consequently, when I consider that in my lifetime, (55 years), few, if any, “military engagements”, aka, wars, have ever been declared by Congress, and most, if not all “military engagements” have been based on lies/disinformation/propaganda/etc about the true objective to build support by fanning the flames of our genuine patriotism, I am buoyed by the thought that should Ron Paul become our next president, if there is a compelling reason to go to war, Ron Paul will not be taken in by the propagandists, and will force the cowards in Congress to do their Constitutional duty to DECLARE WAR.
    Extrapolating Ron Paul’s Constitutional adherence to all other considerations I see America’s greatest asset, LIBERTY, restored and flourishing. What’s not to love about that?

  • Hey Craig — speaking of sophomore high school, this is from your own bio:

    “In the meantime, I grew up, graduated from Wentzville High School in St. Charles County, and graduated from the University of Missouri-Columia with a BS degree in Public Administration. This landed me four-squre into politics and real estate, which is my professional background. (This includes a three year stint as a state legislator from St. Charles County from 1987 to 1991.)”

    Where is Columia on a map, again? 🙂


  • republitarian

    The government promotes and operates a lottery and liquor stores which do a great many harm. They then turn around and criminalize weed. It is not the government’s job to protect everyone from themselves.

    We have got to stop letting people suffer the natural consequences of their own behavior.

    The only time a government should prosecute someone is when they infringe upon the rights of others or do them financial or bodily harm.

    We’ve tried all the “good republicans(read that McCain, Bush)”, and we’ve gotten the same old, same old. I don’t agree with Paul on several issues, but the same can obviously be said for the rest of them. Should Mitt, or Newt, or anyone else prevail but Paul, we will get the same old big government republican…..

  • republitarian

    That should read,”We have got to start letting people……”

  • republitarian

    I’m just curious since the issue hass been raised….

    Is it our job, according to the constitution, to spread our brand of freedom around the world”

  • republitarian

    I’m just curious since the issue has been raised….

    Is it our job, according to the constitution, to spread our brand of freedom around the world”

  • Fat Dave

    After visiting the Richmond Holocaust Museum today, I don’t think I can vote for a man who doesn’t believe in pre-emptive war. Especially one who is so anti-Israel.

  • “CR UVa December 28, 2011 16:48 pm

    How about the third option? Go to the primary but don’t cast a vote for either candidate. This should send a very clear message.”

    You must be new here. Welcome. You won’t get much enthusiasm from the editors here, who most recently bashed some of the most conservative think-tanks and operational orgainizations in the United States when they even SMELLED the chance the VA law (i.e. against the stinking status quo unethical, hackster, jerry rigged ballot-access system in the USA) as “those ignorant and uniformed” “mobs” attacking us.

    This is exactly what I proposed to do on Dec 24th,and I’m glad the idea is picking up on its own merits. The only to cast a vote in the March 6th primary for anyone other than Ron Paul (Hitler Lite) or Mitt Romney (Bush Lite) is to just go pull a ballot, leave it blank, and toss it in the bin. SPREAD THE WORD.


  • Further to this idea, since the “Virginia Code” (aka State Democrat and Republican Party) have decreed it shall not be allowed to write in a name on a primary ballot, I am hoping I get arrested for doing just that, and they throw me in the tank for…..VOTING???? What a crime!!!

  • Don’t feed the trolls…

  • @FatDave —

    Check this out from Ha’aretz regarding Ron Paul and Israel:


    Not bad.

  • Spank That Donkey

    @ Shaun.. Straight up logic!
    @MD Russ. In 1981 when Israel destroyed Iraq’s Nuke Plant, they overflew Jordanian, and Saudi airspace, coming and going and were not intercepted. Oh, they protested later, and even the Jordanian King saw them fly over, but never picked up the phone, and called his Air Force Commander to order an intercept on the return trip?

    This time Israel faces a much easier political situation. The Iranian’s are Persian, not Arab. i.e. Saddam’s Shia majority fought against Iran’s Shia in the Iran/Iraq war.. They hate each other.

    Now, if the USA attacks Iran just because they are developing a nuke weapon, it gives Iran the grounds by International law to attack our soil. We do not want that. The simple solution is to let Israel, and the Arab states to solved their own problems, in their neighborhood themselves.

    What about the oil flow thru the Straits of Hormuz. Simple. 80+% of our oil comes from Canada, Mexico, domestic production, and Crazy Hugo.. Please refer to a map of the Persian (get it) Gulf. That oil is going to Europe, India, China, etc. heck my understanding is Japan gets the majority of it’s oil from Alaska. This is another reason why Dr. Ron Paul is correct we should leave NATO. The Europeans, nor India, China etc do have the military capability to even secure their own supply lines, (but think about who supports Iran now) we do it, and we are not reimbursed one dime, although we are in debt up to our eyeballs….

    Furthermore, Iran gets 80% of its revenues from oil production… do you think they are going start a fight that we are going to win, while cutting off 80% of their income?


