The American Spectator

john dubose| 8.23.11 @ 6:38AM

Old time guilt by association.. A big movement like that of Ron Paul is bound to attract some unpleasant actors. Same thing with books and people. There is a little bad in the good and a little good in the bad. What we need is wisdom to know when to jump into foreign conflicts and on which side. Ron Paul has it closer to right than this guy.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 8:47AM

This essay is the Neoconservative attempt to rewrite the true history of what has been going on in this country. It uses the leftwing tactics of their Trotskyite founders to smear and lie about the motives of the opposition.

Non intervention is the historical foreign policy of this country. It was a policy espoused by both conservative main street Republicans and Jeffersonian Democrats. Some of these people from both sides of the aisle are Grover Cleveland, William Jennings Bryan, Robert M. Lafollette, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Robert Taft, Everett Dirksen, Hiram Johnson, Jack Garner Joseph Kennedy and many many more. The country has gone from a peaceful Republic which minded it's own business and was the richest and freest country in the world to a bankrupt shell of itself.

It is a worldwide busybody telling the world what to do and has made the USA hated and heading for disaster. The Constitution has been shredded and Americans have been taxed to death. Now we are just supposed shut up and listen our betters on Wall street and in Washington. I say the Hell with that. Send them a Message. Vote Ron Paul for President for peacean prosperity. He is the soldiers best friend.

Ryan| 8.23.11 @ 9:37AM

It seems pretty obvious you didn't read this article or perhaps the above comment is superb parody using the ideas of the article.

Well done if it's the latter.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 9:51AM

That's what I love about you zombies . You never can make a rational argument.

PeteS| 8.23.11 @ 10:11AM

Is there any pre-existing protocol for zombies calling other people zombies...?

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 10:54AM

When an acolyte of Ron Paul accuses someone else of being a zombie...Now THAT'S funny!!!

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:11PM

Jeffery Lord:

My hat is off to you, sir. Taking the slings and arrows of outrageous free living self fertilizing hermaphroditic 302 neuroned nematodes is IMPRESSIVE!

Cosmo| 8.24.11 @ 3:19AM

I don't like Ron Paul, but this article sucks..

Marian| 12.7.11 @ 12:14PM

Its the zombies with a brain that will dominate future America. Lead, don't follow, or we're all doomed. Vote for the only zombie with a brain, vote Ron Paul 2012! All other candidates will be eaten alive. Goooooo Israel :)

Ryan| 8.23.11 @ 10:21AM

The above is NOT the usual Ryan who posts on this board. That would be me.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 10:28AM

It is dispicablethe way the zoombies steal names around here.

Bill30097| 8.23.11 @ 10:49AM

And they are such children in calling a name back. The zombies calling those who point out they act like zombies the name zombies is so childish. They have nothing to refute Jack's brilliant post. Paulbot cultists = loser zombies

Dan Hirsch| 8.23.11 @ 12:19PM

Did not!

Bruce| 8.23.11 @ 1:31PM

lol. Did too!

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:25PM

Dear Dan and Bruce:

Eh, Whot? Why are my brains trickling down the side of my head? Oh, I know, I'm a Paulbot and a butterfly just kicked me in the side of the head!

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:26PM

I don't. It is despicable how some people support child rape around here.

seanstr| 8.23.11 @ 4:06PM

Why did I picture Sylvester the cat when I read Jack in Wi.'s redition of 'dispicable'?

irish19| 8.23.11 @ 10:16PM

LOL!

Tom| 11.26.11 @ 10:35AM

Last I checked, "Ryan" is a pretty common name, often given at birth. Not exactly a zombie-stole-it type of name. If your name was actually unique, your accusation might have merit.

Now then, this is a load of tripe. The author fails to understand that not all conservatives take all the same positions on all the same topics. Mr. Paul is very much a Libertarian when considering Federal authority. He is very much on the Right when considering Economic freedom (the right being for such freedom). He is personally Socially conservative but, as part of his Libertarian views on authority, is against forcing such views on everyone. On foreign policy, he's decidedly anti-war since, as is easily quoted, "War is the health of the State".

In reality, he's the only guy with any real support that wants to protect YOUR rights above and beyond convenience. Unlike his opponents, he recognizes that the PATRIOT Act, regardless of its constitutionality, infringes on your right to privacy and fair trial. He also recognizes that giving the President power to assassinate specific American citizens is a very dangerous precedent to set. In fact, it's already been abused. Instead of even trying to apprehend Anwar al-Awlaki or his 16-year-old Colorado-born son, he ordered the assassinations of both accused terrorists.

I'll go along with his foreign policy since he reaped more donations from US military personnel than any of his competitors or even President Obama. Further, he's spoke about these views for his entire political career so I think it unlikely he'll renege on them like past candidates have.

winoceros| 12.16.11 @ 2:11PM

Please provide source of your assertion that "he reaped more donations from US military personnel than any of his competitors."

Since only donations over a certain amount require that a person's occupation be listed, and since military personnel frequently leave the service and move onto other careers, I do not believe this claim.

bruce| 1.7.12 @ 12:40AM

http://www.politifact.com/texa.....-him-far-/

Trevor| 2.8.12 @ 1:38PM

Hey Tom, thanks for sharing on here. What a blatant smear campaign by Mr. Lord. It seems Mr. Lord is in the business of doing just this, as his colleague has point out here: http://spectator.org/blog/2012.....ds-absurd.

Tom, could I use some of your post here for future use?

Anyways in regards to the article itself, just because Paul’s stance on foreign policy isn’t held by most ‘conservatives’ at the time, this doesn’t mean that Paul is from the far-left (or what Mr. Lord calls a neoliberal). Just because the current ‘conservatives’ in political office tout that we need to be in every single country and be interventionalists, doesn’t mean that we have to be in every country and be interventionalists.

Consider the following sentence: “What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.” Whoever did make the following statement, it can be applied to Paul’s stance and simply means that Paul is not going to follow what is being touted as what ‘conservatives’ have to have on the issue. Paul is simply holding this position because 1) the undeclared wars are simply that, undeclared; 2) our constitution says that our federal government is to provide for a common defense, not necessarily an interventionalist view of occupying other countries (our congress, though, does have the rightful power to declare war in which would most likely mean a temporary occupation with the goal of doing the job that was originally sanctioned by congress…the focus on temporary); and 3) lastly, Paul understands that our undeclared wars and our military spread over the world is costing us too much money, money (in other words, debt) this country can’t continue to afford.

We need a different approach to his and abiding to the constitution is one way to correct our foreign policy as well as get this country’s debt crisis in check.

Jim Talent wrote a good document regarding the Constitution and the government’s role for the defense of the nation: “A Constitutional Basis for Defense” (06/01/10). Mr. Lord should consider reading this article as well as the article’s of the Constitution.

For those interested in exploring more regarding Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance instead of reading Mr. Lord’s clearly loves to use titles for those he disagrees with. Mr. Lord, good luck with all that.

And finally Mr. Lord, leave it to the Congress to declare wars and not the President. We don’t need a President who will wantonly go out and start wars.

P.S. Ron Paul isn’t an anti-Semite. He wants Israel to be sovereign from our interfering government to be able to protect itself. And clearly, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu believes Israel can defend itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51-KA-Nc3_k. Ben Stein, along with you (Mr. Lord) and many others, are either misled and/or simply vying to keep the military on other shores in order to keep those gaining the wealth that comes from our current militarism. If kept up, this country will find its end eventually, one factor or another.

Bill| 8.23.11 @ 2:37PM

What are the Trotskyite aspects of neoconservatism? That's an interesting issue, that neoconservatisms are Trotskyite in some way.

Do you understand Trotsky's views? Or are you just saying that neoconservatives are not progressives (actually, they probably are)? Or are you saying that neoconservatives believe in "permanent revolution?" I bet most neocons would disavow belief or desire for any such state of affairs.

Or are you simply taking the Stalinist definition of "trotskyite" as "saboteur?" If so, what is it that neocons sabotaged?

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 6:33PM

Trotsky was a founder of the Soviet Union and the head of the Red Army in the Revolution. He was a horrendous mass murderer. He was a radical even for the Bolshivicks. He wanted a worldwide Commuinst Revolution and he wanted it right now. Stalin, his rival for power, saw that the Revolution was too weak to export in as radical fashion as Trotsky wanted. They had a falling out an Trosky fled the USSR. He was eventully murdered in Mexico in 1940.

The neocons come from this dispicable milieu. They come from the intellectual and historical perspective of Trotsky. They have been fighting the Stalinists ever since. The Stalinists took over the peace movement in the 60's and took control of leftwing of the Democrat party. The Neocons founders. Normon Podhoretz and Irving Kristol first were asssociated with Hubert Humphry and later with Senator Henry Jackson in a more pro war branch of the Party. When that branch was oveerwhelmed by the more radical peaceniks. They moved over to the Republicans.Along the way they abandoned Trotsky's Communist Revolution and claimed to be for Democratic Revolution. The also returned to their Jewish roots and became firm and rabid Zionists. The moved in mass to Reagan in 1980 because Carter was trying to acually get Israel to settle up with the Palistinians.

