-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
Up From Paulism
How Rand Paul could broaden his father’s message.
On the same day Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll of the nation’s largest gathering of conservative activists, one of the nation’s oldest conservative-libertarian activist groups kicked him off their national advisory board. Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) announced it had severed ties with the twelve-term Texas congressman, who had been on the advisory board for over two decades, over what it described as his “delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement.”
Later, Paul triumphed at the at Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) straw poll for the second year in a row. He beat Mitt Romney, the only other candidate with an experienced campaign organization, 30 percent to 23 percent. Paul left the other possible Republican presidential contenders who are favored by either the mainstream media or the conservative movement — most of whom got fewer votes than libertarian fellow-traveler and former Paul endorser Gary Johnson — in the dust.
While some individual participants may have been out of the mainstream, CPAC as a whole was hardly fringe. It attracted over 11,000 people, mostly mainline conservative activists. Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, Mitch Daniels, and Rick Santorum were among the other possible Republican candidates on hand. This wasn’t, as some of the conference’s conservative detractors imply, a joint meeting of the Log Cabin Club and the Libertarian National Committee.
Straw polls aren’t scientific surveys and thus can’t be used to refute Donald Trump’s CPAC prediction that Paul has “zero chance” of winning the presidency. But it is a good barometer that at this very early stage the other 2012 aspirants lack either grassroots support or organizational strength — and in some cases, probably both — at least in sufficient amounts to overcome Paul’s zealous backers.
The straw poll win coupled with the YAF flap shows the dilemma for the movement Paul is trying to lead. On the one hand, it was once unusual to hear Republican leaders not named Ron Paul talking regularly about the Constitution. Now it is commonplace, and not a single Republican contemplating the presidency defends the constitutionality of Obamacare. There is much more mainstream conservative interest in auditing the Federal Reserve, the doctrine of enumerated powers, nullification, and Austrian economics. But deep divisions still remain.
Even at CPAC, there was little obvious comity between Paul’s supporters and those who preferred other candidates. About half the crowd booed when the straw poll results were announced. All hell broke loose when Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld appeared with the audience still full of Paulites who had been there to hear the congressman’s son Rand, now a freshman Republican senator from Kentucky, speak. They heckled the former vice president and defense secretary. The more traditional Republicans and movement conservatives on hand responded by shouting, “USA, USA!”
One side believed Cheney should present and Rumsfeld should receive an award for defending the Constitution, while the other thought they had a record of undermining it. The Paul supporters at CPAC branded these men “war criminals” while YAF declared that opposing their preferred foreign policy “border[s] on treason.” What common ground can there be between these two extremes?
“Paul’s supporters have all the lungs and confidence of fourth-century Christians overwhelming the pagans,” writes professional Paul-watcher Dave Weigel. But this can sometimes backfire. When they attempted to shout down Orrin Hatch as he explained his support for the bailout, they won him sympathy from the rest of the crowd — even though most rank-and-file conservatives agree with Paul and disagree with Hatch on the issue.
Yet Rand Paul struck a much different tone. He unapologetically made common cause with the Tea Party: “Is there anybody here from the Tea Party? Are we going to let Washington co-opt the Tea Party? Will you help me fight for and defend the Constitution?”
The younger Paul also invoked Barry Goldwater in reminding the audience that strict constitutionalism was part of the conservative movement’s heritage. He cited the following from Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative: “I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.”
Of course, Rand Paul’s father also favorably quotes conservative and Republican leaders of days gone by in his speeches, from Robert Taft to Ronald Reagan. But the son made common cause with his GOP contemporaries as well. Just as he has cosponsored legislation with Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, David Vitter of Louisiana, and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, the younger Paul enlisted Oklahoma conservative Tom Coburn in his speech. He even gave a shout out to Maine’s moderate Susan Collins. Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats were cast as villains.
While Ron Paul challenged the CPAC crowd by saying that he bet half of them wouldn’t support cuts in the defense budget, Rand Paul led with entitlement reform, asking to applause, “Is there anybody here who would like to opt out of Social Security?” Then he emphasized the significance of national defense, calling it “the one primary and most important constitutional thing our government does.” But he also referred to Pentagon cuts as the “one compromise we will have to make as conservatives.”
Rand also put himself convincingly to the right of the Republican leadership. “They’re talking about cutting $35 billion,” he said. “We spend $35 billion in five days. We add $35 billion to the debt in nine days. It’s not enough, and we will not stop the ruin in our country unless we think more boldly.” Just as Reagan once called for a platform painted in “bold colors, not pale pastels.”
When it comes to the substance of his positions on the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, and foreign aid to Israel, Rand Paul is still his father’s son. But just as in his CPAC speech, he is trying to speak in tones less jarring to Republican ears, bringing his father’s supporters and more traditional conservatives together.
Both the conservative movement and Republican Party have seen this before, as conservative Christians sat uneasily alongside Republican regulars in GOP precincts. Despite an early ruffling of feathers, the party eventually integrated the religious right. While white evangelicals constitute a larger social base than libertarian-oriented right-wingers — the former accounted for a third of George W. Bush’s popular vote in 2004 — Ron Paul’s popular vote total in 2008 wasn’t much different from Pat Robertson’s in 1988.
A prominent conservative activist once told me that the Paulites would succeed only once someone was able to play Ralph Reed to Ron Paul’s Pat Robertson. Reed’s problems aside, it is obvious why some would be skeptical: despite their gain in power, social conservatives know the average Republican politician’s commitment to their issues is so tenuous that they must worry about groups as marginal as GOProud overtaking them in the movement.
But if the Pauls’ supporters have greater ambitions than winning a convention straw poll — like gaining influence in a party or movement and governing the country — they might want to consider Rand’s rebranding of his father’s message.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (118) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/14/up-from-paulism
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
RonPaul.se | 2.14.11 @ 7:12AM
No rebranding! Ron Paul 2012!
USSAlabama| 2.14.11 @ 8:52AM
Ron Paul cannot win. Period.
Only 3400 out of 11,000 attendees even voted in the straw poll and we all know who they were.
Occam's Tool| 2.14.11 @ 9:16AM
THE MEMBERS OF YAF KICKED THE PAULITES OUT AFTER ANTISEMITIC COMMENTS WERE MADE ON THE FLOOR. I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO PROUD TO BE A YAFER.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 10:01AM
In answer to an audience question at a YAF meeting, Ann Coulter said: "Ron Paul is very smart. So I don't want to talk to him too long for fear that he will convince me."
William R| 2.14.11 @ 10:31AM
Spoiled punk kids.
Seek| 2.14.11 @ 1:33PM
I'm interested in the nature of those anti-Semitic comments. I realize that Rep. Paul tends to attract a certain youthful fringe element, but I wouldn't think he would brazenly trumpet a hatred of Jews. He's still circumspect enough to remain a successful politician.
Red Phillips | 2.14.11 @ 1:47PM
YAF is a mere shadow of it's former self. It has long been virtually dead (except for one or two campuses maybe) in all but name only. This is meaningless.
That said, is there a link to the YAF statement? If it is just mindless repition of smear words like "disturbing" "delusional" and "fringe" then that would be par for the interventionist course.
