Campaign Crawlers
Money Bombs Away
Two sons of Ron Paul -- one figurative, one literal -- run for the U.S. Senate.
The donors who poured millions into Ron Paul's presidential campaign coffers aren't done yet. On Saturday, libertarian financier and commentator Peter Schiff raised more than $200,000 in a 24-hour "money bomb" as he continues to explore a bid for the Republican nomination to run against Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).
Having now collected more than $790,000 in campaign contributions since mid-July, the Ron Paul Republican Schiff is competitive financially with the frontrunners for the GOP nomination. Former Congressman Rob Simmons raised $754,000 through June 30 while former ambassador Tom Foley has taken in $528,000 since mid-June.
Schiff's fundraising haul wasn't the only reason libertarian-leaning Republicans had to cheer last week. Rand Paul, the ophthalmologist son of the 11-term Texas congressman and former presidential candidate, announced he was going to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY). As in Schiff's case, the party establishment has other plans -- the heavy favorite for the GOP nomination is Secretary of State Trey Grayson -- but Paul is likely to take after his father when it comes time for his own money bomb later this month.
As Ron Paul Republicans have slowly been making inroads within the party structure, Congressman Paul himself has been gaining in influence over the GOP. Every Republican in the House is a now a co-sponsor of his bill to audit the Federal Reserve. Mainstream conservatives quote liberally from Paul's reading list, including Thomas Woods' Meltdown and some of Schiff's work, when grilling Obama Treasury officials about the economy.
Even on issues of war and peace, Paul isn't always in the minority anymore. A handful of conservatives who supported the Iraq war, like Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), have joined him in questioning President Obama's Afghanistan escalation. All but five Republicans voted with Paul against the supplemental funding of Iraq and Afghanistan, including the entire leadership. They haven't suddenly become noninterventionists -- the issue for most Republicans was extraneous spending, not the wars themselves -- but it is nevertheless a major departure from the party's stance under President Bush.
It is of course the Obama administration and the financial meltdown that have given Paulian ideas a new resonance, not so much his dissent on the war. (Though Paul's success in fundraising and attracting the kind of young voters who have been fleeing the GOP in droves has had an impact as well.) But efforts to expand this influence appeared to take a hit when South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was found crying with his mistress in Argentina. Sanford was a possible bridge between the Ron Paul Republicans and the mainstream conservative movement -- and, until his extramarital affair, a credible 2012 presidential contender.
Now with Sanford likely out of the running, Ron Paul Republicans will once again have to reach within their own ranks. Peter Schiff has been an apostle of economic doom who claims vindication in the current malaise. "Though the worst of the global financial crisis may have passed," he wrote recently, "the real impact of the much more fundamental U.S. economic crisis has yet to be fully felt." That fundamental crisis, in his view, is the result of massive debt, unsustainable government spending, and a reckless monetary policy that is undermining the dollar's strength.
While Schiff advised Ron Paul's Republican presidential campaign, Rand Paul got his start in politics supporting his father's bids for public office. In both appearance and speech, he bears a striking resemblance to the elder Dr. Paul but is somewhat less old-fashioned. It is hard to imagine Ron Paul saying, as his son often does, that the Republican Party "has lost its mojo."
Paul and Schiff have very different approaches to the GOP. In a speech to the Connecticut Libertarian Party, Schiff openly talked about using it as a vehicle for libertarian ideas because its electoral debacles make it ripe for a takeover. His theory is that a leader-less and idea-less major party could be reshaped faster than a minor party could be made politically viable.
Rand Paul is much more conciliatory toward regular Republicans. Like Grayson, he said he would not run unless Bunning retired. When the senator obliged, Paul announced on his Facebook page that he had "nothing but good things to say" about Bunning and thanked the outgoing senator for his vote against the bailout (politely leaving unmentioned Bunning's vote for the Iraq war). Like his father, Paul is pro-life and would strip the federal courts of their jurisdiction over abortion.
The younger Paul is careful to present his foreign policy views in a way that could appeal to Republicans more hawkish than he. "Defending our Country is the most important function of the federal government," Paul says on his website. "When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted by and derived from free men and women." While a defender of Congress' sole constitutional authority to declare war, he acknowledges that there are times when the president "can and should make military responses without Congressional authority."
"As a member of Congress," the statement on his campaign site continues, "Dr. Rand Paul would have demanded and voted in the affirmative for a declaration of war with Afghanistan. He would have demanded and voted against a declaration of war with Iraq." He is similarly judicious on defense expenditures: "In Rand's proposed budget, defense spending would represent a larger percentage of the total budget than it does today, while military spending on unnecessary programs and unconstitutional operations would be eliminated."
Do these men have a chance? Several promising Ron Paul Republicans -- and at least one Ron Paul Democrat -- won their primaries in 2008 but went down to defeat. Murray Sabrin finished third in New Jersey's GOP primary last year. Despite their fundraising prowess, some Paulites have found fiat currency also to be of little value at the ballot box.
In July, a Quinnipiac poll showed Schiff within five points of Dodd as the Republican nominee -- but not registering at all among GOP primary voters. Like his father, Paul has done well in Internet polls but no scientific survey has yet tested his viability. Nevertheless, they are both serious libertarian candidates in competitive Senate races. No wonder they are taking the liberty to run.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/Jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (149) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/10/money-bombs-away
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Herbert Hoover's Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Sean| 8.10.09 @ 7:56AM
Both candidates are sure to vote to cut spending and oppose big government if elected. Their biggest problem is to gain name recognition.