Reagan gave them jobs , but rarely listened to them. When he did he usually got in huge trouble. The Iran Contra fiasco was their idea. It almost got Reagan impeached. Bush kept them on in jobs but like Reagan could care less about their opinions. He wanted a settlement in Palistine and refused to fund some settlements on the West Bank. His Secretary of State Baker was supposed to have said. F. the Jews they don't vote for us anyhow.

Well they made such a stink that Bush caved. None the less they moved in mass to Clinton. In 2000 most backed Gore. They made a deal with Bush to end the Florida recount and stabbed Gore in the Back. They got a lot of their old jobs back. Since 9/11 they have run our Middle East policy almost totally. In 2008 they moved over to Obama.Even though Mc Cain was their bosum buddy. He looked to be a sure loser. We are about to kick their keeesters back to the Democrats from which they spawned.

Quartermaster| 8.23.11 @ 6:40PM

I got the same impression as you did, contra Ryan. Sad that he has so little historical awareness that he doesn't realize that Lord has printed a fantasy, by and large.

Lincoln, the first president produced by a leftist party, was a leftist, pure and simple. He wrote a lot of garbage that the simpleminded thinks is so great, put pay little attention to how he conducted himself.

Lord, you need to trace the provenance of people like Reagan. I liked him, but he governed as a moderate Democrat of the FDR stripe. He never faced down Congress on their moonbattery, and ran up spending as much as any other POTUS.

A number of the people on your list are not conservatives. Horowitz, for example, started as a Trotskyite and has never been able to completely abandon the ideology. Same with many of the neocons you list (the term is a code for "da joooooooo" only among those who look for some easy way to label their opposition, much like the left yel;ling "raaaacist").

Bluntly, there is so much wrong with this article that it would take a column of equal length to dispose of the idiocy displayed here. I'm not a Paul fan, but I despise seeing someone make such a lame attempt to tear someone down like you are trying to tear down Paul.

Bluntly, I think any of you Neocons, particularly you Lord, have the slightest idea what the word "conservative" means. The Reps are not a conservative party and never have been. The Dems went left after the War of Northern Aggression so they could compete with the Reps.

Next time, show a bit more thought and less imagination. You might actually accomplish something other than show how your own mind drifts into la la land.

typical white woman | 8.24.11 @ 2:44AM

Thank you for saying what you did. It is late and I don't feel sufficiently alert to make a cogent argument. However, I find the article altogether a sham. There are many books I read in the past that could be considered suspicious. An educated person reads many different opinions, publications etc. I happen to like non-interventionist, I like Ron Paul, I agree with most of what he espouses. I believe he has integrity. I am an independent, conservative thinker, not anti-semitic but very leery of about 90% of American Jews' politics. Moreover, I don't like Bill Kristol with his smile of an evil Cheshire cat when he makes his warmongering statements. I bet he nor any of his neocon cohorts have family members who are in the military. As for Levin, I listen to him every so often, but I prefer his books to his rantings on the radio. Like Ron Paul I am getting a bit long in the tooth and I was around during WWII but not in the US. Since coming here in 1958 the country has changed for the worse and it didn't just start with Obama. From my viewpoint it started with LBJ. The article even smears David Horowitz who works so hard to bring about
conservative change. To repeat: a total sham and disappointing that the Spectator published it.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 10:12AM

THIS is from "Clint", our resident Paulista-Kook:

4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen ISRAEL FIRSTERS through AIPAC, their ubiquitous MEDIA SHILLS, and the men and women they OWN in the U.S. CONGRESS and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. ISRAEL-FIRSTERS to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

And THIS is from Mr. Lord's excellent article:

"It was a headlining investigation that had as its unmistakable context an investigation into the Jewish influence in Hollywood."

And...

"The too-cute-by-half cleverness in this current argument over the newest appearance of anti-Semitism as an anchor of Neoliberal philosophy is the use of the term "neoconservative" as a euphemism for "Jew."

"This comes in part because those who identified themselves with the term early-on, conservative intellectuals like Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol and son Bill Kristol, were or are themselves Jewish. This was discussed at length back in 2003 by Georgetown Government Professor Robert Lieber. Lieber described the accusation that, in essence, "the Jews" -- aka the "neocons" (or "the ISRAEL LOBBY")-- are running American foreign policy as "pure myth."

There's no need to expand on the obvious. But suffice to say, when a Paul supporter like Newark Star Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine repeatedly zeroes in on conservative talk radio host Mark Levin​, always dismissing the Jewish Mr. Levin as a neocon this or a neocon that, to these Protestant ears, fairly or unfairly Mulshine seems to be conjuring the ghosts of Ron Paul's favorite, John T. Flynn. Levin, for example, is targeted by Mulshine for "neocon nuttiness." The topic of Flynn's "Jews in Hollywood" speech written by Flynn and delivered by Gerald Nye​ that launched an anti-Jewish Senate witch hunt? "Our Madness Increases As Our Emergency Shrinks." And who caused that increasing madness? That's right: Jews. Jewish madness with Harry Warner and Darryl Zanuck yesterday, neocon nuttiness with Mark Levin today. The circle game goes round and round."

Eerie, isn't it?

(FYI, I added the caps to highlight the similarities)

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 10:35AM

You rabid Zionists are not all of Jewry. The majority of Jews in this country were against our intevention in Iraq. That is by polling. In fact they were the group with the most opposition .The vast majority of Jews that I know want nothing to do with the insane crackpot neoconservatives. Neocons are a small, part of the Jewish community. Their insanity should not be blamed on all Jews.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 10:55AM

"rabid Zionists"!!!

LOL!!!!

I've NEVER been called that before!

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 11:30AM

The only people I know who use the term "Jewry" are like Jack. Enough said.

Vern Crisler| 8.23.11 @ 11:40AM

I'm so glad someone at AmSpec finally has decided to read the Paulists out of conservatism, just as Buckley did with other extreme groups during his day. Bravo!

AngelaTC| 8.23.11 @ 1:14PM

Paul people, this is why we need to be active in the party. As for the rest of you, good luck winning future elections on your "at least we're better than Obama!!! platform." Like him or not, Ron Paul is the only candidate bringing young people back into the party. By the time the currently reigning brand finishes redefining conservatism, the elections will be between a liberal and a progressive.

Oh wait.....

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 1:21PM

Ron Paul is NOT a Conservative.

Infinite Spiral| 8.23.11 @ 1:44PM

What definition of "Conservative" are you applying? Is it the modern definition that supports actions taken by this country that would not be tolerated by us if they were taken by anyone else? Is it the modern definition that attempts to marginalize the significance of this country having a military presence across the entire globe? Is it the modern definition that pretends that it is anything other than imperialistic in its worship of the Military Industrial Complex? Or is it the definition that means "to conserve" the founding principles of this nation, the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and the meanings of the words themselves as expressed through numerous letters, speeches, and journals? Because if you're referring to the latter definition, YOU, sir, are NOT a Conservative.

Infinite Spiral| 8.23.11 @ 1:47PM

*

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 2:08PM

I am referring to the latter definition.

And unlike yourself and your fellow Paulista stooges, I understand that to defend those principles means more than chin-scratching and kvetching about "non-interventionism".

Liberty is not preserved through wishful thinking.

Our nation's security is NOT grounded in the best intentions of other nations, be they friend or especially foe.

The world outside of our borders is all too-often an ugly place governed by the use of force. THAT is reality.

It means that sometimes we have to make tough choices. It does NOT mean retreating inside our borders and pretending that's what the Constitution says we should do.

YOU, sir, are a useful idiot.

Mekt_Ranzz| 8.24.11 @ 12:18AM

Ah, I see. You're in favor of endless war.

A Balrog of Morgoth| 8.24.11 @ 10:24AM

War is a constant. There is always war. Add utopianism and day dreaming to the list of the Ron Paul movement's sins.

PaleoLibertarian| 8.24.11 @ 3:17AM

@Doctor Right?

I'm 60 years old. I was born in 1951. The United States as been constantly at war since the day I was born. In fact, except for roughly 5 years in the late 30's, the United States has been at war somewhere in the world since my 85 year old father was born (1925) and since my long dead grand father was born (1881), and he'd be 130 today.

Non-interventionism simply means neutrality. What's wrong with being neutral? If it's not our fight, why get involved? Libya, Yemen, Somilia, even Korea and Viet Nam come to mind here.

"Liberty is not preserved through wishful thinking."