OT, what "anti-Semitic" comments were made on the floor? Specifics please.
Seek| 2.14.11 @ 1:27PM
And the median age of those voters probably was somewhere between 20 and 24.
V8| 2.14.11 @ 10:59AM
Not surprisingly, Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at CPAC, with his Campaign for Liberty having paid for young supporters to come to the conference to vote for him.
How hard is it to win a straw poll when you pull a democrat stunt and pay for votes?
Alan Brooks| 2.14.11 @ 8:05PM
You con yourselves into thinking Ron Paul has a chance? Palin has more chance than he does!
LDSinAZ| 2.14.11 @ 7:15AM
I am a strict constructionist, and I view all politics through the intellectual lens of Law, verses emotion or religion. Additionally, I believe that all Americans have the inherent right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness as They See Fit until those pursuits infringe upon others ability to do the same. I have tried, but I can not for the life of me find any instance where my neighbor's legal status of married verses single effects me in any way, therefore I do not abhor the thought of gay marriage as the social conservatives do.
I see no difference between SoCons wanting to prohibit others from acting as they wish based upon their religious beliefs, and Iran prohibiting women from coming into public without proper covering based upon their religious beliefs.
I would also point out that at the federal level, it is not within congress' Enumerated Powers to even consider the topic of marriage except as it applies to their exclusive jurisdiction of the ten miles square (D.C.) and other federal lands.
You may start shouting now, and I will be curious to see if any bring legal doctrine along for the ride.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.14.11 @ 12:10PM
LDS,
Here is some legal doctrine for you:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Stick that in your bong and smoke it, twerp.
Our entire body of law starts right there.
Any questions?
Len| 2.14.11 @ 1:21PM
Too much of that legal drug, alcohol, for you so early in the day?
He mentioned those rights, right in his post.
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 1:34PM
He conveniently left out the CREATOR thing. Ken is making the point here that all these rights you refer to are based on that religion thing..that these laws spring forth from that judeo-christian historical thing. Religion and morality are the foundations of that law, that constitution, and that declaration thing. How did you miss that?
Len| 2.14.11 @ 1:53PM
I didn't miss anything, he was not quoting verbatim.
The rights that God gave man are the foundation of the law, not religion. See my comment on that.
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 2:12PM
Are you Ok or just another confused liberal troll or just plain stupid? I just said that! Belief in a GOD creator is religion..ask any atheist. The religious tradition of the founding fathers was christian judaism. The laws we have today are based on Anglo Saxon law and the Book of Moses. The point is it is impossible to leave out religious and moral belief out of public discourse and claim it has no place in the public sector, voting, making law, or discussing the social issues of the day.
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 2:22PM
Lsd, wrote..I view all politics through the intellectual lens of Law, verses emotion or religion. This is what Ken and I responded to...LSD is comparing crazy Islamist in a totalitarian state to American social conservatives and equating them as one in the same. That's not only an insult but an outrageous, classic liberal progressive slander and lie. So, LSd is superior to the rest of us because he/she looks only through the lense of the law...ridiculous and immature and ignorant thinking. So, the implications are that if you hold any moral religious views on any social or political issue that form the basis of your opinion on these matters you are a crazed, religious fanatic that seeks to impose your will. Ok, that's enough time wasted on Len....
Seek| 2.14.11 @ 3:41PM
To take a page from the anti-separationists' operating manual, I don't see the words "God," "Jesus," "Christ," Judeo-Christian," "Bible" or "Biblical" anywhere in the Constitution. There are good reasons for that, by the way. The omissions were not a casual oversight by the Founders.
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 4:17PM
Yeah, that's right because the founders were not constructing a theocratic federal government tied to a specific church controlled state. Religious belief and freedom was to reside in the People and no government was to have power to restrain or restrict that religious practice or expression both in the private and public sector nor would the federal government be allowed to establish a specific religious federal state. Notice I said federal. States had greater freedom and did in fact have certain religious orientations. At the same time, our founders were not the communist secular atheist you would like to make them out be either. IN FACT, they were very religious individuals who created a governemnt based on the values, traditions, and CONCEPTS wrought from Judeo Christain philosophy and Anglo-Saxon Law. No need to mention Jesus, the Bible, nor anthing else as their task was to construct a Republican form of government not a church. Try reading the 5000 letters they wrote each other and you WILL find the references you are speaking about when they were discussing what types of philosophies, religious and moral influences were driving them when creating the form of this Republic.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.14.11 @ 4:28PM
Templar,
Thank you for tying the bow on it .
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 4:47PM
Your welcome..Ken..and thanks once again for your service in defending this country both here and on the battlefield.
Seek| 2.14.11 @ 7:46PM
I have read much of the published private correspondence between the Framers. And the evidence indicates these men were for the most part Deists, deeply mistrustful of intertwining civil governance and religious piety. That mistrust hopefully is well and alive today.
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 8:28PM
You are a liar, a communist I suspect. Most of the declaration signers were actually ministers and devoutly religious persons. The first congress was opened with a four hour prayer. This was the biggest LIE.."mistrustful of intertwining civil governance and religious piety". Anyone with half a brain and an once of honesty recognizes that the father of our country and all the founders, including deist Jefferson, believed that a republican government could not survive without a devoutly moral and religious electorate and civil society. You have not read anything. You spout what your left wing teacher taught you in 7th grade and never got past it. If you are to continue posting here stop the lying or skip over to the Huff and puff over there.
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 8:39PM
By the way, I use to believe the same slop until I actually got a book that contained the 5000 letters and numerous documents written at the time by the founders and read them myself to my amazement and realization of how misinformed I had become by my liberal university education. But hey, what the heck, does not matter anyway right..? when you believe all history is written by the winners, truth is relative, propaganda is truth, and there is no obective reality. That mistrust is alive and well in most communist countries but falling rapidly. ..as more people are coverting to christianity and demanding their right to practice and express their faith both in the private and public sector.
skip| 2.14.11 @ 1:20PM
"Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay
"Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." George Washington
"Do not lie with a man as one would with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22
"The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband and wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of marriage
"LDSinAZ is utterly lacking in intelligence and utterly lacking in honesty." skip
Len| 2.14.11 @ 1:36PM
Nice scripture quote, but your conflation fails.
Any government anywhere is dependent on a righteous people, else it will fail, regardless of what form it is. So the Adams quote is meaningless.
None of the powers in the USC are for spiritual matters.
God never mentions a USA that would rise up and be authorized to deal with spiritual matters. Israel was the only nation (and the scriptures make clear always will be) to enter into a direct covenant with God. So one side, God, approached the other side, Israel, and offered them a covenant. That other side (again Israel), as ONE PEOPLE accepted that covenant. So when God made them ( us, as I'm a Jew) a nation, and gave them authority over spiritual matters, he made that part of the government AND put in place AS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT the ability through the leaders (priests ) to offer sacrifices to cover sins.
Further, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5..12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d]
Stop trying to achieve through man (going down to Egypt) what is supposed to be achieved through prayer and fasting and the preaching of the gospel.