Rand's major opponent is a former Bill Clinton delegate. You can guess who the party establishment is going to back there. Why of course the career politician who backed Bill Clinton and has no record of being a Conservative.
Ryan| 8.10.09 @ 8:05AM
I think I could live with this guy if he's a toned-down version of his father...and attracts people who aren't so paranoid. Ron Paul's problem wasn't necessarily his philosophy, it's the crazy people who tend to jump on board with him - authoritarians, racists, supremacists, conspiracists, etc. I don't want to be in a party with them and I don't like their detrimental associations.
Caleb| 8.10.09 @ 9:21AM
Schiff and Paul would definitely bring some true conservatism to the GOP. They are definitely NOT the neo-con imperialists that has been so popular among the religious right and militarists that have over taken the party. There ideals are a return to the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and a shedding of the Bill Krystal/Rush Limbaugh/Hannity conservatism that has flushed the conservative movement down the toilet.
Roy| 8.10.09 @ 10:02AM
Heh.
The above poster is exactly why I have a strong visceral rejection to "Ron Paul Republicans". Ron Paul himself may have been against Iraq from the beginning, but huge masses of people who jumped on his bandwagon, such as George Will, are nothing but wimps and cowards who caved in as soon as things got difficult.
Some day, again, we're going to have to fight a war. Some day, again, we're going to take casualties. Some day, again, Code Pink and the NY Times(but I repeat myself) are going to howl and yibber like a bunch of worthless buffoons. When that happens, I now know that huge masses of "conservatives" will fold like a house of cards and suddenly decide that the war was, after all, "not in our national interest" and was only caused by "neocons".
I'll vote for people like that if it's the only way I can prevent babies from getting vivisected, but, given how readily they caved to Code Pink, I have a tough time believing they will really stand up to NARAL.
iamse7en| 8.10.09 @ 10:15AM
I gave money to that money bomb. Peter Schiff's economic philosophy is enough for me to donate.
Wesley Mouch| 8.10.09 @ 10:28AM
It's time for some adult supervision in the Republican party. Paul & Shiff are a start.
Pingback| 8.10.09 @ 11:03AM
Liberty Grotto Blog » Ron Paul Republicans gaining Steam links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Solo| 8.10.09 @ 11:07AM
I agree with much of what Ron Paul and his minions believe and support. The Libertarian world view, however, is but one aspect of conservatism. It's not the whole package.
The Libertarian party draws less than 1% of the national vote. Any attempt to co-opt the broader republican party and morph it into the Libertarian party is an exercise in "misery loves company".
Let's have a few more libertarians in Congress and the Senate. That would be helpful, provided, of course, that they don't seek to excoriate their fellow republicans for failing to subscribe to the libertarian brand of ideological purism that includes a return to an American past that never really existed.
The "1% solution" is not going to save the republic.
Eliot| 8.10.09 @ 11:31AM
"I don't want to be in a party with them" -this statement is why the country is bankrupt, and why the Republican Party is in shambles. The Liberty Movement holds true to our founding principles more than any other today (even with the racists, Christians, and other fringe groups.)
Of course there are diverse people that jump on board with anyone that stands up for freedom. There are people that support Paul that I have no interest in being associated with (though I haven't met an authoritarian yet). There are atheists and christian homeschoolers that stand side-by-side in this movement (and I have no interest to support either of their ideas - but will support their freedom to hold those ideas). That may be a problem for some, but it is also the sort of asset that made this country great. Not everyone believes the same, and problems arise when you try to force your beliefs on others. The truth is, this example of Paul's supporters is exactly why we need small government in both our personal and economic lives. We are more diverse than most countries and if we are to survive in the long run, we need to keep the laws of our country simple and small. If everyone gets their costly special interest laws enforced, then we become too busy trying to everyone from doing things, and not busy enough just living and creating new things.
Some may think Christianity is a dumb idea, and others may think atheists should be on an island far away, problems arise when you have both and each gets various new laws to help each of their efforts. The point is that we need to get back to the root purpose of government which is not to get into everyone's personal business, or to manage the world's economy. We need Rand Paul and Peter Schiff to get the world back on track, and so that the ideas that founded this country aren't brought down by the big spending socialists that have been in charge of the Republican party for the past many years.
Laura| 8.10.09 @ 11:45AM
The whole argument about "only weirdo fringe people" associate with Ron Paul is what kept me from looking into him. But when I finally did, I realized that the majority of his "followers" are just regular folks who believe that our Constitution should be followed, as it is still and always will be the supreme law of the land. And the old argument of "Libertarians want to live in the past" doesn't pan out either. I looked into them too, and their approaches and ideas are very "modern" and make sense to me. Clinging to the current "republicanism" of Lindsey Graham and the like is simply begging for more big government solutions. I am done with the false Left Right paradigm, there are truly the same. Wake up people, forget the labels . Vote for the person who makes the most sense, not the label. And Peter Schiff and Ron Paul sure make sense to me. Independent voters like me are finally seeing the truth.
ccook75| 8.10.09 @ 11:51AM
Good article. Glad to see the R3volution is getting some coverage. Time for the true believers to put some more money where our mouths are. Give what you can to Peter and Rand. No amount is to small! Every inflated dollar matters!
ryan| 8.10.09 @ 1:00PM
Paul's followers aren't just "just regular folks who believe that our Constitution should be followed." They say a lot of the right things on the surface, but the people on the fringe, which can be some of his more vocal supporters - aren't just small-government types. There are plenty of libertarians, to be sure, but there are also those who would project their authoritarian views of the Constitution on the populace.