    Dr. Ron Paul is right, we should engage Iran with Diplomacy, and remember back before the Iranian Revolution they were a trade partner, and ally with our nation to the point, that the only other nation that ever operated the F-14 Tomcat, (cue Top Gun movie) were, and still are the Iranians.. What do you say we just buy them off with trade, like the Saudi’s… who btw 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia… non from Iran… (probably didn’t trust those pesky Persians), it will be a whole lot cheaper, and maybe we can lower the price of those nice Persian Rugs… Always wanted a real one, just couldn’t afford it.

  • Spank That Donkey

    I hate spelling errors… Shaun can I trouble you for a preview feature, before I essay again? I didn’t stress that Europe has spent all of it’s $$ on Socialist programs, and not spent on defense, because we have provided for their defense.

    Dr. Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is in my opinion a non interventionist… big difference… All we are doing is getting a bunch of people to hate the one nation that practices Freedom in the form of a Republic… and that’s not healthy.

  • Spank That Donkey

    Sorry, forgot J.R. would be the party to ask for a preview window..

  • You can ask all you want… but unfortunately, that preview/edit feature is one more widget running on an already widget heavy website.

    We’re looking into making some changes and we’ll see if we can include it on the punch list.

  • thanks Shaun! I’m sure the neocons are just chomping at the bit to start a war with Iran. if Iran sends out a few inflatable speed boats into the Straits of Hormuz, it will be all the excuse needed to start launching missiles and drones (oh wait) into Iran. who’s going to pay for another war? who cares! we get to kill Muslims!

  • Jamie Jacoby

    My support for Ron Paul is based on his commitment to individual liberty, his clear view that government should be the protector and servant of citizens (and not vice-versa), and his vastly superior understanding of economics.

    Human liberty, property rights and genuine free markets combined in America to produce the greatest explosion of general wealth ever seen on planet earth. People will work harder for themselves and for their own benefit than for anyone else. Libertarians understand this better than any other group. Dr. Paul’s history in the libertarian movement and the Austrian School of economics uniquely qualifies him to lead the nation out of this unsolved and ongoing economic crisis. No other candidate can hold a candle to him in this regard.

    Do you want a strong defense? YOU NEED A STRONG ECONOMY. What have the establishment politicians done to foster genuine growth? Borrow more money from our likely foe, China? Plead with the Fed to print up some more? Pass more debt ceiling raises? Argue about raising taxes? Pass more entitlement programs? Borrow money from the Social Security “lock box” and use it to make the budget imbalance seem lower than it really is (hint: Clinton never had a real surplus)?


    When will people wake up and smell the burning tires? We’re freaking broke, and there is no political will among the establishment to do anything at all about it. Obummer is going to ask for another $1.2 Trillion debt ceiling raise, and you’d better believe that Boehner, Cantor and the repubs are ultimately going to give it to him. Oh, sure, there’ll be a lot of posturing for the cameras, but late one night the measure will pass, and then the media will immediately change the subject, just like always.

  • Jamie Jacoby
  • Fat Dave


    That interview didn’t address my concern about U.S. participation in pre-emptive war. We can’t rely on others to fight our wars, regardless of the certainty of their action. And his continued belief that we brought 9/11 on ourselves angers me. While I agree with him on many domestic issues, I fear his lack of a coherent foreign policy. I know this election will turn on the economy (but that is not a strictly continental U.S. issue), and Ron Paul will not face our foreign threats.

  • @Fat Dave, what do you think the motivating factor behind the 9/11 attacks were? and please don’t say “they hate our freedom” because the Arab Spring completely invalidates that argument. As far as pre-emptive strikes, how did the last time we tried that work out and how would a future pre-emptive strike be any different?

  • @FatDave —

    Well, as I said up front, there are a number of things I disagree with Ron Paul on. That would be one of them.

    …but I find many more things to disagree with Romney on.

  • @Amit —

    9/11 happened because they hate America and what we stand for. The “Arab Spring” was a food riot and little else. There are certainly no green shoots of democracy in Libya, Tunisia, or Egypt (other than little Ikhwan flags).

    Islamists will keep coming. The whole “if she didn’t want it, she wouldn’t have worn that dress” argument on terrorism doesn’t fly.

    Sorry man… we’re just gonna disagree on this one!

  • Shaun, do we attack the Middle East because they are not free? Have you ever been to the Middle East before making a broad statement about 1 billion people and how they group think about America? I agree that we have to disagree on this one because my experiences tell me they could care less about the US if we weren’t meddling in their business.

  • @Shaun

    The idea that our foreign policy doesn’t have unintended consequences completely baffles me. Other than philosophically biased micro-analysis, I can’t possibly rationalize the idea that much of the Muslim world despises us and wants to harm us militarily or with terror because of our way of life.

    My non-interventionist beliefs are generally met with criticism in the Republican Party and I’m often referred to as ‘naive.’ I can’t think of anything more naive than basing our nation’s foreign policy on misdirected presumptions on why our enemies detest us.