So he said to me, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the LORD Almighty
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 1:28PM
LSDinAZ writes, " I can not for the life of me find any instance where my neighbor's legal status of married verses single effects me in any way, therefore I do not abhor the thought of gay marriage as the social conservatives do."
Interesting. The same argument given in 1973 for the passsing of legalization of abortion. Oh, yes..we were told that it would be limited to the first trimester and in rape and incest cases only. The abortions would be few in number and a last resort form of birth control...alternatives would of course be promoted..thus the name, Planned Parenthood. Now, here we are 30 years later, 58 million dead! Like you I sat there not using the brain God gave me and could not think for the likes of me why all the fuss..how would this impact me. I suggest you go to pro-life and pro-family literature and web sites and do some research and thinking. Perhaps you will dicsover why homosexual marriage is not a good thing and marriage as a social institution should not be tampered with or reengineered.
Len| 2.14.11 @ 1:40PM
Abortion and homosexuality are not the same.
Abortion is a crime against a living human, it takes away the right of the person to determine their own fate. Homosexuality is a choice by people to do with their bodies as they please, no one is forcing this on them.
Who gives you or anyone ownership over other people? Maybe you could learn from Jesus who ate and drank with the prostitutes and tax collectors, while the PHARISEES condemned Him.
Also, see my above comment.
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 2:00PM
No one is proposing that we reinstitute sodomy laws and control homosexual behavior. You missed the point entirely..sorry about your public education experience. Yes, they are the same in the sense that both proposals were challenging the traditional morality of the time and wanting to change the laws to suit the desires of a political minority on the basis of many false arguments particularly the classic...how would this impact me? Don't even dare use Jesus's words or lecture me using his name. He ate and drank with them and told them that they needed to change their ways and lifestyles. He did not supprt prostitution, homosexuality, abortion, or cheating people of their wealth. What gives me the right? The social contract. The same one that prohibits pedophilia, murder, sexual assault, drug abuse, prostitution, incest, shall I keep going? I do not own anyone but society decides what behaivior is acceptable and what is not...you can not do anything with your body you feel like. My God, I feel like I am talking to a 19 year old in a Philosophy 101 course.
Len| 2.14.11 @ 2:27PM
Right, don't even use Jesus' name, you who mock others with your condescending attitude.
There is no social contract, that is a fabrication Pharisees such as yourself use an excuse to violate the rights of others and go against the clear word of God.
Again...Further, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5..12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside.
I did not say Jesus advocated prostitution or anything that would come between God and man and as such was destructive of man. I pointed out that Jesus rather than attempting to force Himself on others came to them to deliver them from sin. The Pharisees however placed burdens on people and rather discouraged people from seeking God.
As your philosophy is contrary to the word of God, it is false, and to be avoided. Again, the scriptures speak of praying for those in authority to do that which enables to live peaceable and quiet lives, not enforce God's laws, or so called "natural" laws. Fallen men cannot enforce spiritual laws, they may on the earthly level protect people (they bear not the sword in vain), and administer justice as that is between man and man. This is not to mention the spectacular silence in the scriptures to support your position. The epistles never instruct believers to go out and start governments, rather they will be brought before kings.
Back to your fabricated social contract. There can be no contract without consent, so to assume on parties part the right to force a code of conduct upon others is not a contract, but a form of slavery or ownership of others. However if we all own ourselves, no one can make claim to such a thing as a social contract. In fact any "social contract" must be expressed, such as in a constitution, and any constitution or creation of government must be to protect those rights of people to consensually interact with each other, as the Declaration of Independence says.
All men are equal - no man or group of men may make a claim to direct other men in their lives. To be able to direct other men in their lives, one group of men or a man would have to superior to that other group, thus unequal.
Government being instituted to secure those rights, to infringe on any one man's right to do with his body or property as he so sees fit, so long as he is not stopping another from likewise doing so, is to pervert the purpose of government and rather use government to favor one group of men over another.
Hey hows that for philosophy, your pompousliness?
Len| 2.14.11 @ 2:44PM
BTW, if society may direct men, then communism, socialism, or Islam are all equally valid. Your social contract/society deciding is merely majoritarianism (Scalia loves that) and as such allows for tyranny by a majority. A government that does not allow for majoritarianism, except insofar as a majority is needed in deciding how to protect rights or determine say the pay of judges, the location of buildings is one that is truly protecting our rights.
True society is merely men choosing to interact with each other for their mutual benefit, and does not exist independent of that choice. So to say that society may determine the behavior of others, is to posit a group distinct from others, that does not need the consent of others to force a manner of conduct upon them. This group cannot be society as it not interacting with others not by their consent, but against their will. To do something against another against their will is the definition of crime. This does not mean though that one who has violated another's rights then remains free from force, for in violating another's rights, then the one violated has the right to seek restoration of what was lost through this violation, and even to seek the aid of others in doing so.
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 4:40PM
How's that? A very confused, innacurate, misleading, and strange diatribe not worthy of a response. Actually you sound a bit like you may have some mental health problems. The bible is a manual on exactly prohibiting people's behavior. Law itself is the manifesation of directing other men's lives. You apparently do not know what the social contract is that I refer to as your public education taught you relativism, post modernism, and that there are no objective truths. Your understanding of Jesus is laughable and rather sad. This is not the Church of What's happenning Now nor You can do anything you want with your body! You keep missing the point and going off on tangents, not directly dealing with points I raise, nor the thread of this discussion...more evidence of a disturbance.
Len| 2.14.11 @ 5:08PM
"The bible is a manual on exactly prohibiting people's behavior." Wow, not even supported by the scriptures themselves. In proverbs the Word is spoken of as "a lamp unto my feet", that is not a manual on prohibiting people's behavior. The emphasis of the scriptures is actually positive behavior, "preach the gospel", "pray", "heal the sick", "love one another", "forgive". That you claim it to be this manual prohibiting behavior shows who does not understand grace, but only law.
Again, and you keep putting these words in my mouth, I never claimed sin was okay, but that it is not the province of men to wield spiritual authority over others, except within the church where it is voluntary association. Nowhere in the scriptures is there anything coming close to such a claim.
"church of right now", Again with the snideness, which fruit of the Spirit is that? No, I actually made an exhortation to prayer and fasting in my earlier comment, and the scriptures say that the weapons of our warfare are not CARNAL, but mighty to the pulling down of strongholds.
Law is supposed to be that codifies that which protects the rights of people, not something used by one group of people to control others.
My public education? Seriously another condescending comment...HOW DARE YOU CLAIM TO BE OF CHRIST? No one who has seen the depth of their sin and the according forgiveness acts toward others in the way that you have.It is not my public education, but my many years of prayerfully reading the scriptures, my questioning what is government supposed to do, what is the role of Christians in government, and meditating and praying over these questions.
Rather than insulting me prove your case with a strong scriptural argument. Frankly I think your constant insults and refusal to support your assertion for a social contract, and the right of men to dictate to others their behavior has already been sufficient. You have not even bothered to attempt to refute what I have said, other than by claiming mental instability on my part. You claimed a diatribe on my part, yet you harangue me, and bitterness seeps through in your every response to me.