Maybe I'm reading too much into the movement. When I state "authoritarian," I'm lumping plenty of the hard-right Christian conservative types who want to illegalize certain behaviours, and maybe that is unfair to the Paulies.
And I'm the type who sits somewhere in between Reagan and Paul, an evangelical Christian with limited government ideas.
Plus, Paul's a paleocon and a gold-standardite. Two issues that I am NOT a fan of. I'm no neocon, but I heartily disagree with him on foreign engagement, drugs, and economic models.
defeated pigs| 8.10.09 @ 1:59PM
Who is Ron Paul?
Alex| 8.10.09 @ 2:12PM
It really is nonsense to classify all of Ron Paul's supporters as one thing or another, just as it is nonsense to classify all of Obama's supporters as one thing or another.
If your favorite, most perfect candidate (whatever that means) was running, would you NOT support him because some nut from the KKK did support him? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
But then, I also hate the label "Ron Paul Republican." I have no idea what that means. I voted for Ron Paul because I like his platform (although I am vehemently pro-choice and believe the gov't must protect a woman's rights). I have looked at some people that are called RPRs and I have not liked them at all. Some were even endorsed by Ron Paul himself. I have looked at other RPRs and agreed with them on most issues. I happen to like Peter Schiff the most.
So, throw out the labels. Look for people who you WANT to be in office. If you can find such a person then support them and vote for them. If not, then don't vote at all. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil and I won't vote for evil.
South Florida Libertarian| 8.10.09 @ 3:03PM
There are plenty of libertarians, to be sure, but there are also those who would project their authoritarian views of the Constitution on the populace. >>
authoritarian libertarian is a oxymoron
libertarians are against authority
arc| 8.10.09 @ 3:04PM
One thing I dislike about Ron Paul supporters is their constant attack of what they call neo-con, which are basically main stream conservatives. They feel that they don't need them at all to win elections. Anyone who once supported Bush are rejected as part of the neo-con e.g Rush, Levin on radio. Even though Rush, Levin never considered themselves neo-con hatred towards them from the Ron Paul supporters are strong. Its this sort of attitude that will forever doom them to 1%, because they're not willing to form coalition with similar minded ppl, even though they don't agree 100% with everything
Alan A.| 8.10.09 @ 3:06PM
I am a new found supporter of Rand Paul. My background is as such: I was a Reagan Republican for the last 15 years, I also voted for Bush his first term, but I didn't vote for anyone in 2004, that is because I could no longer support the "new" republican but not conservative party. Even Reagan would be rolling in his grave, let alone our founding fathers...geez!
Most of the people I know who are also life long republicans, are now supporting Ron Paul's Revolution.
If you are a conservative, as in you hate taxes, want the government out of your life and wallet, and are sick and tired of this media/political correctness... then I ask you to research and look at Rand Paul.
I love this country but fear this government.
Freedom4America| 8.10.09 @ 4:12PM
We have read all the comments and see that some of you really do not know what RP supporters believe in. You are still putting labels on us and we do NOT have any label.
We come from the old conservatives and Republican Party and believe as they do. Many of us have libertarian ideals but so did our Founding Fathers.
If memory serves us correct the Libertarian Party was created by conservatives from the Republican Party that could no longer support the New, or Neo, Republican Party conservatives.
RP supporters are NOT trying to hijack the Republican Party but rather bring them back to what they used to be. Non-warmongers, Small Government and Tax Cutting Conservatives.
With all that said Schiff and Rand Paul are all about this country and not just about a party. We The People must support them financially as well as physically if we wish to help Take Back America by replacing Congress 0ne congressman at a time.
Nicholas| 8.10.09 @ 4:34PM
Ron Paul 2012!
Dan| 8.10.09 @ 4:44PM
I agree with Ryan above. The Paulites are the same kind of people that got Hitler elected in nazi germany. They desperately need to be eradicated...them and there swastikas. They are incredibly foolish and childish for believing that we don't live in a dangerous world where we could be blown off the face of the earth by iran or even pakistan. Yes, war kills people...even innocent people, but in the grand scheme of things, it's better to kill some innocent people and prevent a war on our soil than to have to fight a real war on our land. you got to break a few eggs to make an omelet. At least Ryan and I understand that. This is the real world, paulites and there is no place for you people here.
Athan| 8.10.09 @ 5:05PM
Guys, want to see something funny? Here's Ryan's quote: "it's the crazy people who tend to jump on board with him - authoritarians, racists, supremacists, conspiracists, etc. I don't want to be in a party with them and I don't like their detrimental associations."
Then view Dan's comment who agrees wholeheartedly with Ryan: "The Paulites are the same kind of people that got Hitler elected in nazi germany. They desperately need to be eradicated...them and there swastikas." "This is the real world, paulites and there is no place for you people here. "
This is what you call iorny folks!