True. It is also not preserved through endless failed warfare. Let's see: the failed and unconstitutional and throughly insane war on drugs, or the failed and unconstitutional and throughly insane war on poverty, or the failed and unconstitutional and throughly insane war on terror, or any other of the failed and unconstitutional and throughly insane wars on whatever our Federal Overlords decide to go to war on today. To continue to do the same things over and over again and expect a different result each time you do it, is the true definition of INSANITY!!

"The world outside of our borders is all too-often an ugly place governed by the use of force. THAT is reality."

Sir, The world INSIDE of our borders is all too-often an ugly place governed by the use of force. THAT is ALSO reality.

Have you noticed that all the wars this government has declared INSIDE this country are wars AGAINST the citizens of these united States? Acording to the great God FEDGOV, We the People ARE the greatest enemy of the United States. One of the problems with both the NeoCons and the Progressives is their profound hatred of the American people. Like all slave-mongers they tell us to "Shut up and do what you're told".

"It means that sometimes we have to make tough choices. It does NOT mean retreating inside our borders and pretending that's what the Constitution says we should do."

Global trade is NOT retreating inside our borders. Trade with all nations, war with none. That is one of the founding principals of our country. Given a choice between continuous warfare and global trade with all nations, I choose to trade.

"YOU, sir, are a useful idiot."

Look in a mirror, Dude.

Cpm| 9.18.11 @ 10:59PM

And he's not a Republican either.

Bruce| 8.23.11 @ 1:35PM

Are you kidding? Young conservative groups are sprouting up all on campuses everywhere. "You will be judged by the company you keep." All the quotes and videos are lies? I had some respect for Mr. Paul. But after seeing the Anti-Semite people and philosophies he keeps close to the vest no longer. He really isn't fit to govern.

Margie| 8.24.11 @ 2:33PM

Amen~ the new generation of young conservatives is awesome!
Wish more of them would post here!

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 1:20PM

Good point, RCV!

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 6:36PM

Jewry is a term like Catholicism or Protestantism. It just is an older word that well eduated people know.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:29PM

Dear RCV and Dr Right,

Hey, why do we need to "save Soviet Jewelry?" What's so special about Soviet Jewelry compared to French?

By the way, Dr Right---great job drooling. Dr Right Rabid is smarter than Clint and Jack sober.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 6:38PM

You are not kicking us out of the movement we are kicking you out. Your day is done.

irish19| 8.23.11 @ 10:21PM

What movement might that be?

Charles Martel| 8.24.11 @ 12:10AM

Well, there's conservatism, and there's Paulism. One has to believe certain things to be part of either. There is overlap, but not enough for Paul to win election.

And Ron Paul is old. If he were to be elected president, he would be only about half a year younger on the day of his inauguration than Reagan was on the day he *left* office.

He won't live forever. I expect that whoever succeeds him as leader of his "movement" will be far less subtle and even more easily discounted than the overtly anti-Semitic fanboys we encounter here and on Townhall.com.

Now, go on, Paulista, guess my religion. You guys are good: I can't imagine you'll be wrong.

+++

Mekt_Ranzz| 8.24.11 @ 12:21AM

"Now, go on, Paulista, guess my religion. You guys are good: I can't imagine you'll be wrong."

Uh, Satanism?

Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 2:12AM

It isn't anti semitism. It is the truth. Ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free. The ticket will be Ron Paul for President. Rand Paul for vice President. He will have a worthy successor if the Lord calls him to his heavenly reward.

Have you considered| 8.23.11 @ 10:18AM

john d, agree that Mr. Lord is trying to create guilt by association. He appears to be a staunch anti-Paulist, which is fine, but he fails to tie it into the words of the Constitution or our founders. This is the basis of Paul's non-interventionist posture.

Many conservatives appear to advocate for absolute world dominance, and the wish to dictate to all nations what they should be and do, but that is Not consistent with the Constitution or the vision of our founders.

This public conversation is long overdue IMHO, and I will provide some food for thought.

Lets look at Defense from the Constitutional perspective by first looking at a definition of the word.

As found in the dictionary:
de·fense
   /dɪˈfɛns or, especially for 7, 9, ˈdifɛns/ Show Spelled [dih-fens or, especially for 7, 9, dee-fens] Show IPA noun, verb, -fensed, -fens·ing.
noun
1.
resistance against attack; protection: Two more regiments are needed for the defense of the city.

Nowhere in the several dictionary definitions does it mention Offense, or preemptive defense. I will note that Nation Building is also not present.

The Article 1, Sec 8 Powers relating to DEFENSE
9) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
10) To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
11) To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
12) To provide and maintain a navy;
13) To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
14) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
15) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Nowhere do I see "attack foreign countries IF they may be judged to be a Possible threat"

Our founders created the constitution with the aim of creating profound peace, both domestic and foreign. They also advocated Peace Through Strength, hence the formation and maintaining a Navy. They stated that a United peoples acting through a single national government posed a much more formidable opponent, which would tend to suppress inclination for war from foreign governments. They also stated the reason they gave the power to declare war to the "most populace branch" (the House) is that the Whole Of America through their representatives was to be United in the need for war.

Here are some excerpts from John Jay in regards to war: (All emphasis in the original)

John Jay, Fed#3: ""The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and
injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the two latter, has, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to.It is of high importance to the peace of America that she
observe the laws of nations towards all these powers,""

John Jay, Fed#4: ""MY LAST paper assigned several reasons why the safety of the people would be best secured by union against the danger it may be exposed to by JUST causes of war given to other nations; and those reasons show that such causes would not only be more rarely given, but would also be more easily accommodated, by a national government than either by the State governments or the proposed little confederacies.But the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN force depends not only on their forbearing to give JUST causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war.It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it""

I think this part bears repeating:
""But the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN force depends not only on their forbearing to give JUST causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult""

You simply can not argue that our founders were pacifists, but you also can not argue that our founders were bent upon world dominance or conquest of foreign nations.

Do you believe the action in Libya was commenced under a JUST CAUSE of war as defined by John Jay? Did they violate a treaty or initiate violence against the United States? Did Iraq? Did Korea? Did Vietnam?

I happen to think that the Afghanistan war was JUST as it was in response to their allowing Bin Laden to use their lands as a platform for attack, but the subsequent nation building is unconstitutional.

Again, I just wanted to provide some food for thought, and I'm looking forward to reading your comments.

Rong| 8.23.11 @ 12:14PM

Thank you for a reed of rational discourse in a sea of over the top rhetoric.

AA| 8.23.11 @ 1:44PM

Thank you for that. Notice the lack of comments from all those who support foreign intervention/war.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 2:11PM

We didn't comment because we don't want to read long-winded posts.

Brevity, please. This isn't the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Have you considered| 8.23.11 @ 3:25PM

Dr. Right, your rudeness is not necessary.

If you choose not to snack on the proffered food for thought, that is just fine with me.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 5:17PM

"Dr. Right, your rudeness is not necessary."

Actually, when dealing with you Paulistas, it's SOP.

Have you considered| 8.23.11 @ 7:06PM

Yes, I can see that it is your standard operating procedure.

I try to never be rude.

It does hearten that the complaint is lack of brevity verses content, but it disheartens that excerpts, from the writings of our founders, are considered too lengthy to be palatable to some.

HeadNEast333| 8.23.11 @ 3:38PM

Don't have time for truth?

John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 4:36PM

HeadNEast333,

Consider the audience. Doctor Right was neither being rude nor dismissive. It is not for the reader to slavishly hang on the words of the writer, but rather for the writer to engage the reader. Brevity is the writer's friend. "Have you considered" did, somewhat dismissively, acknowledge the point although it was more a seven-course meal than a snack.

IndianaConservative| 8.23.11 @ 4:59PM

It literally took me a couple minutes to read that post. Not a good argument..

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 5:18PM

Yes.

That's why I ignore Ron Paul.

loulou| 8.23.11 @ 7:55PM

Thank you.
I don't bother reading the posts from the gasbags.

John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 4:41PM

AA,

Re: Jay #3. "The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence". You may note that the first treaty was negotiated after violence in the form or Barbary Pirate's attack on U.S. mercantile interests half a world away. How direct does direct need to be?

Charles Martel| 8.24.11 @ 12:13AM

And even Thomas Jefferson sent Marines to deal with that. But Paulistas are "more Catholic than the Pope", so why not diss Jefferson while they're at it?

+++

Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 2:16AM

You don't know what non intervention means. Jefferson was one of our founders who believed in mostly minding our own business and having a minimal military.

John Navratil| 8.24.11 @ 8:24AM

Jack in Wi.,

Which made some sense when you were half a world and a months sail from everyone else. We are not the tiny agrarian nation swimming in a huge continent any longer.

It was Jefferson who prosecuted the Barbary Pirates.