You are deceiving yourself if you think that one who is of Christ speaks to others as you do. Your words, your attitude do not line up with scripture.Neither the Messiah, nor the apostles went around speaking condescendingly to others, other than perhaps to the spiritual authority of the day, the Pharisees.
No the Bible is actually an instrument that God has gifted us with to learn of Him, His ways, and the Kingdom to come. It is a guide to growing in the knowledge of Him and His Son.
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 7:58PM
I suggest you get up from your armchair and actually take a few courses in history, law, and politics particluarly relative to the philosophies of republicanism and the age of enlightment. The reason I refer to your education is because you show all the signs and misguided prevailing notions obtained from a post-modern public education. You are flagrantly ignorant and adamantly proud of the fact that you know nothing of John Locke or Hobbes concept of the social contract and you accuse me of fabricating it. I rest my case. Your arrogance and ignorance on most of what you say is tiring and exhausting frankly, as you seem to ignore any rational argument or historical fact that contradicts your diatribes. Your response,
"The bible is a manual on exactly prohibiting people's behavior." Wow, not even supported by the scriptures themselves...well, that really is a sign of a disturbance. Not supported by scripture? Did you ever hear of the ten commandments..you know... those laws that are prohibitive negative prescriptions starting with, thou Shall NOT. You claim to be a jew in your early comments in this thread....are you sure you are? And what exactly makes you an expert on Jesus Christ and christian thought? You do not make any sense at all. Why do I need to respond with scripture? I did not state anything about my faith or lack of it? You are the guy claiming that religion has nothing to do with our government founding, constitution, laws, and has no place in the public arena. So, why must I refer to scripture in my response in my attempt to convince someone that religion has indeed played a role when this approach would seem meaningless to you. Your references to scripture are also suspect. Me thinks I have been wasting my time with a very clever troll. It has been fun but you are not really worth a response any further.
Len | 2.14.11 @ 9:13PM
So Paul was not a Jew, Peter? You do understand that even now Yeshua is a Jew.
The ten commandments? Yeshua summed up the ten commandments in this, Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
It is not about not doing bad things, but loving God and man. When one chooses to love God and man, one does not need to worry about not doing bad, for one chooses to act in love. One who acts in love may sin, but will be so consumed with loving God and man, that one will sin less as a result. As Paul said he has eyes on the prize, and implied is not on the law.
Of course you ARROGANTLY won't use scripture, because in truth you reject it. This is evidenced by your continual condescending attitude toward one who made in the image of God and for whom the Messiah shed his blood. In that day many will say "Lord, Lord..and He will say I never knew you".
Yes, the dismissal of one not worthy of being responded is usually the recourse of one who can't support his argument. As I said earlier, your attitude is clearly one of someone who has never been confronted with the depth of his sins, and the extent of forgiveness.
I will leave you with this...
23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold[h] was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins.[i] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.
29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’
30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
I suggest you prayerfully consider what this passage means.
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 8:14PM
Oh, and by the way, the comment you wrote, "True society is merely men choosing to interact with each other for their mutual benefit, and does not exist independent of that choice," is the main tenet of Marxism. Another product of the progressive American public education system. You really should know where you get your ideas from and pick something up and read it besides whatever you have been reading or being told thus far.
Len | 2.14.11 @ 8:48PM
Ok, kid gloves off. You are quite frankly a pompous idiot who argues by begging the question.
I'm aware of the so called social contract. When I said it was a fabrication, I was referring to the fact that it is not true, merely a device used to justify a certain group of men who in their interests form a government that then imposes itself on others. This is no less true of the state governments, indeed the fact they so acquiesced to slavery shows this. Then the continual seizing of Indian lands. This was not a giving up of rights to insure the protection of rights, which is by the way what is meant by social contract. So you have even adulterated the true meaning of social contract, by inferring that it meant men surrendering even private rights.
As for marxism, wow that's laughable. Then the free market whereby men consent to mutually beneficial exchange, where there is freedom of contract, where men remain in control of their labor and the fruits thereof is marxist according to you. Then when men exercise their right to associate and communicate with each other they are marxist according to you. To force society is marxist, for it says labor, or time, or person must be for the good of the other.
Seriously how dumb is that? You state allowing people freedom in business and life is marxism, but then assert that government control of people is not?
simon templar| 2.15.11 @ 11:27AM
You took the gloves off with your snipy hypocritical remark at the very start of this thread aimed at Ken when you implied he was a crazy alcoholic. You apparently do not understand the meaning of the rhetorical device of begging the question. I did not employ this but answered your responses very directly and stayed on topic. On the other hand, your responses were confused, innaccurate, out of touch with reality, and rambling. So, the great philospher king has spoken..the social contract is not true. Little boys can sit there all day and say the moon is made of cheese but that does not make it so. We were not discussing the free market but our form of government, laws, their basis in religious traditions, and why men are restricted by laws in their behaivior on the basis of a concept that has been with us for centuries and the foundation of our society called the social contract. You asked me by what did I justify the restriction of persons over the complete unbridled freedom to do whatever they liked with their bodies. No, society does not exist solely on the basis of the mutual benefit of its its participants...and thus would not exist otherwise. You seem to think that all opinions on non-mathematical, non-scientific subjects such government, law, sociology, etc. are equal and that you can believe anything you want diregarding history, fact, reasoned argument, etc. Now you are answering me with rambling, distorted references to scripture that have nothing to do with the topic in this thread. I am getting a confused sermon on the New Testament and how that somehow relates to the subject at hand. Of course it is always nice to be called a heathen and a rejector of THE TRUTH...of course as you define it. As far as the Jew issue, you identified yourself as a Jew..not a Christian. I am very well aware that Paul, Jesus, and all were Jews. You see in the real world of today...Jews generally do not quote the New Testament nor try to appear as christains nor the other way around. I really do not care what you believe as far as it concerns your faith or lack of it. You as I are a free to believe or not. You are boring me. So, please stop replying and ignore me if you can not carry on an intelligent grounded discussion.
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 4:57PM
According to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, human life would be "nasty, brutish, and short" without political authority. In its absence, we would live in a state of nature, where each person has unlimited natural freedoms (including Len's you can do anything with your own body), including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten our own self-preservation; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men establish political community i.e. civil society through a social contract in which each gains civil rights in return for subjecting himself to civil law or to political authority.
Len, guess which two philosophers were the favorite of our founding fathers? Clue: They were not Egyptians or Pharoahs!
skip| 2.15.11 @ 8:08PM
Thank you simon templar for fighting my battle so well, as Len initially took exception to my post.
I tarried while debating if it was worth responding to often times rambling, occasionally incoherent, posts, and you made the debate moot for me.
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 1:43PM
By the way, I see no difference between liberal progressives wanting to prohibit others from acting on and expressing their religious beliefs, and the communist prohibiting people from expressing and holding any religious beliefs. Try the first ammendment.
Warrior | 2.14.11 @ 3:00PM
Did anyone bother to make the distinction between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 4:42PM
Yeah, The Declaration is the WHY and the Constitution the HOW were going to do this.