    Ron Paul’s opponents in the campaign continue to refer to him as ‘dangerous’ and ‘totally outside of the mainstream of virtually every decent American.’ What I see as dangerous is a careless foreign policy that doesn’t legitimately acknowledge the motives of our enemies.

    I think I’m on to something with this…

  • Sara


    Why can’t you rationalize that men who stone or hang women in their own country for immodest dress would want to kill purveyors of immodest culture to keep it from infiltrating in their country? They are afraid of women gaining power of any kind over them…. their fear isn’t rational and neither are they.

    Trying to ascribe your own more reasonable thought patterns to men who are living in an ancient history mindset IS naive.

    I am all for getting rid of many of our military bases abroad, and streamlining our military. But, knowing that Paul would not have intervened even in the Holocaust – foreign leaders will just start invading other weaker countries and there WILL be major war we will ultimately be forced into. You can count on it.

  • @Sara

    This is why I believe in promoting republican democracy by example and not through the barrel of a gun.

    I’m not anti-war. I believe in justified war, which is something we haven’t been engaged in for nearly half a century. If Congress deems that there is a major threat to our national security, they are obligated to take action within the confines of the Constitution. The United States should legally declare war, pummel our enemies into submission and bring our troops home – not explore nation-building exercises. We need to go revisit the worldview of George Washington, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and then-Governor George W. Bush.

  • Sara, the Holocaust would NOT have happened if their economy had not collapsed. This alone is reason enough for me to use both sides of my brain this time and vote with left and right brain engaged. Our economic strength preceded our military strength.. We jews are threatened more by our dangerous currency and economic policy than any maniac on earth because economic collapse gives them the opportunity to go postal. Ron Paul for me this time. He is not perfect Sara. But, if we are to have a greater influence globally we have to put our country and our domestic interests first, get OUR house in order and work on our outreach from a position of economic advantage.

  • Sara


    I agree with you that the economy is of utmost importance and your assessment that we have to get our house in order. But once aggressor nations (and yes, that is what they are even if you want to think of them as reasonable and kind) start doing what they do (being aggressors, knowing that we won’t do anything to stop them) – they will cut off our trade routes, cut off energy supplies, cut off our livelihood.

    If we do not have the supplies to run our country, how can we have a good economy?

    TOTALLY agree we shouldn’t be sending our children to die in countries (no more Black Hawk Downs) where we have no reason to be involved. But if a country cuts off our trade routes – is that not a good reason to do something? We have to be able to feed our own people.

    It worries me that having someone who has basically broadcast his intention to not pursue terrorists, or dictators killing their own countrymen – will send a message that creates a free for all.

    Tell me one time in history where a long-term peace reigned throughout the world. It is a natural tendency of man to exert power where there is a vacuum.

    I guess I am saying I believe in peace through strength – the purposeful portrayal of a willingness to do what is necessary to prevent “the bad guys” from taking over.

    And where I disagree with many Ron Paul supporters, is that I don’t think the US is the bad guy.

  • Chris, it doesn’t matter why our enemies detest us. What matters is that our government do what is in the best interests of the United States when it comes to foreign affairs. If that means intervening militarily overseas to stop a regime we distrust from obtaining nuclear weapons, fine. If it means we provide food aid to Africa so that the Chinese don’t, fine. If it means we maintain overseas bases so that we can project power around the globe if necessary, fine. If that means the 5th Fleet deters Iran from blocking the Straits of Hormuz, that’s fine.

    American interests are global. And we can be hurt and damaged globally. We need a foreign policy that recognizes that. If we pull back and disengage, we’re simply asking for challenges.

    I don’t consider your point of view naive, I just think it’s dated.

  • Shaun,

    Oh, consistency is one of your concerns. So I guess you then love that Ron Paul consistently seems to say that the only way to save Social Security is to destroy it? He’s not alone amongst Republicans saying such things, but he is out there by himself saying we should legalize prostitution and legalize recreational drug use.

    He’s the point of the spear and you are following along as part of the shaft behind it which would be given to our nation.

  • Catherine Crabill
  • Here comes a short, true story that might give some of you a chuckle.

    On one of my last transits through Nevada I was traveling east on I-80. One of the legal, or at least tolerated, brothels was trying to entice truck drivers to come on in and spend their money. The young lady behind the microphone was telling about how they had plenty of truck parking, free showers, free coffee and a gallery of young ladies to choose from. She also stated they had a juke box which contained Country Western, Rock N Roll, Jazz, or any music a truck driver might want to listen to.

    I keyed up my microphone and asked the young lady if they had any Jesus music on that juke box and if she would be willing to listen to it with me? With a chuckle in her voice she came back with, no, they didn’t have any of that in there.

  • @Schoeneman

    Show me the money. 🙂

  • Sara


    I don’t doubt that he has that goal in mind at all, and believes that he can, considering his support and endorsement of people like Cynthia McKinney.

    You know, Cynthia McKinney, who has voiced extremist anti-Israel sentiments, promotes pro-Arab causes (aren’t the Saudi Arabians the ones who supposedly were behind the 9-11 attacks?); claimed that Bush knew in advance of the 9-11 attacks, is a 9-11 Truther — things like that, that most normal Americans agree with. (NOT).