Infinite Spiral| 8.23.11 @ 2:39PM

Proof Positive that the right can hurl insults as well as the left. It's not enough to falsely accuse Ron Paul of being an "isolationist", they must also accuse anyone that actually knows the truth of his message as "crazy", "brainwashed", and "non conservative" - as if they know what "Conservative" means. What are you "conserving" if not the Constitution, original intent, and freedom? The true "non-conservatives" are those that attempt to justify imperial occupation of sovereign nations without a declaration of war - the last constitutional offensive actions took place shortly after 1941 when the last declaration of war was actually passed. Even the history of this report is inaccurate in its depictions of the founding fathers it chooses to mis-represent and those that it chooses to ignore because they don't support the militaristic nature of the current Republican Party.
You NEOCONs need to ask yourselves one question: "What would we do if ANYONE else in the world was doing what we're doing?" The answer is, we'd stop it! Why do we have some self-generated mandate that grants us the moral superiority to invade other countries against their will, direct how they will behave, and ignore legal boundaries? Unless you're going to use "Might makes Right" as your slogan, stop with the dishonest insults against those that don't believe in National Offense.
By the way, Ron Paul would support military operations being led by an actual Constitutional Declaration of War and would also support a strong National Defense. Stop mischaracterizing him as weak on defense or as an isolationist and actually do your research!

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:22PM

Barbary Pirates. we attacked and won. Correctly, to protect our trade. They were not an imminent threat to our shores, but they did interfere with our trade.

John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 3:58PM

Occam's Tool,

Not to mention capturing and enslaving people or holding them for ransom. It wasn't just a nuisance, tribute was a tremendous drain of the nascent country's treasury.

George S| 8.23.11 @ 3:35PM

And I look forward to commenting...

What does "declare war" mean? If defense means resistance to attack, as your dictionary dutifully informs us, then do we have to declare war before we commission a battleship as a means of defense?

Yes, the Constitution delegates to the Congress the power to declare war. But isn't declaration of war an offensive act and not a prerequisite for defensive actions?

But then again, I must have misread the Declaration of Independence.

Paleophlatus| 10.18.11 @ 11:58PM

Nation building in
Afghanistan? I'd call it more compensation for the damage done, and attempting to 'fill an obvious need'. Iraqui efforts had more nation building earmarks, however.
Would you also call the Marshall Plan of post WWII also nation building, or humanitarian need? Granted, there was no Constitutional authority. But, neither was there any prohibition to do 'good'.

Dai Alanye| 8.23.11 @ 1:32PM

It is instructive to consider what Ron Paul would have done at various times during American history.

Had Paul served instead of Jefferson the Louisiana Purchase would have been refused as unconstitutional.
If Paul had been president instead of Madison, New England would probably have been allowed to secede during the War of 1812.
Had it been Paul instead of Polk the 28th state (that would be Texas) wouldn't have been allowed to join the US. The Mexican War would have been avoided, so goodbye to the Southwest and the West Coast.
And the biggie: Had Ron Paul been elected in 1860 the South would have been allowed to secede at its leisure.
It goes without saying that Alaska would never have been purchased, nor Hawaii been acquired, not to mention Puerto Rico, Samoa, and so forth. Nor would the Panama Canal have been dug, the Interstate Highway System built, or the Wright Brothers been offered a contract by the Signal Corps. . .

So with Paulites in office at critical times, the USA would today consist of a dozen or so north-central states. Always assuming, of course, that a Paul-like member of the Continental Congress wouldn't have short-circuited the movement toward independence from Britain in the first place.

Jason| 8.24.11 @ 2:57AM

Most likely Jefferson before becoming president would of thought the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional. Jefferson, a great advocate of small government, nearly doubled the size of the U.S.

I think many people subscribe to a certain ideology, but when put in a position of power they will make rational decisions. Obviously Jefferson did, but your comment suggest Paul would just be irrational.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:13PM

MOSTLY unpleasanrt actors, Mr. Dubose. If you are an exception, great. But Mr. Lord was a White House Political Director for the Greatest President of the 20th Century. I think he's much closer to right than Paul.

WilliamR| 8.23.11 @ 5:21PM

Jeffery Lord is the epitome of a NeoCon chicken Hawk. He has no clue what a conservative is let alone a conservative foreign policy. He claims to have worked for Reagan, but in his memoirs Reagan wrote that the United States should be neutral in the Middle East.

And lets not forget Russell Kirk the father of modern conservatism. Methinks he's be calling Lord a NeoCon chicken hawk too if this speech he gave at the Heritage foundation twenty years ago is any indication.

http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html

Alan Brooks| 8.23.11 @ 8:27PM

Paul is another George-Wallace chronic campainer, Paul ran for POTUS in 1984; now there's a dedicated loser for you: 27 years went by yet Paul thinks the electorate will vote for an old f*rt such as him.

Paul hasn't got a prayer.

William R| 8.24.11 @ 12:44AM

Gawd, you're dumber than a load of bricks

Alan Brooks| 8.23.11 @ 8:29PM

Paul is another George-Wallace chronic campaigner, Paul ran for POTUS in 1984; now there's a dedicated loser for you: 27 years went by yet Paul thinks the electorate will vote for an old f*rt such as him.

Paul hasn't got a prayer.

Clint| 8.24.11 @ 6:00AM

Like ( Dr. Ron ) Paul, Reagan ran for President a couple of times before finally winning in 1980. In fact, when Ronald Reagan ran for the Republican nomination in 1976 he was opposed by the Republican leadership and was even considered a “kook” by many in the party. Sound familiar? At that time, only four Republican congressman supported Reagan and Ron Paul was one of them.

Bruce Majors| 12.6.11 @ 4:29PM

Exactly. What a fool Mr. Lord is.

Bruce Majors| 12.6.11 @ 4:29PM

Exactly. What a fool Mr. Lord is.

Mike Hawk| 8.23.11 @ 6:45AM

Ron Paul is an over the hill fringe Libertarian with a coterie of kooks following him, many the leftovers of Harry Brown. At 77 next year he is not going to be the candidate. He is not a conservative nor is he Tea PArty nor mainstream.

Blaine| 8.23.11 @ 7:12AM

You can't say that a coterie of people follow his candidacy at this point. That is a complete fallacy. He is the one who planted the seeds for the grass roots tea party, where have you been? His ideaology is a forgotten foil to the chickenhawks in our history. America is crumbling, our infrastructure is horrible. Yet, we need to spend more blood and treasure abroad? Are you okay with the epidemic of suicides within the ranks of the Army? The homeless veterans? Financially, and militarily, the status quo is breaking our country. The social conservatives, who you support, put on a tri cornered hat and ran to the front of the tea party parade. They are not of the tea party, especially Bachmann and Armey

JP| 8.23.11 @ 7:39AM

Our infrastructure may be crumbling, but it isn't for want of taxpayers money. In 2006, Bush signed the largest transportation bill in history (half a trillion dollars). Obama signed the largest domestic appropriations bill in history with the promise that its main use would be "infrastructure". The Stimulus cost the taxpayers $1 trillion once you had in interest. That is $1.5 trillion in 5 years - the sum total of both wars over a decade.

André| 8.23.11 @ 10:48AM

As a side note, the $1.5 trillion figure is misleading. Most of the war-related expenditures occur after fighting has ceased due to pensions and long-term healthcare expenses for veterans. Our current wars will end up costing us closer to $3-4 trillion in the coming decades.

Butch| 9.15.11 @ 11:39AM

@Blaine: Right on!

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 10:24AM

Dwight Eisenhower told Israel in 1956 to get the hell behind your own borders and stay there. JFK was strongly against Israel developing nuclear weapons. ronald Reagan wanted peace with the Soviets and wanted nothing to do with the Middle East after the disaster in Lebanon. He also wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Old Man Bush wanted a true and lasting peace in the middle East based on the 1967 borders. Ron Paul wants to return to the sanity of our Founders and have a traditional foreign policy of non intervention. They all must have been or are rabid anti semites.

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 11:31AM

Only one of them.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:14PM

Eisenhower regretted his decision. JFK was the Genius who lost us Cuba. Old Man Bush was an Arabist., but Ron Paul IS an antisemite. RR supported Israel taking out Osirak.

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 4:05PM

With all due respect, Occam:

(1) JFK most decidedly did not "lose" Cuba. Castro had already taken power when he was inaguarated, and the wizards who planned the ludicrous Bay of Pigs fiasco had already put it into motion. JFK's mistake was in giving the go ahead to the ill-conceived plan when he learned of it. And without JFK, we'd be facing missles in Cuba without the Kremlin's oversight (it's a sad state of affairs when Kruschev was the rational one, rejecting Castro's call to use the missles).

(2) The elder Bush was a smart and sage foreign policy strategist, in contrast to his utter ineptness on the domestic front. The coalition he put together for the first Gulf War was exactly what was needed to isolate Sadam Hussein, and he was smart enough to leave him, emasculated, without tipping the balance of power to Iran in the region, as his misguided son did.

John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 4:44PM

RCV,

Re (2): You failed to mention leaving a no-fly zone with U.S. enforcement and constant engagement of U.S. air power by the Iraqi's for the next twelve years.