Jim| 8.10.09 @ 5:11PM
Libertarians are not against authority, we are very much pro-authority when it is used as our Constitution & founders intended - to secure the God-given individual liberties we all posess and protect us from there abridgment by others, foreign or domestic. It's only when authority is used to impose other's preferences on us (tyranny) when we are not infringing on anyone elses rights, that we oppose.
John M| 8.10.09 @ 5:13PM
Dan, do you not see the irony in your post? You are advocating a Nazi-esque foreign policy and claiming its detractors to be nazis?
"Paulites" are not ignorant of the fact that we live in a dangerous world. They simply believe that diplomacy is a more productive means of making that world less dangerous than militarism.
"Paulites", unlike yourself, are also serious about conservatism. War is a big government operation, and if you truly believe in limited government you should prefer to only fight wars on your own soil, instead of wasting money overseas.
What, pray tell, gives you the right to tax me to fight a war I don't believe in? You sound just like those liberals who want to tax us to pay for other people's abortions. If you think Iran is a threat, go over and fight them with your own money. Don't take my hard earned money from me to send someone to the Middle East to kill people with my money.
Mike Bergsma| 8.10.09 @ 5:19PM
Ron Paul refused to endorse the Republican nominee who here in Texas, beat him 8 to 1. He held a counter convention in Minnesota at the same time as the Republican National Convention with the intent of hurting the Republican ticket. I was a delegate to the convention who was committed by party rules to vote for McCain (you know, vote for the guy who won the primary). Ron Paul supporters sent me two different videos, asking me to violate the Party's and the voter's trust and cast my ballot for Ron Paul. They said there is no Federal law preventing me from doing this. There is no Federal law against adultry either but it is still wrong. Here in my home his main local leaders file suit against party leaders because of a fuss that they caused. They lost their suits, and tried to get crimanal charges filed. The Democrat DA actually investigated their allegations and decided there was nothing there. They wanted us to lose. Instead we picked up seats here against the national trend.
Freedom4America| 8.10.09 @ 5:39PM
Mike Bergsma,
So you supported the RINO McCain. You were a good puppet for the Puppeteers in charge of the RNC.
RNC wanted to lose in 2008 and you helped them do it by supporting the RINO that TRUE Conservatives would NOT vote for.
We could care less about a party that is NOT what is important. What is BEST for our country is what we support. That definitely was NOT McCain nor Obama. They are merely puppets being controlled by the BANKSTERS that have been running our lives for way too long now.
Ron Paul/Rand Paul 2012
Rand Paul 2010 in Senate to prepare him for VP in 2012.
laura| 8.10.09 @ 5:45PM
Dan,
YOU SCARE ME.
Michael Bergsma| 8.10.09 @ 5:51PM
I am no man's puppet. I voted for Mike Huckabee in the primary but he lost. Like the good and decect man he is he supported the winner of his Party's nomination for President. Ron Paul's supporters say that his rufusal to support the nominee was showing integrity. I think it was showing narcisicm. I believe in supporting the winner of our primary. Ron Paul did not even win the primary in his home district. He did not win the primary in his home county. I am a True Conservative and the use of the term BANKSTERS show a childish attitude of so many of Ron Paul's supporters.
John M| 8.10.09 @ 6:02PM
Ok Michael, so you believe in party over principle. You'd vote for whoever the party nominates, even if you believed he'd destroy America.
You are not a true conservative if you supported the tax-hiking, big-spending Mike Huckabee who stated numerous times in the debates that he believes it's the role of the federal government to "control behavior" of individuals.
The term "banksters" is used to identify those in power of the corporatist-fascist state the US is becoming. There is nothing childish about knowing your enemy.
Eric Dondero| 8.10.09 @ 6:39PM
Alas, unlike his Dad, whose great on domestic issues, but have absolute nutty extremist leftist views on foreign policy, Rand seems like a candidate that Pro-Defense Libertarians can support.
Eric Dondero
Libertarian Defense Caucus
Len| 8.10.09 @ 7:11PM
The US constitution states that the power to declare war is lodged in the legislative body. This is not a blanket allowance to do so, but merely defining who has such power. The constitution further says that it is for our common defense, not national interests, or because we don't like what a SOVEREIGN nation is doing. If we may attack other countries because of "national interests" or some such, first, the formal expression of the peoples will is ignored, second, any other country surely may do the same, which only brings about escalated tensions throughout the world.
Frankly I think you both live in some fantasy land where the US is some great divine entity entitled to do as it pleases. Why! That sounds just like what the Islamists claim. Funny that. BTW, we first attacked Iraq in the gulf war, when clearly they were not in any way threatening us, why wouldn't they want to do us harm?
I do believe that when we are truly attacked or threatened such as by Japan(doesn't need to be so obvious), or by a people protected by a country such as Afghanistan then whatever it takes is good with me. However we are not democracy builders, and should not in any way be attempting to do so, other than through example and allegiances, all of which, lo and behold, are consensual. Is that not that what natural rights are about? Do I have a right on a personal level to demand certain actions of you, if you are not harming me?
Springboarding from there, do not societies or communities have a right to determine their laws and standards? Is a person forced to live in a place where there are laws that they believe impinge on their personal freedoms? To say that an individuals rights are greater than that of a societies which comes together for the express purpose of a certain way of life is ludicrous. Let one state be free to have a more Christian constitution, and let another be more libertarian and allow drugs or prostitution(I don't endorse such), but let us not have these matters decided by a centralized government so foolishly vain to believe their wisdom to be able to address the worlds ills.