JFGalt| 2.14.11 @ 7:19AM
It's funny how so many politicians are NOW embrassing what Ron Paul has been saying for years. Their supporters drink their kool-aid and believe that those crooks are going to change all of a sudden - they've seen the light! BS. They're the same jerks that have stolen millions if not billions out of the pockets of Americans. Lied us into war with Iraq and Afghanistan and lined their pockets with war profits. It's amazing how gullible and stupid people can be.
JFGalt| 2.14.11 @ 7:35AM
Clarification-I think we did right hitting Afghanistan in the beginning but we let victory slip away by wasting our time with Iraq. Iraq once held Iran in check-no longer. OBL was literally in our sights and was allowed to slip away through the back door. As far as I'm concerned Cheney and Rumsfeld are war criminals and war profiteers. What they do in the name of America is not for the good of Americans in the long run. The Young Idiots for Freedom are clinging to the old people because they have deep pockets to fund them. Remember-if you want to know what's REALLY going on - FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Vern Crisler | 2.14.11 @ 9:04PM
Ron Paul has always made a lot of economic sense, as did Murray Rothboard. But on foreign policy and social matters, they are political sods.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 7:55AM
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 3:48PM
Swell. Let him keep fighting as a Congressman, then, because he will NEVER be President.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 4:11PM
Politico Exit Poll at The Massive Tea Party Tax Day Protest on The Washington Mall: 43% said Sarah Palin was their favorite, 42% said Dr.Ron Paul was their favorite.
Ryan| 2.14.11 @ 8:25AM
What this is, is a cry for leadership. We're pining for a Reagan - who held many of these parts together effectively.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.14.11 @ 8:43AM
Ron Paul simply could not lead a thirsty horse TO the water, much less convince him to drink.
Some people are just not leaders.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 9:21AM
"When the Republicans retook the U.S. House of Representatives last November, it meant that Ron Paul would be in line to chair the subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve System. Despite the intense lobbying by Ben Bernanke and others who loathed the prospect of Rep. Paul being able to subpoena them to appear before Congress and then to ask them pointed questions about their secret operations, the Republican leadership still gave Rep. Paul his rightful position.
We can expect much, much more of this, and not just from Paul Krugman. Ben Bernanke has lots of friends in the media, and one can be sure that Bernanke will be the source of "anonymous" quotes that will denigrate Dr. Paul’s character and his understanding of money and the economy. For that matter, Bernanke was the chair of the economics department at Princeton when the university hired Krugman, so one can be sure that Krugman has Bernanke’s back.
Furthermore, one can bet that much of the banking and monetary establishment is going to try to destroy Dr. Paul’s character over the next two years, and given that the Washington media really does not care about facts and certainly not the truth, one can bet that every false rumor about Ron Paul will be bandied about by the mainstream media."
Sean| 2.14.11 @ 10:21AM
No one can lead an old liberal like Ken into following someone that believes in upholding the Constitution. Ron Paul is the modern day George Washington and people like Ken are the Bennedict Arnolds. Ready to sell this country out for the interest of foreign states.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.14.11 @ 12:20PM
God bless you, Sean.
From you that is the ultimate compliment. Thank you.
Heh, twerp, I was upholding the constitution...world wide...when you were still having your diaper changed by your mommie.
Man up, buy some beans and a gun, and tell us when your allowance has accomplished that.
Red Phillips | 2.14.11 @ 6:03PM
Ken, if you were "world wide" then you weren't upholdiong the Constitution. The US Constitution can only be upheld in the US. Go figure.
Sean| 2.14.11 @ 7:30PM
Exactly. People like Ken wouldn't dare hold their elected officials to the written word of the US Constitution. Instead they think the biggest threat to the US is outside countries. The biggest threat we face is our own reckless spending and government here at home.
William R| 2.14.11 @ 8:51AM
YAF damn well knew Ron Paul's foreign policy views before they put him on the Board. This move was nothing more than sour grapes on their part and makes them look like spoiled punk kids.
William R| 2.14.11 @ 8:51AM
YAF damn well knew Ron Paul's foreign policy views before they put him on the Board. This move was nothing more than sour grapes on their part and makes them look like spoiled punk kids.
Melvin| 2.14.11 @ 8:57AM
I guess I could say in defense of Ron, he does have some good fiscal ideas, even though they're not part of what we call mainstream.
Unfortunately, National Defense is not one of Ron's strongest suits. I'm still analyzing his reasoning with that topic.
Another, is that some of Ron's supporters are card carrying Anarchists, either through design or planted. This plays right into the Left's hands, because on this one they're correct, Ron's out on a fringe.
I guess it is human nature to pick all the bad attributes before they pick the good ones, but Ron does have some good ideas, but I don't think Ron would be a very good vehicle to propel them.
Maybe Rand will pick up where Dad couldn't go, and be more Conservatively realistic.
martin j smith| 2.14.11 @ 9:57AM
Let me be as clear and blunt as possible, --I dislike Paul's concept of national security and defense policy as much as I dislike Obama's . So if by some fluke Ron Paul was the nominee--I would not vote period. It would in my view be two Obama's --so if there is any desire to be President of the entire United States. The Paul's had better not emulate Obama. Be an American president who stands up for this country and for Democracy world wide.
And for those whpo are really ignorant this does not mean interveneing in every single situation --what it does mean is: Speak reasonably but carry a big stick. It means vocalize support for freedom fighters ( real ones not the phoney
baloney BS the LEFT supports ) And, NO MORE APOLOGIZING FOR OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!
Oh yeah, one more thing: support your allies.
Dustoff| 2.14.11 @ 10:13AM
Until RP drops the 9/11 truther and stop going on the nutty radio show backing up the 911 truthers.
He hasn't got s chance. and the dem's would tear him apart over it!
Citizen Jerry| 2.14.11 @ 10:30AM
Kind of odd how Ron Paul wins the CPAC straw poll every year, but never gets any traction.
He may have some good ideas but his foreign policy is hopelessly naive. And he yells more than Billy Mays ever did.
V8| 2.14.11 @ 11:05AM
Not surprisingly, Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at CPAC, with his Campaign for Liberty having paid for young supporters to come to the conference to vote for him.
Not really odd at all Jerry. Especially when you consider how many people actually voted at the straw poll.
Bob Miller| 2.14.11 @ 11:23AM
It's very important to some people hide the less savory parts of Paulism from voters. Rand is way better at this than Ron, but so what?