Nick| 8.23.11 @ 5:59PM

RCV,

Re (1): It was because of President Kennedy's inept handling of the Bay of Pigs fiasco that we had the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Kennedy was president, the buck stops with him. Who said that? JFK gave the go-ahead for the invasion when he knew several newspapers knew about. He called the New York Slimes (I believe) on the eve of the invasion, asking them to delay the story.

Ike wouldn't have let the invasion take place under these circumstances. Nixon wouldn't have, either.

After Kennedy's fecklessness during the debacle, his agreeing to remove the missiles from Turkey, and the Vienna summit in '61; Khrushchev decided he could run roughshod over Kennedy. This is the price of projecting weakness to our enemies.

President Downgrade would be wise to head such lessons. Or, else, we will find ourselves in another crisis.

Nick| 8.23.11 @ 6:57PM

Oops! That should be: President Downgrade would be wise to HEED such lessons.

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 7:11PM

As a matter of fact, Khruschev was removed for his "weakness" in dealing with Kennedy during the missle crisis. He did misread Kennedy's resolve in Vienna, which is why he gambled with the missles in Cuba. The removal of missles from Turkey was an easy give away. Kennedy's steadfastness in dealing with the Soviets both in Cuba and in Berlin was a source of pride for our country, not shame.

The strength of a leader is dealing with the new realities that face us, not in fighting the last war. In my view, Obama has been a far more effective foreign policy President than George Bush ever was. It was telling today to see the appearance of American flags in the crowd in Tripoli.

John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 8:26PM

RCV,

It does strain credulity to compare W's (I assume you meant W) foreign policy to Obama's.

I have no quarrel with your disliking W's foreign policy, but he did make it reasonably clear for all to see.

Obama, on the other hand, has had a reset button for the Russians, pandered to the Arabs, proclaimed himself to be a friend of Israel while calling for a return to indefensible '67 borders. He threw Mubarek under the bus proclaiming the will of the people must be respected while remaining completely silent during the Iranian uprising. Who knows what his position is with the Pakistanis (a tough one for anyone, no doubt). His "leading from behind" strategy during the "kinetic action" in Libya isn't what I call a foreign policy. For free trade, he would have done better to appoint Trumka to state. Who is our ambassador to the U.N? Like him or not, when Bolton was there, you knew.

When American jets bomb Tripoli, I'd expect to see American flags. As I wrote elsewhere, this may be Obama's greatest success. He played both sides and one of them one.

W| 8.23.11 @ 10:44PM

RCV, I agree to a certain extent. Kruschev read Kennedy as weak because of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Vienna meeting, but most importantly, the Berlin Wall that went up in summer of 1961. The Soviets would never even consider putting up the wall when Eisenhower was president. They feared Ike because of his military record. They did not respect or fear Kennedy after Vienna and the Berlin Wall. Who knows if they would have put up the wall if Nixon would have won instead of JFK.
But Kennedy had no choice to quarantine Cuba once the missiles were discovered.
Kennedy should have ordered that the wall be knocked down

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 11:27PM

That would have been a highly foolhardy thing to do, and our German ally -- who would have borne the brunt of the aftermath -- would not have looked kindly on us igniting an intra-German war. We tend to forget that West Berlin was a small island floating inside a red sea. Germans remember JFK fondly as a steadfast and wise ally.

W| 8.24.11 @ 10:04AM

I liked JFK, and as "yute" held signs saying vote for JFK, But he was weak on the Berlin Wall, people remember the speech after the wall went up, when he said he was a Berliner. What if..... is always a good debate.
In our house we had a photo of JFK on the wall. I still see photos of JFK in houses of old people, and many politicians.

Cfountain72| 8.23.11 @ 11:36PM

Easy with the big words; Occam's crayons get dull trying to copy them down. That being said, he is most definitely a statist 'tool.'

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 6:46PM

One thing Eeisenhower never regreted telling israel to get behind it's borders ant to stay there. JFK was right. Israel should never had nuclear Weapons. You have it backwards. Ronald Reagan condemned the bombing of the plant in Iraq. It was Ron Paul who supported it. Even a great guy like Dr. Paul can make a mistake once in awhile. Bush was right. It is too bad he caved. The public was behind him

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 7:13PM

No you've got it backwards, Jack. On the one hand, you oppose using US military and economic aid for Israel, then you criticize Israel for developing weapons to protect itself. The reality is, of course, that your end game is the destruction of Israel, not its preservation.

William R| 8.24.11 @ 12:45AM

And you're an Anti American Israel firster.

Wake up| 8.23.11 @ 11:51PM

Ron Paul started the tea party you television educated ignorant person. Do the research, apparently you haven't. We are doomed if people like you vote.

Bruce Majors| 12.6.11 @ 4:35PM

You can call all the names you like Mr. Hawk, but Paul got around 8% of the vote in your 2008 primaries and 4 years later he has built Campaign for Liberty organizations around the country, elected a cohort of like minded people to the House and Senate, and is now getting more like 18% in your primaries.

Your attacks on him did not stop him from more than doubling his influence in the past 4 years, and creating an organization to continue after he retires, electing new Ron Pauls.

So your hope that these are just the 1% who have voted for Libertarian Party candidates in the past seems to betray a deficiency of arithmetic ability. Public school?

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 7:01AM

GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul consistently has said that the United States should get out of Afghanistan and Iraq and that American military bases around the world should be closed.

In this campaign, Paul is getting more donations from people who work for the military than either President Obama or any of the other Republican presidential candidates.
Our fighting men and women take an oath to protect America, defend our Constitution and defend our borders," Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton said. "They look at Ron Paul and see a leader who takes their oath seriously and who will fight to ensure that we don't misrepresent that oath by sending them off to police the world, instead of defending our country."
Summing up, Paul’s military-connected contributions for the three months more than double such contributions to all the other Republican presidential candidates—and they also exceed Obama’s.

JP| 8.23.11 @ 7:45AM

Paul has been in the House since the time of Carter. His main responsibilities are lawmaking. At this point in his career he sould be either Speaker, Majority Whip, or at least chair to some of the most powerful committees. He was given an insignificant chair as a sop to his ego.

Paul has scattered followers here and there. But he lacks the drive to actually put his neck out and sponsor anything that might require him to compromise. In short, Paul is no different that Palin or Perry. He's a political actor and a gadfly.

WZP01| 8.23.11 @ 8:06AM

No, he hasn't been in the House that long. He ended his tenure in the House in 82 and spent a long period of time back in private practice. He had an unsuccessful run in '88 as the Libertarian candidate, then went back into private practice. It wasn't until 1996 that he was elected back into the House. He hasn't serve constant, consecutive terms in office since Carter.

If you're going to disparage the man, at least know what you're talking about.

JP| 8.23.11 @ 8:46AM

I stand by what I've posted. He has more seniority than most Republicans who chair committees. Paul is a lazy, self serving operator who is more comfortable sitting on the sidelines issuing meaningless nostrums than actually doing anything. Again, he has nothing to show for his decades in the House other than collecting a federal paycheck (and soon a fat federal retirement check).

WZP01| 8.23.11 @ 8:49AM

Yet he still maintains to return a significant part of his office budget to the treasury every year, and he's refused to participate in the pension plan.

Once again, you're demagouging someone you obviously know nothing about.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 8:52AM

Ron Paul has never ever taken part in the lucrative Federal pension plan. He doesn't believe in it. He has provided for his own retirement. Ron Paul has done the most importat job possible. He has been telling the truth and exposing the lies of the ruling elites. He has been right for decades and they have been wrong.

Ryan| 8.23.11 @ 9:38AM

You are wrong.

The House of Representatives has a long standing tradition of restoring a person's seniority among their re-election.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 9:48AM

He has the senority but the leadership refused him the jobs, because he would cause them too much trouble.

Charles Martel| 8.24.11 @ 12:23AM

Ron Paul has been in and out of -- mostly in -- Congress since Gerald Ford was president: 1976-77, 1979-85, and finally since 1997.

If you're going to defend the man, at least know what you're talking about.

+++

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 8:09AM

Uh Oh !

JP wants "A Compromiser-in-Chief".

God Save The Republic.

WZP01| 8.23.11 @ 8:09AM

Also, I'd say serving as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology does qualify as a powerful enough committee.

Oversight of monetary policy is an integral part to the health of the economy. Unfortunately, that can serve in a limited purpose when you have a secretive central bank and a President who has no grasp on economics and how destructive regulations can be.

JP| 8.23.11 @ 8:48AM

Nope. It has little power when compared to the Banking Committee. Paul can host meetings, issue statements, and audit thier operational budget, but little more. All of the real action is in the House Ways and Means and Banking Committees. But to get those postings you have to work with your own party - something Paul refuses to do.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 8:58AM

Paul has been denied any chairmanship of the banking committee dispite the fact that he is the ranking member. He has been given chairmenship of a subcommittee only in this final congress. The criminals at Federal Reserve hate him for his honesty and truthfulness. It is time audit the Fed. Then put it out of business.