Big J| 8.10.09 @ 7:31PM
Caleb:
I have read several of your post, and actually found quite a few in agreement with my values. Your earlier post, however begs a question:
"Schiff and Paul would definitely bring some true conservatism to the GOP. They are definitely NOT the neo-con imperialists that has been so popular among the religious right and militarists that have over taken the party."
Would you humor me and name a name? Just one, not all of them that have "over taken the party". I only ask because I cannot for the life of me come up with one name, and I consider myself to be pretty up to speed on these things.
'Ole Slick Willy had three opportunities to take out bin laden, but chose to take the "non-interventionist" route. Not a problem until there is an attack on our soil. We should be able to defend ourselves just fine.
It breaks my heart that 2,996 innocent Americans had to die as a direct result of this belief. One sniper shot, 3,000 lives saved (well, maybe a few more "high value targets" would need to be eliminated, but you get the point). Very much in conflict with the above-mentioned beliefs, but effective none the less.
That is the problem with the "non-interventionist" approach. There are millions of radicals out there that want to destroy us for reasons that you and I could never understand. You say "live and let live". Sorry, but that's just not the reality of the world we live in. Sometimes, it is vital to the security of this nation to protect ourselves BEFORE we actually get attacked. It's kind of like the castle law. Used to be in Texas, you had to make an effort to retreat in your own home when someone broke in (thank God that's been repealed). Not anymore. Now, when a thug enters your house in the middle of the night (or day), you have the law's permission to fire at will, in an attempt to protect yourself.
In addition, sometimes (because we are AMERICA, and no one else will do it), it is necessary to help our allies around the world to defend themselves. That's the responsibility you take on when you are a superpower.
As for tearing down Michael Bergsma: will ya'll please do some research on the electoral college? He is compelled to vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote. That is the only way the system works.
If it didn't work like that, I wonder what you would say when 'ole Ron Paul won the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college? I've got a feeling that there would be some serious hate-mail involved (not that R.P. supporters are out there or anything, just sayin').
Scott A Joseph, MD| 8.10.09 @ 7:33PM
I went to Dr Rand Paul's website. I could find nothing on Israel. Quite frankly, we are a great power and bear responsibility. If Robert Taft's views on NATO had been followed, the Communists would have won. The elder Dr. Paul is equally obtuse of foreign policy. Fine on domestic, Dennis Kucinich's buddy on foreign. Unless his son separates from him on that score, I see no hope for him in Kentucky, a state in which I lived for 5 years (in Daviess County).
South Florida Libertarian| 8.10.09 @ 8:06PM
Libertarians are not against authority, we are very much pro-authority when it is used as our Constitution & founders intended ->>
No that describes Bob Barr republitarians
Real Libertarians don't accept any authority structure that isn't completely voluntary down to the level of the individual.
The Founders were foolish to think a peice of paper could stop evil men. Go back in time and ask the slaves how they feel about the constitutions freedoms
John M| 8.10.09 @ 8:09PM
"That is the problem with the "non-interventionist" approach. There are millions of radicals out there that want to destroy us for reasons that you and I could never understand"
The reaspm there are millions of radicals out there is because we had an interventionist foreign policy for the past 100 years. Bill Clinton was no "non interventionist." I think you need to go back and read your history.
To quote Ron Paul, "they don't come over here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come over here to attack us because we're over there."
When was the last time Swizterland, a country that for the most part practives non-intervention, was attacked? People don't attack countries that mind their own business.
"In addition, sometimes (because we are AMERICA, and no one else will do it), it is necessary to help our allies around the world to defend themselves. "
Sounds like the same thing Woodrow Wilson and FDR said. Your ideology wreaks of liberalism. Is it necessary to tax our citizens to give welfare to our poor "allies" in our own country? Sounds like your a big welfare-statist to me. Go back to the Dems!
John M| 8.10.09 @ 8:14PM
"If Robert Taft's views on NATO had been followed, the Communists would have won"
Wow, that's crazy. NATO didn't win the Cold War. The Soviet Union collapsed under it's own stupid economic system. Fighting the communists was unncessary. As the great economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out in his 1951 book titled Socialism, all socialist economies are destined to destroy themselves.
You want to fight communists? You want to fight muslims? You want to fight dictators? Use your own money, don't raise my taxes to fight your war.
Big j| 8.10.09 @ 8:31PM
Goodness, John M. You sure are sounding an awful lot like Barack and Hillary.
If only we would just leave them alone, they will leave us alone. The policies of the past have gotten us to where we are, and all that.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
No, the radical side of "the peaceful religion of Islam" has three stages:
1) Convert all non-believers to the Muslim faith.
2) Tax the "non-converters".
3) Destroy the infidels (preferable method - beheading with a dull knife, although 4 or 5 747's will do just fine).
If you don't get it (after all the proof that has been laid out before you), no sense in trying to explain it.
Admittedly, I probably do need to brush up on my history. As we all do. But, last time I checked, Switzerland was not in the "superpower" category, or any where close. Far as I can tell, only people who pose a threat get attacked. Women that are free to walk around without burkas, free speech, freedom to worship how you choose are MAJOR threats to Islamic Jihadists.
Also, I didn't say Clinton was a non-interventionist. I said he utilized that particular belief in dealing with bin Laden.