    And when you have people commenting on that linked thread that the Oath Keepers need to start providing “protection”, it starts to sound awfully Farrakhanish and quasi domestic militarism…. frankly, this is all getting out of hand.

    We are all being led like Sheep to basically take up arms against “powers that be” and Ron Paul is now being made out as the new savior “The One We’ve Boon Looking For”….tell me, how is that different from how the people were led into voting for Obama? Obama also made big promises to unite. He also, had no experience or past resume in doing so, and just believed that he could. Paul’s newsletters were certainly not geared to “uniting” people, but classifying them into categories.

    I’ve heard Ron Paul supporters talk about how Lincoln was a traitor to the US, how Bush was a traitor to the US… sorry, these are not words that will unite the majority of Americans who don’t use those words lightly.

  • Shaun, this helped get me across the last mile and I am now fully supporting Ron Paul for President. Just posted it. I’ve been reading his books for the last two years . . . I had his bumper sticker on my car for much of 2010. I gave everyone a fair look . . . but I kept coming back to Paul and you helped articulate what I was trying to get at.

    It makes it easier that Virginia is just Romney vs. Paul, makes it much easier.

  • Sara

    Well Gosh Chris, if you had his bumper sticker on your car for a year, it’s time to go all in, man! Otherwise if you weren’t supporting the guy, it would be false advertising.

    This really isn’t about Ron Paul at all, is it guys?

    Entertaining, though. Clever, too. And here I was just stupidly thinking you were being successfully herded.

  • @Chris —

    Glad to be of some service! I’m in your camp — there’s a lot I admire about Paul, there’s a lot with which I disagree. But in scales between Romney and Paul… the scales tilt in Paul’s favor.

    Better a repeat of Goldwater ’64 than a repeat of McCain ’08. That seals it for me.

  • Tim J

    LD, did you find a parking spot?

  • Luellen Fontaine

    Ron Paul is a hateful and misguided man. I’ve never met a Ron Paul supporter who wasn’t a slacker, druggie, Jew-hater, racist bigot, or just plain stupid.

  • Fat Dave

    Better a repeat of Goldwater? This principle over electability argument is senseless. A good portion of what we’re fighting today is a result of Johnson’s “Great Society.”

  • I can feel the love already, Luellen

  • From Shhaun: “Hey Craig — speaking of sophomore high school, this is from your own bio:

    “In the meantime, I grew up, graduated from Wentzville High School in St. Charles County, and graduated from the University of Missouri-Columbia with a BS degree in Public Administration. This landed me four-square into politics and real estate, which is my professional background. (This includes a three year stint as a state legislator from St. Charles County from 1987 to 1991.)”

    Where is Columia on a map, again? :)”

    So sorry for the hurried typos. COLUMBIA, MISSOURI. It’s a College town. And your point was?

    Uh, well, Columbia

  • Catherine Crabill

    Dear Sara, Lincoln destroyed the 10th Amendment, period. That is a fact. And having braced myself to actually look at the evidence of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, on a dare mind you, I had to face the truths presented, with a profound sense of grief, and accept the horror that our government orchestrated that just as they orchestrated OKC, Ruby Ridge, and Waco. It gives me no pleasure in posting this ‘out loud’. I am well aware of the target for ridicule that doing so makes me. I would only ask that those who want to go for my jugular over this issue take the time that I took to look at the evidence presented and come to their own conclusion. As Patrick Henry wrote: “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth . . . For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it.”

    I accept the fact that there is evil in this world and that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    As far as Ron Paul is concerned, I have seen a life long track record, in keeping with our Founders, that whatever his personal feelings may be, in fact, he will keep his Sacred Oath of Office to uphold and defend the Constitution. Therein lies our only hope. Happy New Year to you.

  • As i said.. about 10%..

  • VA Patriot

    Wait…did she just say that the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attack?


  • Catherine Crabill,

    Your problem is that you spend too much time looking at the so called experts who still profess that 9/11 was an inside job. Go look at the opinions of all the rest. If you still feel after such a search that it was an inside job I would suggest you need to change the brand name of the tin foil you use to line your hat.

    It might have taken a while for the truth to come out, and I do not condemn anyone for exploring the “truth” in the 9/11 Truth movement. But as time went on it should have become evident to any reasonable person that those behind it were too willing to bend facts and reality so as to keep the movement going.

  • Catherine Crabill

    Little David, have you ever watched the entire presentation of these accomplished, educated, men willing to stake their name and reputations on something that is so obviously controversial? Why would they do that? These men are pillars in the Architectural & Engineering community and have gone to great lengths to stick their necks out. I can assure you, it was with great anguish that I listened to their testimony because of the obvious implications.

    Your snarky comments reflect more poorly on you then they do on me. I have endured them since I ran for delegate, and all of my vocalized concerns have been validated, unfortunately.