OLDRAY| 2.14.11 @ 12:56PM
As one who was present at a Ron Paul (Presidential campaign rally) in Veteran's Park , Manchester, NH. I can verify that he turned more Republicans into Democrats than anybody Campaigning here in recent decades. The young Paulists behavior can only be described as that of entranced screwballs. Their signs , clothing, catcalling and general behavior was a warning that their leader had to be a bit off the wall also. Father and son may attract a crew of devoted Paulists, but they are a potential disaster for the Right.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 2:46PM
"Politico ran an exit poll at the massive tax day protest on the Washington Mall and found that about 43% said Sarah Palin was their favorite & 42% said Dr. Ron Paul was their favorite.
simon templar| 2.14.11 @ 1:11PM
Apparently 11,ooo attended and only 3,000 actually voted in this straw poll. It is not representing anything. Also, it has been reported that the Rand Paul delegation was in full swing, loud, abrasive, and intolerant. I think it needs to be pointed out that this brand of libertarianism is NOT representative of liberataranism or conservative libertarian thought but is only one version of it. It's odd how some people who essentially hold 95 percent of their values and belief structure in the liberal progressive camp of thinking but still consider themselves conservatives and have the arrogance and self absorption to show up at a national annual conference called CPAC. We really need to ask ourselves what is conservativism? Hopefully, the answer will be something that is rooted in fact, history, logic, consistency, and political analysis. It seems we live in a age that dispenses with all of these and it is rather "anything goes" and what ever you like to call yourself.
Joe Oliva| 2.14.11 @ 1:34PM
It seems absolutely amazing that the two potential candidates most removed from the GOP elites, Sarah Palin & Ron Paul, are the ones you guys keep saying can't win. The liberal media will give you Mitt Romney as a candidate because its his turn. What a joke!
If we are going to restore this nation back to Constitutional Self Government, we are going to have to do something other than the same old same old. Another lesser of two evils candidate is a total waste.
If you want your kids to grow up in freedom, then you had best start thinking differently. We cannot reclaim our stolen inheritance with another elite GOP candidate!
Bob Miller| 2.14.11 @ 3:09PM
It takes more than just being non-elite. I'd gladly vote for Palin or some others.
J. Moses Browning| 2.14.11 @ 3:42PM
I don't believe YAF had to be so rude. The raison d'etre for an advisory board is that its members have no fiduciary responsibilities, and no rights. They are one step above "letter signers" in the nonprofit heirarchy. All they needed to do was drop The Ron Paul from their letterhead and publications.
Liberty| 2.14.11 @ 3:43PM
Palin will NEVER beat Obama.
If you want Obama out of the White House we HAVE to go with Ron Paul.
Obama only won the last election because he got the independent vote- it was anyone other than McCain/Palin. Paul is the only Republican who can get the Independent/Democrat vote. Romney/Mitchell/any of the the others will NOT beat Obama. Paul is our ONLY chance.
Think about it- he has the most devoted following for a reason. Look at what the internet did for the Egyptians, and what it has done and will continue to do for Paul.
Reconsider what you think you know about Paul and do your research. If you care about the future of our country and the global economy, and you want Obama OUT of the White House, we have to get the media to stop downplaying Ron Paul!
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 3:45PM
Paul = unelectable.
Period.
Get used to the idea. He's NOT going to be the nominee.
If that means you pick up your toys and go home to sulk, so be it.
Liberty| 2.14.11 @ 3:47PM
Isn't that what everyone said about Obama? That he was unelectable? Paul is more electable than any other Republican candidate.
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 4:00PM
No.
Obama's election should NOT have been a surprise.
1. It was not the GOP's year due to Bush-fatigue and eight years of the GOP in the WH.
2. Obama was young, handsome, articulate, and yes...Black. He allowed white liberals to feel really good about themselves while voting for someone they knew nothing about.
3. He wasn't a Clinton, and many in the Democrat Party were quite happy to keep the Clintons out of the White House, again.
4. Obama ran as a centrist; he led many to believe that he was even somewhat Conservative. In short...he lied.
5. Dem's had already seized the initiative for Obama's victory by seizing House and Senate in '06, and they were better organized and better prepared.
So, let's summarize...
Dem's year + Centrist candidate + Historical appeal = Easy win for Obama.
How, exactly, will the stars align for Ron Paul?
Liberty| 2.14.11 @ 4:14PM
If McCain didn't run with Palin, he would have had it. I, and many other independents, only voted for Obama because it wasn't Palin.
How will the stars not align for Paul? Look at all the support he has despite being sh!t on by the media. Paul has always been way ahead of everyone else in his views on the economy. Just today I saw that South Carolina wants to institute its own currency and do away with the federal reserve- as Paul has been saying for years. If you look at what the internet did for Egypt, it did and will continue to do the same for Paul.
You want Obama out? Paul is your only shot.
Doctor Right| 2.15.11 @ 10:02AM
If you voted for Obama because you didn't like Palin, you are TRULY an idiot. Please stop voting.
Liberty| 2.15.11 @ 11:46AM
IF you discount Paul without knowing anything about him, and are pro Palin without knowing the facts, YOU are the idiot.
Palin will never win. Period.
skip| 2.14.11 @ 6:02PM
Obama's election should be considered shocking at any point between the election and the present.
1. Obama has no actual real world experience, his adult life spent in a circle of liberal theoreticians lacking real world experience.
2. Obama was the most liberal senator, in a senate that included Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Durbin, Boxer, Reid, among others.
3. Obama sat in sermons by Jeremiah Wright for twenty years.
4. Obama came out of Chicago politics, which out corrupts even D.C.
5. Obama commited several significant campaign gaffs.
6. Obama stated the Constitution was flawed.
So let's summarize...
Even in a Dem year it is shocking Obama could win election as president of the United States.
How, exactly, can anyone truly understand the magnitude of such an unhonest unintellgent candidate winning election?
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 3:44PM
Ron Paul's young, rabid, and enchanted supporters have a lot in common with the kids who lined-up to support Obama in 2008.
Sure, they come from opposite ends of the political spectrum, but both groups are embracing a cult of personality rather than a candidate.
Paul is NOT electable. His domestic policies make sense, but his foreign policy is horrible. And anyone, Conservative or otherwise, who does NOT understand that the USA needs to INCREASE defense spending at this critical juncture in our nation's history as opposed to cutting it is NOT fit to be President.
There are literally hundreds of billions of useless social programs that could be completely eliminated before we even approached the subject of cutting defense-spending.
This decade is looking a lot like the 70's, when a succession of Presidents allowed the defense infrastructure to dwindle while our enemy was engaged in am massive build-up.
The enemy now is Radical Islam, and China (yes - China!). The Red Chinese view us as their future adversaries (as well as useful idiots).
Cutting defense spending now is a DANGEROUS idea. If Paul supports it, he's a fool.
Liberty| 2.14.11 @ 3:48PM
I think you need to do more research into what Paul has said about defense vs. military spending.
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 3:52PM
OK. Enlighten me, then.
Does he support a 600-ship Navy, as did Ronald Reagan?
Does he support building more aircraft carriers to project American power overseas?
Will he defend our ally, Taiwan?
Does he support increasing our purchase of F-22 fighters? The original order was for 600 planes; it's been reduced to 190. The rest of the AF's fighter fleet is 30+ years old, and the Chinese and Russians are modernizing fast.
Does he support engagement, or withdrawal from the Middle east? If withdrawal, does he support a wide-spread plan to drill for oil and NG home?
Does he support the idea of de-stabilizing anti-American, undemocratic dictators in South and Latin America, as did Ronald Reagan?
Answers, please...