Forget history, John M, try going back about 40 minutes and READING my post.
HWP| 8.10.09 @ 8:55PM
Libertarians and "Ron Paul Republicans" are the future of the party. They are the only Republicans who are actually drawing in new young people. So as the older Republicans die off, they will be replaced by ever-growing hordes of Ron Paul Republicans, who will be focused sharply on reducing the size, scope and spending of the federal government.
4Live&Liberty;| 8.10.09 @ 10:15PM
Ryan - enlighten yourself before you begin to generalize people. Stupid, ill-informed comments simply make you sound stupid and ill-informed.
Roy - warmongering? Read George Washington.
Solo- Libertarian does not equal conservative. Intellectual conservatism can be an ally to true classical liberalism, i.e. Edmund Burke, however the two "ideologies" are wholly separate.
Ryan..again- keynesian economics have failed. The Chicago School has become Keynesian-lite. Enlighten me, if not Austrian economics, who? Also funny that you label Paulists as "authoritarian", yet you disagree with him, from an authoritarian point of view of course, on the prohibition and foreign entanglements. Irony.
Arc- dislike of "neo-con" philosophy is merely a rejection of imperialist, interventionist policy-making. If you are in favor of that, then fine, however, according to our founding documents, you are in the wrong. We call spades, spades.
Dan- there is a special place in the afterlife for people like you, with no regard for the lives of others. Fear-mongering cost Bush, I mean McCain, a shot at the Presidency. Keep up the good work.
Bergsma- read George Washington on party politics. Also read the Convention debates on eliminating political parties. Don't be indentured to people who use you for a vote. Also, if not "banksters", what else would you call politicians who have tacitly given hundreds of billions of dollars to their bank buddies without allowing for even a modicum of public accountability?
Eric Dondero- Libertarian Defense Caucus? Non-intervention is "nutty, extremist, leftist" foreign policy? Libertarian?
Big J- or non-interventionist could mean that our military does not belong outside the boundaries of our sovereign land. Not snipers, not air bases, nothing. Decisions have consequences, and consequently, our decision to maintain troops in the middle east has cost us. One sniper cannot solve that. I wonder how you would feel if, say Pakistan, wanted to build a military base in your backyard. On domestic voting, when did sacrificing personal principles for party acceptance replace self-respect and dignity, honor and character, just and rightness?
Scott MD- why does the US, or any of its politicians have to bend down and kiss the feet of any foreign government? I believe Washington said, and I'm paraphrasing, bestow equal treatment and trade upon all nations. Israel has gotten its "fair share" from US taxpayers.
Big J...again- "forget history". Do you know anything about the middle east? Do you know anything about the imperialist colonization of it? Are you somewhat are of the US meddling in the middle east that began in the late 40's and 50's? Are you aware of our experiments with puppet dictators in Iran and Iraq and Jordan? Are you aware of the military bases we've built in other peoples' back yards? Are you aware of the vicious, poverty-creating sanctions and embargoes we have enforced upon the people of middle eastern countries? Because if you were aware of any of that, perhaps you would understand the gripes they have with us. How would you feel about another nation doing that to us? What is it to be a "superpower"? Is that so desirable? (Someone tell Arc that this guy is the very definition of a neo-con).
Wesley Mouch| 8.10.09 @ 11:03PM
Ron Paul had me when he said abolish the income tax & the Federal Reserve. Any candidate that supports that gets my money & vote every time.
Rush, Hannity & the other talkers are driving people away from the Republicans. Keep letting these guys do the talking for us & see how many elections we win.
Paul & Schiff have made old Jeffersonian ideas new again & it is appealing to the independent voter, especially young ones. Embrace it, or die as a party. It's as simple as that.
Brian| 8.10.09 @ 11:18PM
Libertarians platform consists of 1) unfettered abortion/gay marriage/polygamy 2)legalizing public nudity/public sex and 3)legalizing illicit drugs ...doubt that matchs most ppls agenda.
Andrew| 8.10.09 @ 11:21PM
Some seem to have quite abstract views of labels. Libertarians are not against authority, they are against authority being too powerful and stifling the rights of free people. Authority should be there for what it is there for, to protect people from having their rights violated.
Forcing the constitution on the people is also impossible as the constitution was designed to restrain the power of government. The constitution is the ultimate law of the land, it is the contract between the people and the government. They have been wallowing in great violation of the great document for such a time the corruption is rampant, the big industries essentially decide our legislation, and the rights of the free people continually erode under the guise of "taking care of people".
They really have nice names, all those bills "Patriot Act", "No Child Left Behind", they all sound so well intented... Assumely with the amount of admitance of legislators not even reading the bills they sign...... While we are held responsible to know each and every one....
The most interesting thing about libertarianism, is that though it only collects 1% of the vote officially, but many libertarians don't vote for their candidate. I would know. I'm libertarian, and I have never voted for a libertarian candidate in my years of voting.
We believe in equal rights for all people with unlimited freedoms up until the point you are violating another's liberty.
""Unless restrained, all governments devolve to tyranny."
If you support the bailouts, stimulus, government take overs of companies... Go read up what happened in USSR in the few years before it fell.... Strikingly similar to what we are doing right now....