    Also, is your first name “Little” and your last name “David” or is that a pseudonym? I ask because I have no respect for comments offered as such.

  • Sara


    Happy New Year to you as well! 🙂

    There is no point in arguing with you as I know you to be a woman of strong convictions. I am sure you have done a great deal of personal research into both issues (Lincoln and 9-11) and would not hold those positions in the face of criticism if you didn’t fervently believe them to be true.

    But here is my question to you.

    You must know that most Americans do not hold these positions…in fact, would find them offensive. How then can you think that espousing them is going to help Ron Paul get elected? This is why Shaun has talked often about his frustration with Ron Paul’s supporters, because there is no way the American public is going to vote for someone who has helped encourage this kind of thinking (through his newsletters and interviews.)

    As I posted yesterday on my blog about Paul’s tendency to go off on “tangents” — if he gets elected I am going to invest heavily in stock of pharmaceutical companies as doctors are going to be prescribing Zoloft and Valium like crazy to suburban housewives who now have to add the Illuminati, the Bilderbergs and a government that wants to kill us via our water supply to their list of worries.

  • @FatDave —

    Well… if we’re assuming that both sides are correct that Romney and Paul are unelectable…

  • Catherine Crabill

    Dear Sarah,
    We live in a time when people have no appetite for the truth because of its devastating effect on their sense of safety and well being. When I was approached about 9/11 I was perfectly satisfied with the official version. I rejected any notion of conspiracy because, frankly, I had my fill of being attacked, maligned, ridiculed, condemned, etc. for my unrepentant assertions of OKC. I’m human. It takes a toll.

    The person who asked my opinion had earned my enormous respect because of his insight, intellect, and honesty demonstrated over a period of time. He goaded me by playing on my ‘zeal for truth’ and sent me DVDs from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I knew if I watched them I could not lie about my opinion. I left them in a drawer for months. Finally, I got the courage to sit down and watch. I was not into the first 10 minutes of the DVD, when I took it out and threw it in the trash. I did not want to believe what I was seeing and hearing. The price, at that time, was too much for me to pay. My husband and I have four children. They have dreams and beautiful lives to live. If I accepted the testimonies before me, what would that mean for them? Would living in denial be better than trying to expose the truth in hopes of turning this deadly tide?

    The fruit of 9/11 was The Patriot Act, the TSA, and as of last week, the NDAA. Now I understand. Now may be too late.

    I know I am hated by many. I know I am held in low regard by many more that I thought would have been natural friends and allies. It has been lonely and painful in many ways. It is a price I have been willing to pay.

    We are still on this side of the ramifications of all that I, and others, have warned about. The trap is nearly finished being built. NDAA has sealed our fate. It is the Rubicon that has been crossed. And all of what is about to come could have been avoided had a few more been willing to endure the Saul Alinsky ridicule and sounded the warning of what no one wanted to hear.

    In the words of some of my heros:

    Silence in the face of evil is evil itself.
    God will not hold us guiltless.
    Not to speak is to speak.
    Not to act is to act.

    ~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer ~ He was hung two days before the end of WWII for resisting Hitler’s Third Reich by speaking the truth.

    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
    Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

    ~ George Orwell ~

    No Enemies?
    You have no enemies, you say?
    Alas, my friend, the boast is poor;
    He who has mingled in the fray
    Of duty, that the brave endure,
    Must have made foes! If you have none,
    Small is the work that you have done.
    You’ve hit no traitor on the hip,
    You’ve dashed no cup from perjured lip,
    You’ve never turned the wrong to right,
    You’ve been a coward in the fight.

    ~ Charles MacKay ~ (1814-1889)

  • Sara

    Catherine, I admire that you seek the truth, where so many others simply allow themselves to be fed.

    My question was about Ron Paul’s electability… not meant to criticize you personally for your beliefs.

    Hope to see you in 2012.

  • VA is for Politics

    A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama, because there is ZERO chance he will ever be elected President:

    a) The media will destroy him over his “racist” newsletters

    b) The DNC and Obama will use the “racist” newsletters language in TV and Radio ads, thus destroying his standing with suburban female voters

    c) The GOP can never equivocate on race because when / if it does it plays right into the mainstream media’s narrative that conservatives are racists. IT IS NOT FAIR – AND NOT RIGHT, but guess what? I don’t think its “fair” that it gets cold in the winter, but that doesn’t mean its going to happen

    d) Ron Paul’s past statements about Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War will further destroy ANY credibility he has with mainstream voters, outside of a few whack jobs in the Deep South

    e) His foreign policy is, well, so absurd its laughable

    f) His economic policy is great…… if you are stuck in the 1890s and really think its great to peg your currency to the a commodity. Hey, geniuses? Would you peg your currency to oil? Why not? It’s a commodity JUST LIKE GOLD? Because it fluctuates and is traded on a world-wide basis and is thus subject to rapid inflation / deflation? Really? So why gold and not oil? A concept that most of us realize is absurd will only destroy him that much more

    g) He’s 70+ years old, think Bob Dole 2.0; Clinton masterfully portrayed himself as forward thinking “next generation” leader, and Dole was portrayed as “out of touch”