Josh G.| 8.23.11 @ 11:56AM

I agree with Jack and, to a lesser extent, with JP. While the real action does lie with the House Ways and Means Banking Committees, it's not that Ron Paul is unwilling to work with them; the Federal Reserve is a powerful force, and to challenge their power and influence is unpopular. This is why he has had a difficult time getting his message put into action.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 12:25PM

"But to get those postings you have to work with your own party - something Paul refuses to do."

If you have to do what you are told to do, then how is that really getting anything done?

Are we equating "getting things done" as meaning "doing what the leaders of the GOP tell you to do"?

Because in that manner - if he had gotten something done, I wouldn't support him. I'm not looking for a "yes man", I'm looking for a man who is based on principles, stands up for what he believes in, and serves the people to the best of his ability.

But hey, those who "worked with their own party" sure have done wonders for our country. Just turn on the news. The dollar is gaining value, the banks aren't going beyond their means...ah hell, I can't even be sarcastic about it as a result of how bad it is.

So let me get this straight. If Ron Paul were directly responsible for the current state of our nation - he is then worth voting for?

Yep, if you want to see a continuation of the status quo, and want yet another President who is going to do whatever the "party" wants them to do - Ron Paul is not for you.

Infinite Spiral| 8.23.11 @ 2:47PM

"scattered followers here and there" that have in in the top 3 in every poll in the nation and nearly tied with Obama. So basically, millions of Americans are just idiots. Stop getting your information from your news outlets and blogs and do some real research about what he has done, the books he's written, who agrees with him, and why people agree with his message before you throw out ridiculous statements like that.

irish19| 8.23.11 @ 10:54PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....-1452.html
Check the link and then tell me again that he's in the top three in ALL the major polls. That link is from right now by the way.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 8:39AM

"GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul consistently has said that the United States should get out of Afghanistan and Iraq and that American military bases around the world should be closed."

Those are both very stupid things to say.

To pretend that we don't have long-term, strategic interests in a stable and democratic Iraq, in a Taliban-free Afghanistan, or in other parts of the free and democratic world I'd beyond idiotic.

Retreat is not a policy.

WZP01| 8.23.11 @ 8:46AM

The only interests the US has are the continental 48, Alaska, Hawaii, and our various territories.

Domestic spending cuts aren't going to solve all our problems. Welfare for the warfare state is going to have to suffer some too.

Frankly put, it's time to worry about our borders and people for a while. We can't do that with a porous border and troops all over the world.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 9:25AM

"The only interests the US has are the continental 48, Alaska, Hawaii, and our various territories."

That's ignorant to an extreme degree.

You Paulistas pretend to be all about economics, but most of you haven't the faintest idea about economics, or how our economy functions.

Here's a clue, free of charge:

Free trade goes both ways. We make money by importing and exporting. If the markets for our exports are threatened by an expansive, aggressive regime like Communist China, then our economy is threatened.

It's funny that you Paulistas object to being called "isolationists" when you express isolationist ideas.

WZP01| 8.23.11 @ 9:33AM

I never said we couldn't trade. But our "national interests" are only areas that are within our borders and subject to our government.

Whatever resources other nations have aren't our national interest until we've traded for them.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 10:15AM

You're NOT making sense.

Just because a transaction has not yet occurred does NOT mean that the goods/services to be traded are NOT in our national interest.

That's like saying that since we can go to the gas station today and fill-up our cars then the oil that's pumped today by our suppliers in Saudi Arabia/The UAE/Iraq, etc, isn't in our national interest to protect.

That's simply too dumb for words.

Jester2069| 8.23.11 @ 11:00AM

*You* have misconstrued words, sir.

"Protecting" our national interests has NOTHING to do with American soldiers operating in sovereign nations; that's called Militarism. Google it.

Oh, and China has not been an "aggressive regime" since Deng Xiaoping took control back in the '70's. (This coming from an Army veteran and analyst on China)

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 1:23PM

So World War 2 was "militarist"?

So much for ridding the world of genocidal fascism...

And if you think China is not "aggressive", no wonder you're an EX-army analyst...

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:20PM

Doctor Right---recall Pat Buchanan wrote a hymm to Hitler on how WWII was unnecessary. It's become a Paulbot hymnal.

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 4:08PM

Yes, according to Buchannan, it was that warmonger Churchill who started the war. If only he'd have believed Hitler's "last territorial demand".

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 6:48PM

Buchanan is a national treasure. I would hope he wil be Ron Paul's Secretary of State.

Bruce| 8.23.11 @ 1:53PM

To say that Our national interests never lie outside our borders is insane. That's why you Paulites are dismissed. There is a war going on. Islamo-fascists are seeking to destroy the US and democracy in general in order to install a caliphate. It has nothing to do with "our occupation" of countries. They hate us because we choose freedom instead of an oligarchical dictatorship.
Oh and they hate us because we support, at least before obama, Israel. The only truly free and functioning democracy in the Middle East. The only country ready, willing, and able to be at peace with their neighbors.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:19PM

Thanks Bruce. Great job!

HeadNEast333| 8.23.11 @ 3:57PM

Christians want to destroy the mosque in Jeruselum to usher in the coming of Jesus which can only happen if the Temple is rebuilt. Lets get to the "real" issue here. lol

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 4:09PM

Right. And that's why Moshe Dayan returned control of the Temple Mount to the Islamic Waqf when Israel captured it in 1967 -- he didn't want it to fall into the hands of the Crusaders.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 5:21PM

Oh, good grief! More idiocy...

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 6:54PM

Crackpot theology from 18th century dispensationalists. Jesus said. Love your neighbor as your self and follow the Commandments. I think you Zionists Christian and Jewish have forgotten. Thou shall not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not covet they neighbors property. It time to get with the program.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:19PM

Dr Right---good job. My stomach can only take so much idiocy from the Paulbots today. G-d Bless.

Josh G.| 8.23.11 @ 12:03PM

So because we could benefit from oil exploration in a "stable" Iraq (if you actually believe that situation is in the not-too-distant future) it's okay to occupy a foreign nation? If it were in a foreign power's interest to occupy America, would we tolerate such foolishness? I hardly think so. Afghanistan will never be "Taliban-free" as you so ignorantly imply. Fundamentalist numbers continue to grow, and if we do not change course and adapt a more non-interventionist foreign policy, we will never recover.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 1:25PM

If it were in a foreign power's interest to "occupy" the USA, and if they had the power to do so, do you think they'd hesitate??

And do you think they'd care about your whining??

The naivete' is simply stunning.

Josh G.| 8.23.11 @ 1:58PM

I'm not saying they'd hesitate. I'm saying it would looked upon in a negative way and simply not tolerated. Just because America has the ability to occupy a nation does not make it right. I'm sorry you equate the two. Ron Paul challenges the imperialistic attitude of most politicians and the dismal product of their influence.

And on one thing we agree: the naïveté is simply stunning.

Bruce| 8.23.11 @ 2:01PM

It is in almost ever other countries best interest to occupy America. Problem is they can't. Name one other superpower that has ever existed that did subjugate its neighbors.
Is there any thought, in even your circles, that America is planning to to take out Canada? We could easily 'Occupy' almost any country in the world, but we dont. Because since we came into existence we have been the champions of freedom and self determination.
And why do I her nothing from you Paulites on Libya, only Iraq. There is one example that almost everyone would agree with you on yet you don't use it. Why?

Josh G.| 8.23.11 @ 2:12PM

Many Ron Paul supporters I know (including myself) are wholly against our involvement in Libya. But we haven't been occupying that country for the last several years; I hardly think the two situations deserve equal attention.

And you're absolutely right that we are the champions of freedom and self-determination. This is why so many Americans are against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; it does not advance that cause. And that spirit of spreading democracy around the globe has been misused as the "basis" for our occupation or involvement in conflicts which have a much more imperialistic motive.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 2:13PM

We don't do it because we don't wish to.

That's because we're not an imperialistic, militaristic regime bent on subjugating other nations.

So much for Ron Paul's foreign policy...

Cfountain72| 8.23.11 @ 11:51PM

Wow..Dr. 'Right' is it? So you are one of those folks who still believes in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, that Iraq is relevant in any way to our national security, and that Afghanistan will be 'Taliban-free' in our lifetimes (or that it even matters).

Some concepts for you to look up: cost-benefit analysis, sunk costs, opportunity costs, the history of invasions and occupations if Afghanistan, and intervention-related blowback.

Peace be with you.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:15PM

And that will play directly into the Jihadists' hands.

GAPeach| 8.23.11 @ 3:38PM

It is important to note that these donations come from persons who work for the military NOT from active duty personnel, referred to as our fighting men and women by Clint. It is disingenuous of Jesse Benton to use the above quote to make one believe many active duty donate to Paul .