Patrick Greene| 8.11.09 @ 7:15AM
People like Rand Paul are the only hope for the United States. If we keep playing the "sports team" politics of "Republican" and "Democrat" when there is no difference between the two - Statist heavy and Statist lite - we are doomed. We, the people, have to take control and trim government back. The bankers have had control since 1913, and it hasn't been good. It has been a long road to serfdom.
Smeagal| 8.11.09 @ 8:00AM
The Libertarian Party is as corrupt and dysfunctional as the other parties and stands no chance of securing political ground in this age of the rising socialist/communistic Democratic Party or the "scared of their own shadow" GOP.
However, it is the libertarian-minded candidate such as Paul I & II and Schiff that have the ability to affect real change in our two-party system. Both of them fit well into the disintegrating GOP and would not only stop the hemorrhaging, but provide a much needed transfusion as well.
Dag| 8.11.09 @ 11:55AM
If I want to attempt to sway the opinion of logical and reasonable People I don't think I would use words like wacko, conspiracy, kook, extremist, and hemorrhoid in my argument.
It would probably backfire and I would be labeled as "Paranoid"
Bo Darville| 8.11.09 @ 1:26PM
It's not a bad idea to inject a little more libertarianism in the GOP. Especially with the Democrats being uberstatists right now.
Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 5:47PM
The American Spectator : Money Bombs Away | Money Blog : 10 Dollars : Money Articles. links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 8:43PM
The American Spectator : Money Bombs Away | links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 8:43PM
The American Spectator : Money Bombs Away | links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Truthteller| 8.11.09 @ 10:23PM
The younger Paul's position supporting a declaration of war against Afghanistan, while refusing to endorse such a declaration against Iraq reveals a refreshing understanding of both the standards of a just war, and the responsibility of the Congress to engage the US in war.
Neocons are unable to shed their Cold War view of the world: the only time the Israeli relationship provided real value to the US.
Other posters have recognized that it is the newer and younger Republicans that gravitate to the Paulist mindset, which is both more current and more traditional than the paleorepublican 20th century weltanschauung.
Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 11:01PM
The American Spectator : Money Bombs Away links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 11:01PM
The American Spectator : Money Bombs Away links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 11:02PM
Money bombs away – again | SmallGovTimes.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nick| 8.12.09 @ 12:56AM
Trey Grayson used to be a Democrat. If you want a real constitutional conservative who will shake up the D.C. establishment, Dr. Rand Paul is the way to go.
Carl| 8.12.09 @ 1:12AM
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Everyone portrayed Goldwater as some extremist and he was one of the fathers of the modern movement. We should not cowtow to the media the same way Goldwater refused to accept the characterizations of himself as racist, zenophobe, and reactionary. To quote Goldwater, "Let's grow up conservatives!"
Osamas Pajamas| 8.12.09 @ 2:20AM
The Republicans have money and political expereince, and the libertarians have great ideas, no money, and no [or little] political experience. The Democrats and other parties are a fkg waste of space. Libertarians may be 1% of recent votes cast [or whatever] but partly that has to do with public exposure. Republicans and libertarians need to get together and defeat the Democrats not only at the polls but on intellectual grounds, as well, as that is a longer-term and more effective defeat.
S.L. Toddard| 8.12.09 @ 8:33AM
Neither Paul nor Schiff has a chance. The GOP is no more likely to allow a conservative into its Senatorial ranks than the Democrats. Though all patriotic conservatives will support both candidates, patriotic conservatives are such an extreme minority in the GOP - indeed, conservatism itself is anathema to that big-gov't, liberal internationalist party - that their support will likely be insignificant. The GOP is a big-spending, fiscally irresponsible party that invariably expands the leviathan state and actively maintains an open-borders policy with Mexico. For the party to truly embrace conservatism - and to embrace Paul and Schiff - it would need to completely overhaul its consolidationist, big-gov't, federal social program-loving, open-border, liberal Wilsonian internationalist philosophy and that simply will not happen.
FederalCounterfeitOnUS Citizen| 8.12.09 @ 9:24PM
messages - Collapse all - Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Cancel
Send Discard
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.
Send Discard
Roy Roger View profile
More options Nov 28 2007, 8:03 am
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian, soc.culture.british, soc.culture.israel, soc.culture.jewish
From: "Roy Roger"
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:03:16 GMT
Local: Wed, Nov 28 2007 8:03 am
Subject: OVERVIEW OF THE JEWISH-OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
OVERVIEW OF THE JEWISH-OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
THERE IS NOTHING "Federal" about the Federal Reserve Bank. In other words,
the Federal Reserve is not "federal" and it does not have any "reserves."
The Jewish Bankers, who are masters of deception, own the Federal Reserve
Bank, print money with interest but without any backing, and would like to
keep their "federal" banking cartel a secret.
But the House of Rothschild which owns 57% of the stock of the
privately-held Federal Reserve Bank, is alive and well in North America.
Recently, Reuters News Agency published an article announcing two new
appointees of the Rothschilds' banking interests in North America @
Rothschild Bank Names New North America Heads. And be certain that the
Rothschilds have charged their appointees to act as liaisons with their
fellow Jewish bankers who own the Federal Reserve Bank.
It was Jacob Rothschild II who in a letter to his US agents in 1863 with
regard to establishing a Central Bank in America said: "The few who
understand the system will either be so interested from its profits or so
dependant on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class.
The other class will simply have no comprehension or concern about American
monetary policy."