    I, for one, is baffled how any rational person who has ever followed politics think that Ron Paul has a snowball’s chance in hell of every being President. And don’t give me the “there are national polls that have him beating Obama”; yes, true, BUT HE HASN’T FACED THE PRESS SCRUTINY THAT WILL DESTROY HIM

  • Mike Barrett

    Well, no rational person would, but of course, that is not the point. Ever since the rise of the Tea Party, rationality has gone out the window, to be replaced by anger. Should most americans be angry? Absolutely, given the disenfranchisement of the middle class, now reduced to servants of the 1% who have had the ear of Congress and who have used the republican party as a vehicle to increase their wealth. Regretfully, while I would think that both the tea party and the occupy wall street people share anger at how they have been treated by the system, the irony is that their target ought to be the republican party, not the President. But clearly there is no republican candidate who espouses that view, nor will there be until the Party deals with reality instead of its self proclaimed fairy tales.

  • Old-geezer

    Since someone made a contribution to Bearing Drift, that person gets a pass today.

  • Catherine Crabill,

    Little David Transport is the name of my trucking company. You can look it up on the federal governments FMCSA Safer website to obtain my real name, phone number and a wealth of information about me if you care to look for it there.

    As for the question: “…have you ever watched the entire presentation of these accomplished, educated, men willing to stake their name and reputations on something that is so obviously controversial?” I am not sure of just which specific presentation you are speaking of. I have been exposed to several different claims of what was supposed to be indisputable proof from what was claimed to be experts in their field only, after a modicum of searching found out their credentials and reputation did not bear any resemblance to the claims of how expert they were. Often their credentials were unrelated towards the very specific claims they were making.

    I followed the 911 Truth movement with a great deal of interest and an open mind. As their claims were shown to be wrong one by one, the leaders and the most vocal of their followers showed they were close minded. They had made their mind up that the US government was behind it and it could not be terrorists. When genuine experts presented bona fide evidence they were wrong they insisted those speaking were only government plants.

    Their minds were made up, and once they were proven wrong they just cast their net wider to find “experts” who would agree with them and prove them right.

  • Catharine, the twin towers collapsed easily due to cheap construction that was prefabricated and designed to go up quickly. The trusses were doomed to fail from exposure to heat. Asbestos was outlawed during construction so the upper floors were not fireproofed. The people who planned the attack knew this was the weakness of the building and hit the upper floors above the levels with asbostos protecting the trusses and below the floors that were needed to provide enough weight to jackhammer the floors down.

    Your conspiracy BS is a blessing to Romney and will be used to tar Ron Paul. Knock it off and take some meds.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i11Yo3qKZV8
    This is what caused the collapse after the terrorists flew through the buildings.

  • Here is more “truth” to debunk conspiracy therorists.

  • Scientific American debunked those theories a long, long time ago. The combination of steel and concrete loses half its tensile strength at temperatures of 1200 deg F.

    Jet fuel burns at 1500 deg F. The moment those planes went in the Twin Towers, it was all a battle against time. Not a hopeless one (as the lives of a few hundred fire and police personnel demonstrated — they were willing to give those lives to save thousands of others in a firefight that could have been won), but one where there simply wasn’t enough time on the clock for FDNY to put that fire out.

    As for the whole “missiles hit the Pentagon” stuff, that’s just bullshit.

  • Ditto Shaun.. Catharine, this is for you and the 10% who stand in the way of a Ron Paul Victory.

  • Catherine Crabill

    Turbo, do you find it necessary to grasp for an advantage in an argument by being an insulting ass? Seriously.

    After watching this, if you have the courage, please explain with your background how these men are wrong. Also, I’d love to hear your theory on Building 7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o.

    Additionally, you can review their website for more info. http://www.ae911truth.org/

    And if you are NOT willing to invest the time that I have to hear these experts out, then please keep your ignorant opinions to yourself.

  • Catherine Crabill,

    The first link you provide comes from a rather dated presentation, I believe it is from around 2007 or so. Note the person giving the presentation is an architect, not an engineer.

    Here is a link to so a site dedicated to debunking the 911 myths:


    This site is not perfect, but does a lot better job of presenting the facts then I could do. I am not sure I could find all the links I examined for myself back then nor am certain all of them still exist.

    I will point to one very obvious thing, your architect on your link takes great pains to explain that when buildings collapse, they topple over and do not pancake. There is a photograph on the opening page of the link I provided that shows the levels of the South Tower were in fact starting to topple over above the point of impact up until where the floors below the point of impact started to pancake and then the tower came straight down. You can mimic the effect with a broomstick that you balance on the palm of your hand. Stop trying to balance it and allow it to start to topple over; when it starts to topple, remove the palm of your hand and watch as it falls straight down.

    The link provides an explanation for the collapse of WTC7 if you care to read it with an open mind.

    The site also exposes how 911 Truth conspiracy theorists will only selectively quote actual eye witnesses to the collapses, only quoting those who support their theories and then often only quoting them out of context.