Liberty| 2.14.11 @ 4:05PM
Are you really so quick to discount Paul without knowing how he stands on any of these issues? How do Palin and Romney stand on these issues? Do you even know?
On energy and oil-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul284.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/200....._+_Oil.htm
Why is up to us to defend Taiwan? And Israel? Who is defending us?
Red Phillips | 2.14.11 @ 4:14PM
Doctor Right, I know you didn't ask me, but I can't resist. No he doesn't support those things.
Dude, you are living in the 80's with no sense of irony. The Navy doesn't even support a 600 ship Navy. No one has supported a 600 ship Navy for decades.
The order for F-22 fighters has been cut because they are obnoxiously expensive and the whole program has been plagued by cost overruns.
Ron Paul supports cuts in defense spending because we have way more defense than we need and we are not focused on actual defense of the American homeland, but on policing the globe. He would particularly want to cut the defense buget with regard to our overseas bases and commitments. I don't know what he thinks about any particular weapons system per se.
He is clearly on the record as supporting disengagement from the Middle East.
Do you honestly think China and/or Russia is poised to invade us if we back off a 600 ship Navy? The Cold War is over. Join us in 2011.
Doctor Right| 2.15.11 @ 10:06AM
You're a deluded fool.
That's really the best I can say. Your knowledge of the world geo-political situation is severely lacking.
China WILL invade Tiawan with the next 20 years. They will attempt to bring South Korea and Japan into their orbit. All 3 countries are staunch and critical allies. Do you deny this?
Or do you prefer Ron Paul's idiotic, ostrich philosophy?
I won't "join you in 2011", because I I did, the USA won't survive to 2050.
You Paulies are dangerous and deluded, and your isolationist attitudes are unbelievably naive.
Liberty| 2.15.11 @ 11:47AM
Why are you so concerned about Taiwan? What about us? What about our crumbling economy?
Liberty| 2.15.11 @ 11:50AM
isolation /= nonintervention
Red Phillips | 2.15.11 @ 9:21PM
"China WILL invade Tiawan with the next 20 years. They will attempt to bring South Korea and Japan into their orbit."
First of all, you do not know this. You have no crystal ball. Putting will in all caps doesn't make it so. Second, I didn't ask you about Taiwan, South Korea or Japan. I asked you if China was poised to invade the US? The purpose of the US military, manned by US citizens (in most cases) and payed for by US taxpayers, is to protect America, not Taiwan.
Now go Google 600 ship Navy. No one has supported such for more than two decades. But I'm the "naive" "deluded fool" whose "knowledge of the world geo-political situation is severely lacking." Whatever buddy.
Repeating fearmongering alarmist interventionist rhetoric is not "knowledge of the world geo-political situation."
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 4:15PM
Ronald Reagan:
“During my 1980 campaign, I called federal waste and fraud a national scandal. We knew we could never rebuild America’s strength without first controlling the exploding cost of defense programs, and we’re doing it. When we took office in 1981, costs had been escalating at an annual rate of 14 percent. Then we began our reforms. And in the last two years, cost increases have fallen to less than 1 percent. We’ve made huge savings. Each F-18 fighter costs nearly $4 million less today than in 1981. One of our air-to-air missiles costs barely half as much.
Getting control of the defense bureaucracy is no small task. Each year the Defense Department signs hundreds of thousands of contracts. So yes, a horror story will sometimes turn up despite our best efforts. That’s why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of the Defense Department. And virtually every case of fraud or abuse has been uncovered by our Defense Department, our Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger should be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning the skeletons out of the closet. As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our Armed Forces with faulty equipment, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
Red Phillips | 2.14.11 @ 4:22PM
I bothered to answer Doctor Right below, before I had a chance to read his other "contributions" to this debate. Clearly DR knows what Ron Paul stands for and is obviously opposed to him for this reason. His attempts to seek clarifications about where Ron Paul stands are disingenuous. He is a provocateur.
Doctor Right| 2.14.11 @ 3:53PM
Also, is he still running around blaming America for 9/11? And don't tell me he didn't say that, because I heard him with my own ears.
Liberty| 2.14.11 @ 4:09PM
He never blamed America for 9/11! Does everyone really discount Paul on these false assumptions and media bias?
:58 sec video, in his own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k
Doctor Right| 2.15.11 @ 10:07AM
Yes, he did. Don't tell me I didn't hear it, because I WAS THERE. I heard him. He was booed.
Liberty| 2.15.11 @ 11:48AM
He never blamed America for 9/11.
Go back and listen again.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 4:19PM
" Michael Scheuer, who was the head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Alec Station, and authored the books Through Our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris, said “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”
Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul’s statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was “delighted” that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement."
Citizen Jerry| 2.14.11 @ 6:19PM
Sorry, but "because we're over there" is no reason at all. If we turned our back on Israel and it were destroyed by Iran, we'd be next. The Islamic World wants a worldwide caliphate governed by sharia -- and throughout history, Islam has been spread by the sword.
We're at peril until we understand that.
Liberty| 2.14.11 @ 7:16PM
Ron Paul and Israel-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block88.html
Sean | 2.14.11 @ 7:37PM
Iran could not destroy us. Grow a pair. Islam has had no military power since the decay of the Ottomans. The only way they can take over countries now is through immigration and your enocons are all for that.
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 8:36PM
Sorry,The United States has No Defense Treaty with Israel.
Aaaand We Ain't Gonna Be Next.
The U.S. Military has about 48,000 Troops still in Iraq & 100,000 in Afghanistan.U.S.forces control The Persian Gulf and have Bases in The U.A E ,Bahrain,Oman & Kuwait.
Red Phillips | 2.14.11 @ 10:04PM
"If we turned our back on Israel and it were destroyed by Iran, we'd be next."
This is the kind of boilerplate that drives me nuts. Please explain to me how we would be next. Explain to me a plausible scenario whereby we would be "destroyed" "next." Does Iran have a navy to speak of? Do they have ICBMs? Do they have transatlantic air force capabilities? Please enlighten me.
skip| 2.16.11 @ 12:42AM
I still get a chuckle out of the news story last year where Iran successfully launched a rocket. The video footage reminded me of those toy rockets kids launch on football fields. Or 'Lost In Space' special effects. I think 2 3/4" mortar fireworks you see on the 4th of July have more bang for the buck. That Iranian rocket was in space for 8 hours or something like that before falling to earth. Not bad for a 7th century AD society though.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.14.11 @ 7:37PM
I just love the anti-Israelis on this forum.
They serve to remind me of stuuuuuuupidity!
I'm a gentile-Christian.
I sent Israel a hundred dollars each of the last twenty years.
I hope they use those dollars wisely.
Liberty| 2.14.11 @ 7:47PM
Just because some people believe Israel is capable of taking care of itself does not make them "anti-Israeli."
If there is any stuuuuuuuuuuuupidity, it is you, believing that your money is actually being used wisely!
Clint| 2.14.11 @ 8:42PM
Time to cut Confiscated American Taxpayers' Money to Foreign Aid Welfare Parasites around the globe & let these countries citizens pay for their own defense & other programs.
Aaaand, Kenny,The Israel Firster is free to take over with his own Private Foreign Aid Program to Israel.