Blaine| 8.23.11 @ 7:06AM

And what of his Jewish associates Rothbard and Rockwell? It is not antisemetic to have a peaceful foreign policy. Coming to the realization that our foreign policy is bankrupting us is not antisemetic. Realizing that our infusion of money, to Arab SEMITES or Jewish SEMITES, needs to stop. America is crumbling, but we still have the miopic view that we need to have an aggressive, often belligerent foreign policy. More Army vets have died in suicide than at war. We have an epidemic of homeless vets. Yet, people who never fought or served keep banging the drums. I don't get the hypocrisy

Cfountain72| 8.23.11 @ 11:52PM

Well said Blaine. Thanks.

Peace be with you.

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 7:07AM

"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

Dan Hirsch| 8.23.11 @ 9:36AM

This statement cannot be less than 19 years old. Mebbe, Congressman Paul has changed some of the views that President Reagan found so helpful. Remember, the Democrat Party left Reagan; did Ron Paul leave him, too.

And another thing, Ron Paul is simply a libertarian. Whether he is anti-Semitic, I do not know. We do not need new names for established political philosophies. New names only serve to confuse and blunt deserved criticism.

We are too big a country with far too many citizens, interests, and friends overseas to run into our hole and pull a stone in after us. We were founded in the middle of French-British wars and played both sides to survive. Don't think you can build the biggest economy on the planet and then pretend that you have no interests beyond your borders.

Bank robbers rob banks cause 'that's where the money is;' we are a bank. Do we want every attack launched at our interests to take place on our shores?

One of our seminal reasons for going to Afghanistan was to take the battle to the enemy, rather than letting them take it to New York City, Washington DC, and the fields of Pennsylvania. Which we found particularly unpleasant, remember?

DH

Don't tread on me...

trivs| 8.23.11 @ 12:11PM

Don't tread on you, but I guess you can tread on whomever you want in the world who is a "threat".

We ONLY spend 50% of the worlds entire "defense" budget, and through that might was able to bankrupt a powerful USSR. 'Taking the battle to Afghanistan rather than rather letting them take it to us' is akin to a child getting bit by an ant, so he then should burn the entire playground.

The Constitution is clear on how to combat terrorism, Marque and Reprisal. This is far from 'running into a hole'. Look it up, you might learn something.

Finally, you use the phrase 'Don't tread on me' but YOU are TREADING ON ME by your bloodthirst of foreign monsters to slay and forcing me to pay for it.

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 4:11PM

There's always Switzerland, trivs!

trivs| 8.23.11 @ 10:26PM

Oh, you want to bomb them to? Jk, sorta.

irish19| 8.24.11 @ 1:25AM

While I agree that the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal would be helpful (and entertaining), do you honestly believe that Congress in this day and age would issue them?
I would personally love to see it, especially vis a vis Somali pirates, I'm not holding my breath waiting.

Josh G.| 8.23.11 @ 12:11PM

"Don't tread on me..." lol

I agree with your position on throwing around names; it serves no real purpose, only distracts us from a rich debate on policy, and leads to a much more divided government.

As a conservative, registered Independent, I still see no better choice than Ron Paul for President. I'm not going to pretend he's perfect, and I'm not about to deny his libertarian views. But he's willing to accept the unpopular, challenge the status quo (regardless of how unpleasant the consequences), and stand on his principles of limited government and "non-interventionism."

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:17PM

Dan, the Statement is much closer to over 30 years old. Paul is a Kucinich on foreign policy. say that and watch the spaqrks fly, but it is true---look at the voting record in Thomas. Both Kucinich and Paul want to retract American forces behind our borders. Both of them are ignorant of the catastophic effect of that power vacuum.

asdf@asdf.tld| 8.24.11 @ 10:29AM

lmao. don't tread on you? you're so independent and contrary. we're all quaking in our boots. ...you're like the commercial of the 60 year old suited white guy in a high rise claiming that he wants to "stick it to the man" ....hahahah ah aahh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! let all the mainstream hannity, limbaugh, levine lovers be what they want to be. ...it makes no difference, because the reason for the mainstream, fake conservatives, fake tea partiers rapidly approaching demise is of their own doing. I could do nothing, and in 15 years, they will all be poorer, more bitter, and have even less influence. when your entire existence is based on a lie, it comes to an end. Ron Paul and all those that share similar ideals could disappear RIGHT NOW, and it won't make a difference. The mainstream execution of flawed policy, defended by Faux News, and swallowed whole by the zombies, is a self destroying system. Goodbye. Nice to know ya. People stupid enough to follow that system, are the same little guppies who are ill prepared for the future.

Margie| 8.24.11 @ 2:44PM

White guy? How do you know he's white? You mean to tell me there are no black guys as cool as that??

Shamus| 8.23.11 @ 7:22AM

Conflating foreign policy with basic governing policy isn't really productive. Free market capitalism and limited government are the basic principles on which the United States was founded. Confronting various foreign threats brought compromises, and American leaders such as George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower have warned against degradations of our ideals introduced by our reaction to the very real dangers beyond our borders.

The role of the United States in global security arrangements is a legitimate issue. Ron Paul takes positions which place him well out of the main stream, and this leads to him not being taken seriously. Paul is basically using his campaign as a platform to advance his ideas, rather than as a effort to advance electoral prospects. And even though his ideas are rejected by the Washington establishment, this does not invalidate them.

If the US does not have a strong economy, how will we be able to support military deployments to every corner of the globe? Are we truly acting to defend the US by sending military missions to places like Libya? The US was the predominate world power after WWII, but is no longer. How should global security arrangements be modified to accommodate this development?

It's easy to criticize Ron Paul, but it's hard to find effective answers to the issues he raises.

JP| 8.23.11 @ 7:47AM

Raising issues is fun. All kinds of people here have all kinds of issues they love to blog about. Actually accomplishing something is a different game altogether. There are plenty of people who love to talk sports; but few of them can actually do what they love to talk about.

This is the age of the Yakkers. We need doers; we need lawmakers not more people with soap boxes.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 12:28PM

I'm pretty sure what you get accomplished is more important than just getting something accomplished.

Considering the current state of the nation, Ron Paul is about the only one who has pulled in the correct direction for getting anything accomplished.

Your argument basically amounts to him not being bi-partisan enough for you, and not playing party politics while screwing over the American people.

Yep, I agree. And its exactly why he has my vote and support.

asdf@asdf.tld| 8.24.11 @ 10:31AM

amen brother.

irish19| 8.24.11 @ 1:27AM

Interesting take on his whole campaign.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 7:26AM

Mr. Lord. Who do you think your kidding? Every person you mentioned was a fine American citizen. The vast majority of Republcans and conservatives were against getting into World War 2. Do you call Herbert Hoover, Joseph Kennedy. JFK, Gerald Ford, and millions ofother conservatives both Democrat and Republicans all anti semites and liberals. They hated FDR and his push to get us into this war. Who you call liberal Republicans were just ordinary main streat Republicans who wanted to mind our own business. Robert La Follette was our famous politician in Wi. He was right as were all the other Republicans you mention. Enterring WW1 and WW2 destroyed a big part of our constitutional Republic. The fact of the matter is that the people of this country don't buy your historical fairytails anymore.

Non intervention is the historical foreign policy of Washinton, Jefferson, and most of our founders. It is time we get back to it. As for anti semitism. It would help if the the the fact that the people among the most out spoken in pushing this war were not so wrong. Wall Street, our foreign policy, and media are controlled by people in many instances with Jewish backgrounds and they have been out spoken in pushing us the wrong direction. The Neoconservative movement That has been so warlike and so wrong is headed by Jewish people. Wall and the Federal Reserve and their disastrous policies have been headed by Jewish people in many instances. hollywood and the media which pushed pro war propaganda prior to WW2 was and is headed in large by Jewish people. You think that people who critize these obvious disastrous policies are after you because you are Jews. We disagree with the policies of people like Bernard, Baruch, Louis Brandieis, Irving Kristol, Normon Podhoretz, Berneke and Greenspan and many others including the many people , like Rahm Emmanuel around Obama not because they are Jewish but because they are wrong, Their policies have been disastrous for the country.

Now you are back to that deprate claim that people who disagree with you are antisemites. Yesterday Ron Paul was even with Obama in the Gallup poll. The media has been trying to suppress is the obvious popularity of his ideas. The necoconservative foreign policies have been disastrous for America. The Federal Reserve and it's policies have been disastrous for America. Ron Paul has been right and you are wrong. Oh! one more thing. Most of Ron Paul's Economic hero's and among his greatest hero's in pushing non intervention and free markets. were 2 Jews Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises. You just forgot to mention that.