  • Catharine, I pay architectural engineers who are p.e.’s with outstanding resumes and plenty of references so I don’t wind up hiring a quack halfwit bullshitter like the ones who present in that video. The sources in that video are not referencing actual physics, they are dangerous. Their claims and models are less accurate than anythink I recognize as sound science because their models disagree with forensics on the ground from multiple eye witnesses and from numerous camera angles that backup the actual models that represent actual mathematical models. The numbers do not lie, Catharine.

    I will say it again, you and those who perpetuate your conspiracy theories will kill Ron Paul. With your help he loses, a 3rd party runs and Obama wins. That is what this thread is about.. I.e., take your own medicine.

  • Donna Holt

    It would serve the public well to do some research on our nation’s foreign policy and the reality of the terrorist threat. What the government tells us is parroted by the MSM.

    Coach Dave Daubenmire puts it in perspective in the December 8th News With Views article entitled IS THE “WAR ON TERROR” A FRAUD? http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave262.htm

    Consider the deceptions that led to wars of the past.

    In 2006, 4-Star General Wesley Clark revealed U.S. premeditated plans to attack 7 countries in 5 years beginning with a planned attack on Iraq unveiled just 10 days after 9-11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVVml5Dp2s&feature=related
    How could they have known 10 days after 9-11 that it would become necessary to go into Lybia or Iran? It defies common sense.

    Countless veterans of the Iraq War have given testimony to the atrocities they have been ordered to commit on innocent civilians in Iraq. One of the most disturbing testimonies I’ve heard to date is that of veteran Mike Prysner. His testimony is in two parts.
    Veterans are returning from Iraq troubled that they were forced to commit what they describe as terrorist acts against innocent civilians.

    Active military veterans and personnel have contributed more to Ron Paul’s campaign than all the other candidates put together and even more than to Obama’s campaign. http://r3publican.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/total-donations-by-active-military-3q-ytd-2011-ron-paul-leads-all/

    There are those who say that Ron Paul hates Israel because he wants to cut off aid to Israel. The fact is that he wants to cut off ALL aid to foreign countries. But he also knows that in truth, the U.S. provides aid to ALL of Israels enemies and they do so with strings attached just as they do with all funding. Ron Paul’s recent interview with Newsmax expresses his support of Israel but cautioned that while the United States should be a “friend” of the Jewish state, America should not be the “master” of Israel.

    David Meir-Levi wrote an article regarding U.S. aid to Israel’s enemies on October 13, 2011. David Meir-Levi writes and lectures on Middle East topics, until recently in the History Department of San Jose State University. His article exposes how the U.S. props up dictators and the entanglements Ron Paul keeps trying to warn us about but few bother to research. It’s such a complex issue that RP can’t effectively educate people on the truth behind these wars in sound bites and 2 minute answers in a debate. Look at how much information you’ve already had to weed through to begin to understand what’s going on.

    “What if the Chinese had military bases in America?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UryciFTWTP4&feature=related

    We all talk about how the government deceives us, how corrupt it is, how they manipulate the truth to garner support for taking away more and more of our freedoms, but we refuse to believe they might also be deceiving us about all these wars that were NEVER DECLARED BY CONGRESS.

    Members of the CIA, military leaders, and war veterans have been trying to expose the lies but we refuse to pay attention. Here is what one CIA says about the “War on Terror”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKlKGB3YwjE

    As for 9-11, consider this information testimony about a whistle-blower regarding the failure of the CIA, FBI & the federal government to act on information provided to them before 9-11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85YiZvwtUdo

    Please do some research before dismissing Ron Paul’s position of foreign policy.

    Contrary to what the establishment and MSM tells you, Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. There is a significant difference. Isolationism is when you cut off all contact with the world by preventing any flow of people of goods or people beyond the borders. This was ancient China’s strategy. Non-interventionism is when you have open contact with the world, allowing people to travel and goods to trade, but not using force to sculpt their internal processes. Occupation is interventionism. Paul advocates non-interventionism.The former head of CIA, Michael Scheuer, explains the consequence of intervention and what “blowback”. http://non-intervention.com/

    The history of US involvement in the Middle East is summed up here:

    The only war that exists is the one that the US gov’t wages against it’s serfs.

  • Catherine Crabill

    Well stated, Donna.

    To Turbo, and Little David, I understand the cognitive dissonance most people have when it comes to things so horrific that the mind refuses to accept what it sees, hears, and experiences. So it is that when AE911Truth provide eyewitness testimony of firefighters, law enforcement, physicists, etc., apparently, that does not mount to the threshold of belief, in spite of all historical precedence, with some.

    I would remind you of Clinton’s reign of terror against those at Ruby Ridge, Waco, and OKC with the aim in sight of demonizing militia groups that formed in direct response to his outlandish provocation in the western states, in particular. Indeed, blowing up OKC had the desired effect. In fact, He stated upon his re-election that he owed it all to the OKC Bombing. Do you recall the bombings at embassies in Africa every time Clinton was in trouble? Wow! What a coincidence. And he got away with all of it.