Frank Brady | 2.16.11 @ 2:01PM
Actually, "Old Texan," you and everyone else in the U.S. has sent Israel a lot more than $100 over the last twenty years. The Israeli's used those dollars to help lie us into war, spy upon us, and sell stolen secrets to China, among others.
bill henderson| 2.14.11 @ 11:51PM
You write like you are employed by the old, tired, boring, gutless big government Republican establishment. You can't find it in yourself to give Ron Paul the praise he deserves for getting conservatives this far. Most of the Republicans who want to run for President will loose because they provide no clear difference to the candidate of the left. Ron Paul will provide the opportunity to debate the real issues and he can hold himself against anything the Democrat party can put forth ....especially Obama. Ron Paul is real and a very decent man who understands that this country can only win itself back by going back to small govt, ridding our country of the empire and firing the worst creature---the gangsters who own the Federal Reserve. The trouble is that writers like you have a hard time giving credit where credit is due because your jobs are more insulated with the current state of affairs: big government, wars , and inflation and a society and culture that is declining.
john dubose| 2.15.11 @ 10:08AM
The supporters of Ron Paul mostly fail to see one overwhelming fact. It takes more than being virtuous and right to be president. Ron Paul just rubs a lot of people the wrong way. A man with his level of wisdom and integrity can find a way to show it. The way to do that is to get behind the one potential candidate who is both serious about restraining the Federal Government and has the executive experience and temperment to back it up. Former Governor Gary Johnson
Liberty| 2.15.11 @ 11:48AM
Back up Gary Johnson all you want, he will NEVER beat Obama.
Red Phillips | 2.15.11 @ 1:25PM
Gary Johnson is HORRIBLE on immigration and is not rhetorically pro-life. He can not hold together Ron Paul's unique Libertarian/Hard Right coalition.
Timely Renewed | 2.15.11 @ 2:06PM
I would hope that there is one common ground that conservatives can all agree on "conserving" -- the Constitution. Everyone one of the "camps" has its strong and weak points constitutionally. For example:
Libertarians remind us that the Constitution provides for a much more limited federal government. However, libertarians too often press beyond the original meaning of the 14th amendment (no governmental race discrimination) to unacceptably achieve social issues like court-mandated gay marriage.
Neocons remind us that national defense is actually one of the legitimate federal responsibilities under the Constitution and that danger does not end at our ocean shores. However, they too often abet the unconstitutional expansion of executive power to achieve their national security aims.
Social conservatives remind us that social issues are in the states' domain and not the federal government’s. However, too often their zeal to press their ultimate moral claims obscures the constitutional federalism argument which could carry even those who are ambivalent about the moral views, and which would serve the interests of all conservatives who are trying to cut back the federal government.
I am not saying that there are not significant policy differences between the different flavors of conservatives. Rather I am urging that the common enemy of overweening federal government should be the priority now and that restoring our original constitutional government is a platform which will advance many conservatives' goals without fundamentally undermining any of their principles. After we have restored some semblance of constitutional government is when we can turn to sorting out (mostly at the state level) some of our remaining differences. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
john dubose| 2.15.11 @ 4:12PM
The thrust of my statement is that Ron Paul ( right on guy that he is ) has the WRONG temperment to get elected and serve as president.
Gary Johnson can handle the smoozing experience and management issues. And his views are close enough to those of Ron Paul on the most important ( at least to me ) issues of really cutting spending and dialing back our unsustainable overseas military and other committments. In the real world, one takes what is possible. Ron Paul is NOT possible. Gary Johnson is.
Liberty| 2.15.11 @ 4:56PM
MAYBE compared to Paul, Johnson is more electable, but think seriously here. Johnson will never beat Obama. The only way to beat Obama is to steal votes from him, and the only person who can do that is Paul.
Why does Paul have the wrong temperment? Is it because he tells the truth? Don't you think the American public is sick of being lied to? Aren't you sick of being lied to? If you put another Republican in who is just like the rest, you will never redeem yourselves.
Frank Brady | 2.16.11 @ 1:51PM
An Open Letter to the Speaker of the House:
The United States government has entered a period of grave danger, one that appears to be invisible to you and to many others in Washington. I say, “appears to be” advisedly because it is impossible to believe that the political establishment is really so obtuse as to be unaware of the catastrophe toward which it is rushing.
Polls repeatedly show that the American people have lost confidence in government at virtually all levels. The blatant falseness of Washington’s bipartisan blizzard of lies has become obvious even to the apolitical. Loss of confidence in a polity by the population at large is almost always a precursor to national collapse.
Despite this, the professional politicians and bureaucrats of both parties continue to spew out misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies to deceive the public about such things as (in no particular order):
o The actual unemployment rate
o The true inflation rate
o The deliberate destruction of the U.S. currency and the American economy
o The true size and scope of the financial and monetary meltdown
o The size, scope and purpose of stock market manipulation by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve
o The true financial status of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Federal Reserve
o The gigantic police state and unconstitutional legal foundation to support it that has been put in place using the stupidly-contrived “war on terror” (among other things) as a pretext
o The continued prosecution of illegal and completely unjustifiable overt wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq
o Covert wars in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere
o The insane and completely unconstitutional growth of federal spending and the concomitant growth of federal power which that spending supports
This is only a partial list but it is long enough to illustrate the point.
Responsibility for this state of affairs rests squarely on the shoulders of the last several generations of Americans, including my own. Events suggest that our nation has either already reached or is very near a tipping point, beyond which it will be impossible for any force on earth to avert financial, political, and social disintegration.
Albert Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Like so many others, I’ve wasted a great deal of time over the years writing letters to you and to other politicians to no avail. No matter what happens to the “Tea Party” movement in the near term (the real one, not the co-opted edition), its rise is but one sign that many of us are no longer content to write pleading letters to politicians, fruitlessly begging them to do that which they have sworn to do.
The American people must now organize themselves, not for revolution, but to prepare for the unpredictable but potentially unpleasant consequence of the central government’s inevitable collapse. Revolution is unnecessary in any case. The entire rotten structure is imploding, falling in upon itself beneath its own corrupt weight. Remember how quickly and easily the Soviet Union fell? It is much later than you think.
Red Phillips | 2.16.11 @ 3:16PM
Wow Frank. This is good stuff. Can I cut and paste this to my blog?
I tend to agree with you and have for some time. The Cent Gov is most likely not going to implode because of state and individual resistance so much as it is going to collapse under its own dead weight, and the states and the people will be left to pick up the pieces.
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 4:10AM
On the same day Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll of the nation's largest gathering of conservative activists, one of the nation's oldest conservative-libertarian activist groups kicked him off their national advisory board. Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) announced it had severed ties with the twelve-term Texas congressman, who had been on the advisory board for over two decades, over what it described as his "delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement."
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 3:45AM
is good
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 5:11PM
No one can lead an old liberal like Ken into following someone that believes in upholding the Constitution. Ron Paul is the modern day George Washington and people like Ken are the Bennedict Arnolds. Ready to sell this country out for the interest of foreign states.