Here is an historical overview of the makings of the Jewish-owned Federal
Reserve Bank:
* 1791-1811: Rothschilds' First Bank of the United States
* 1816-1836: Rothschilds' Second Bank of the United States
* 1837-1862: Free Banking Era -no formal Central Bank through the efforts of
President Andrew Jackson
* 1862-1913: System of National Banks through the efforts of President
Andrew Jackson
* 1914-Current: Federal Reserve Act effects a consortium of 7 privately held
Jewish banks called the Federal Reserve Bank. The largest share holders of
the bank are the Rothschild's of London holding 57% of the stock which is
not available for public trading.
THE JEW Paul Warburg (1868-1932), came to the United States from Germany in
1902, buying into the partnership of the Jewish owned bank Kuhn, Loeb and
Co. with the financial backing of the Rothschilds.
Paul Warburg was a man with a mission, sent here by the Alfred Rothschild to
lobby for the passing of a Central Banking Law in Congress. On January 6,
1907, the New York Times published an article by Warburg, called "Defects
and Needs of Our Banking System."
In 1908, Sen. Nelson W. Aldrich, (father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller Jr),
and a Rothschild agent, proposed a bill recommending a Central Bank. A
member of Congress for 40 years, Aldrich was the most powerful man in
Congress and was the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Without going into the labyrinth of the contrivances of the Jewish Bankers
and the Jewish propaganda machine, on October 25, 1914, the formal
establishment of the Federal Reserve System was announced by Congress with
Paul Warburg and the Rothschild ally, J.P. Morgan, at its head
Pingback| 8.14.09 @ 10:14AM
Putting The C Back in Conservative | Austrian Economics Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.14.09 @ 10:16AM
Money Bombs Away | Austrian Economics Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
1231| 9.15.09 @ 6:39AM
wedding dress factory
wedding dress shops
Trackback| 12.10.09 @ 3:32AM
ct credit repair, on ct credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Susan Harkins| 1.4.10 @ 6:00PM
Ah, so now I am being called a radical nazi authoritarion conspiratist now, simply because I abandoned the GOP and joined the Libertarian Party? This is laughable. Yes, I guess I might be as radical as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in their time. As for the nazi, autoritarian description, I may have had my 5 kids goose-step a bit, here and there, and behave themselves (or get a spanking for not). And maybe the conspiratist may apply a bit as well, since I have seen many unconstitutional bills work their way through Congress and Senate, when they should have been dead in the water for directly striking at our Bill Of Rights. Ya know what, guys -- call me anything you wish. I am STILL going to back ONLY Libertarian elections at a national level (via direct internet donations). That's the end game. (Do I sound like a 'supremist' for saying that too? -- lol.) I smell desperation. Let's see how quick the GOP leans more to the 'right' in hopes to garnish more 'evil right winged extremist' support like this Conservative Mother of 5. ;;cheers Rand and Peter;; We donated to you guys in the last Money Bombs and we will do so again!
Pingback| 1.27.10 @ 7:00AM
No Bye Week for Bayh | America Watches Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.1.10 @ 4:01PM
Antiwar Republicans, Old and New « Dark Politricks Retweeted links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.4.10 @ 11:58AM
Antiwar Republicans, Old and New « Dark Politics links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Poptropica | 4.8.10 @ 11:15PM
I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica
Pingback| 4.10.10 @ 2:47PM
Antiwar Republicans, Old and New – Dark Politricks links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
yanyan| 10.10.11 @ 1:01PM
I am curious to find out what blog platform you're utilizing? I'm having some small security issues with my latest website and I would like to find something more safe.mesothelioma attorney
balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 9:37PM
Thank you for sharing this beautiful articles. thanks a lot
yaz lawsuit
rechie| 10.24.11 @ 9:47AM
please share your ideas regarding the above topic. thanks...
L Tod Schlosser| 11.4.11 @ 12:47PM
Good think.
Very good information.
Thanks a lot.
L Tod Schlosser
ruth| 10.17.11 @ 10:52AM
this is great and fantastic work topic blog..i kindly like it for your effort thats what i really like if comes to effort..i thank you again keep it up..
silver spot price
fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 9:50PM
Great submit, Although I wasn't altogether comply on some issues initially, onerous by rendering till finish, factual appears taking.
fiance visa
creamer| 10.19.11 @ 9:22PM
Your blog provided us valuable information to work on. You have done a marvelous job!
Actos Lawsuits
Elisa| 10.20.11 @ 8:39PM
Thanks one more time and keep publishing such a useful stuff in the future too. Read to interest. Can you share more please?
Actos side effects
yaz class action| 10.22.11 @ 3:24PM
ACORN's relentless death march continued last week as undercover sting videos surfaced in which the group's employees counseled reporters posing as a pimp and a prostitute on how to set up a house of ill repute using tax dollars. GUYS THIS IS VERY INFORMATIONAL TOPIC. PLEASE READ SOME ABOVE INFORMATION
devourment| 11.4.11 @ 2:24PM
its useful information, I read this whole and carefully. This article covers the all required thing. I can say that you did your best
L Tod Schlosser
PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 3:15AM
Wow! what an idea ! What concept ! Beautiful . Amazing.
filipina girls
chester| 11.11.11 @ 2:03AM
I think you explain the whole situation very well.I have no point to raise in against of what you have said.
zoloft lawsuit