    IF Bush was complicit, and his whole administration, in 9/11 then that would mean, as Republicans, we’re not the ‘good guys’ anymore. Where then can we turn? Who then can we trust?

    These master suppressors of the truth have turned left and right into herds of cows who are told how they should think, feel, and respond, virtually on command. The independent, critical thinker is a threat to their well choreographed schemes, thus is a target of their severe attacks in an attempt to shut them up by shaming them in front of the other cattle who, otherwise, would be natural allies based on their core beliefs.

    So left hates right and right hates left while they waltz though the middle to subjugate We the People. And so it is that Obama has just signed himself Emperor, Supreme Ruler, Dictator, and Tyrant of these United States as of yesterday from his remote location in Hawaii. He acknowledges that he has just garnered to himself dictatorial powers though the National Defense Authorization Act, but we can trust him to uphold and defend our Constitutional rights. This was bipartisan TREASON.

    Mark my words, and hold on tight, because there is going to be a SPECTACULAR ‘terrorist’ attack on American soil before November. Most likely, it will be blamed on ‘Patriot’ groups. Obama will be ‘forced’ into using his newly minted ‘authority’ to round up the perpetrators, and the American cows will cheer him on and demand blood in response to the scope and scale of what he has in mind.

    Once this force is unleashed it will do so with such a devastating vengeance that it will challenge the resolve of the most ardent, liberty loving, American, because this is FOR KEEPS.
    These global elites have not manipulated our elections, killed thousands of innocent Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afganis (spelling?), in an effort to lay the psychological and legislative ground work to turn back now.
    Every branch of our government has been infiltrated with appointments by the Communist in Chief, and if history serves us correctly, millions of deaths are acceptable to them for their desired goal. Just ask the undercover FBI agent who infiltrated the Weather Underground as they discussed how many out of the hundreds of millions of Americans would resist re-education in the event of their Communist takeover (Bill Ayers). They estimated that they would have to execute 25 million Americans! No problem.
    America is EXACTLY where Germany was 80 years ago. The German people could not imagine the evil that was about to be loosed on them and the whole world. Many stayed in denial even after the war until they were forced to march through the concentration camps.
    I am determined to sound the alarm at every opportunity, whatever the cost to me personally, because I know as surely as there is a God, there is a devil. As surely as there is great good, there is horrific evil and my Bible warned us of these days thousands of years ago. Perhaps, therefore, there is no hope to turn this tide, to right this wrong, consequently why stick one’s neck out? Because millions of great men and women who have gone before laid it all down and risked everything to pass along to us the liberty, and the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ from which it springs, in hopes that posterity would reap the benefit of their sacrifice. I want to stand among them before the Great Throne Judgment and not be ashamed. I pray to be found faithful.

  • Catherine,

    Well, I guess that means no can no longer trust anyone in America other then people who need to try name brands of aluminum foil in their hats instead of relying on the generic brand.

    Try Reynolds Wrap.

    Please forgive me for just not allowing your last post to be insulting enough by itself, but sometimes fools need feedback.

  • Catherine Crabill


  • Donna Holt

    In the 2012 election, the message we send is more important than the man (or woman) we “elect.” The game is this: If a Democrat wins, the nation moves sharply Left, no matter who promises what. If one of the “preferred” Republicans win (Executive or Legislative branch), then things will go along pretty much as they have, ever leftward, but more slowly, until the Democrats prevail again, in due course, at which point another sharp left turn can be expected, on and on, endlessly—until anything remotely patriotic, traditional or “conservative” is kaput.

    Men and women of principle have to throw a serious monkey wrench into this little setup, and it has to be NOW.”

    For those afraid of Ron Paul’s foreign policy, he is not one who would use Executive Orders to to govern. That said, if Congress feels there is a serous threat to the U.S. or our allies, they have the power to “declare war”.

    If we don’t reduce the debt and deficit spending, we won’t be able to fund a national defense. China is already manipulating the currency.

    Imagine the message to the GOP and Washington if Ron Paul did get the nomination and won the election. Imagine how far right we could move the nation. If nothing else, the GOP would hopefully finally recognize they can’t win elections by promoting moderates.

  • Donna,

    Well, my problem with Ron Paul is more on the lines of his positions on domestic issues then it is with his issues on foreign policy. I have concerns about the raw impact of his positions on foreign policy, however they are not as scary.

    Are you staking the claim that all true conservatives should support legalizing prostitution and recreational drug use (even heroin)? That we should return to the Gold Standard in which case all the gold would soon be headed for foreign shores? That Dennis Kucinich should be appointed as Chairman of a special Congressional Investigation to look into whether or not the US government was behind 911?

    I also object to describing any Republican who rejects Ron Paul as being some moderate or something. I would describe any such Republican as being amongst those who have at least two brain cells to rub together in that noggin of theirs.

    Ron Paul is scary, and it is scary that he can garner as much support as he does within the Republican Party.

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