Mimi| 8.23.11 @ 8:19AM

Jack.....It is not " HISTORICAL FAIRYTALES".......That there is stark, raving EVIL in this WORLD....If it is not " The beacon of HOPE" the U.S.A. to fight this.....WHO ?

Bill| 8.23.11 @ 2:39PM

Uh...The Tavistock Institute?

Solo| 8.23.11 @ 8:22AM

"Non intervention is the historical foreign policy of Washinton, Jefferson, and most of our founders."

Specifically...the Founder's attitudes regarding "intervention" were centered around becoming involved in European "entanglements". Not all of them shared in that belief and some (and in particular, Jefferson) often changed their minds...several times.

Their attitudes were a product of their times and circumstances. As a fledgling nation state , they were no more capable of transporting a force across the sea to destroy an enemy than there were capable of launching a mission to the freakin moon.

This is what shaped their views--not some deep philosophical commitment to hiding away in "Bunker America", counting their gold and smoking reefer (as the Paulbots of today would have it).

And even at this reduced capacity, the Founders fully understood the need to project power abroad in order to defend our interests here within our own borders--a concept conspicuously absent among most Paulies.

And it is this that irks me the most about the PaulBots. They attempt to project their own isolationist preferences onto the Founders by either misconstruing the historical record or through relieving it of any context.

The world has changed. America, and her role within that world has changed with it. The arrival from abroad of existential threats to the Republic were once measured in months. Now...they are measured in minutes.
That and that alone demands a change in our foreign policy paradigm--a change that the Founders would have no doubt realized in a heartbeat.

The Founders were interested in what was best for our fledgling Republic. In the late 18th century, and given our national weakness at the time, avoiding European "entanglements" was a legitimate and viable policy. Today...it would be tantamount to national suicide.

"We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.".

Ronald Reagan
Speech at Point Du Hoc, France
June 6, 1984

Dirtroad| 8.23.11 @ 10:26AM

Perhaps the world has changed b/c we have meddled so much and pushed it, formed it and made it as we see fit. We were not supposed to get entangled in European politics because they were recipes for disaster & were constant (and we were a young & weak nation)... but ALSO because you never win in such messes... those conflicts are thousands of years old. That is the same situation today in the Middle East and (still) parts of Europe. We can't police the world. We are arrogant to think so. We can't give freedom to a world who rejects it... repeatedly. You lead by example - light on the hill - not by a sword or tank or billion dollar loans. You have to let 2 boys finish a fight to determine the winner... when you intervene, you lengthen the conflict and they WILL fight again. Intervention is liberal and meddling and arrogant.
I love Ben Stein. I will take the anti-semitism comment serious. But I do agree with the comment (posted below the article) that accusing someone of Jewish descent of being wrong IS NOT anti-Jew or anti-Semitic. And those phrases are tossed around too lightly by the right & the left in this nation. However, Stein is no whiner.
My favorite thing about Paul is that atleast he is offering alternatives and not talking typical DC spins. He has some awesome ideas... if only these "real conservatives" would listen and learn... not push him off as a fringe-nut job or crazy old man (he is not) and keep on doing the same old Democrat-LIGHT style of leading.

HeadNEast333| 8.23.11 @ 4:15PM

"We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent."-Ronald Reagan

Was this before or after someone tried to assassinate him? Was he not shot at in 81? You sure he wasn't "towing the line" at this point?
There was big difference between Reagan before and after he was shot

chuck| 8.23.11 @ 9:49PM

This is the stupidest, dumbest, most idiotic comment I have ever read. This makes Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maybe even Obozo seem intelligent by comparison.
I think my IQ just dropped by a dozen point just reading that!

irish19| 8.24.11 @ 1:31AM

You beat me to it. The stupid is strong in this one.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.23.11 @ 9:23AM

"You think that people who critize these obvious disastrous policies are after you because you are Jews"

Jack...I am not Jewish. Sorry. And yes...Herbert Hoover was a progressive Republican, Joe Kennedy was frequently accused in the day of being anti-Semitic, so much so that when his son JFK ran for president the Kennedy's kept him out of sight for that very reason. Said Truman on the issue of JFK's Catholicism: "It isn't the Pope who worries me, it's the Pop."

Ron Paul has made a constructive contribution on economics and I said so. But no, "non-intervention" is decidedly not the historical policy of the Founders. General Washington ordered the invasion of Canada - another country - in 1775. Canada had not attacked the US. The American problem was with the British.

John Adams launched the "Quasi-War" with France in his term in the presidency. Jefferson sent troops across the Atlantic to Africa to fight the Barbary Pirates. Monroe provacatively drew a line around the entire Western Hemisphere and said it was a US protectorate. All were Founding Fathers. And they began intervening in other countries right from the get go - in Washington's case before we even signed the Declaration of Independence.

Sorry. But Congressman Paul is wrong on his historical facts.

Someone's religion - in America, at least - is irrelevant to running the government. Franklin Roosevelt was an Episcopalian. So?

WZP01| 8.23.11 @ 9:27AM

The British were in control of Canada in 1775. It was not a sovereign nation, but a colony of the British Empire at the time. That wasn't interventionism, that was just one of the fronts of war.

Canada didn't break away from the British Empire until 1867, and even then it didn't sever all of its ties.

DRed| 8.23.11 @ 10:57AM

Canada wasn't another country when the colonial troops invaded it in 1775, the United States didn't exist, and we certainly weren't looking to spread democracy, as we were not one. It's not very hard to come up with reasons not to vote for Ron Paul for president (here's one-he seriously thinks we should bring back the gold standard). There's no need to stray into ridiculous historical revisionism.

PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 11:45AM

I heard that the Queen still owns pretty much all of Canada as well as much of Australia.

Knowing that, I cringe when I see comics on SNL make humiliating parodies of her. :-)

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 9:27AM

Mr. Lord,

Don't waste your time; arguing with Paulistas is like arguing with Liberals. Their political beliefs are a religion, and their candidate a messiah.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 9:34AM

BINGO!

WZP01| 8.23.11 @ 9:28AM

And Jefferson sent troops to fight the Barbary pirates because they were attacking our trade ships. It wasn't interventionism, it was a war of self-defense.

Dirtroad| 8.23.11 @ 10:29AM

I agree with you! And we handled the problem specific to our ships. Not installing new leaders, making magnificent speaches on their beaches, and leaving soldiers over fighting for decades. We focused on our issue and solved it. Then came home.

Allan Bernake| 8.23.11 @ 12:32PM

Exactly.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 9:44AM

Mr Lord weho do you think you are kidding. the war is over is over. The counrty is boke and gettting broker everyday. The neoconservative foreign policy has been a complete and utter failure. It is time that someone answered for their lies and mistakes.

I never ever believed that Sadddam Hussain was anyhting but a broken down old dicator who was no threat to anyone. Iran is a third world country with no caapascity to damage us. I will not standby and let you people lie us into another disasterous war.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 10:19AM

"Iran is a third world country with no caapascity to damage us."

That's not only stupid, it's 100% dead-wrong.

WHY do you brain-dead Paulies think that Iran MUST have an ICBM to attack the USA?

You were awake and conscious on 9/11, right?

Ever hear of a suitcase bomb? A dirty bomb?

How about placing a small-scale nuke (and by today's standards, the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima would be "small-scale") on a tanker ship, and detonating it in a major Port, like Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, or Long Beach??

Seriously...You Paulies are dumb AND dangerous.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 10:50AM

The Mosssad has a long history of false flag operations. It is far more likely to something. It has the capascity and history of doing so. Remember the false flag attacks on the Jews of Iraq to scare them into going to Israel. they were well treated and didn't want to leave. Lets not forgeet the Lavon Affair in which the Mossad tried to stir up Egyptians. Then there are the five Mossad agents dancing and high fiving on the Jersey shore as the World Trade Center collapsed. I have to believe that story. It was on a Fox News expose for 4 nights in a row. What did happen there? Therehave been many many more. The way to peace in the world is through talk and honest negotiations. It is time to send an ambassador to Tehren and settle all our differences.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 11:00AM

Jack...There is the brink of insanity, and then there is the abyss...

First, you protest that you're NOT an anti-Semite.

THEN you turn a post about Mossadegh and the CIA into a 9/11 "Truther" discussion about how Israel was REALLY behind the 9/11 attacks.

Let me ask you something, Jack...Were these supposed Mossad Agents wearing large IDs that said "Mossad" on them when they high-fived? Otherwise, how could you tell they were Mossad?

Let me guess...They just "looked Jewish", right?

You're a complete ass, an anti-Semite, a moron, and a sick, sick person.

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 11:35AM

The only good thing about having Jack and Clint around is that they stifle any temptation in a free-market conservative to flirt with libertarianism.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 1:34PM

Pre emtive war and the propagandizing for it is a war crime. Lots of Germans were hung for it after the war. It is perhaps time to hang after, a fair trial a few of these shills, for endless war on small backward nations.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 1:37PM

I've never been impressed by Libertarianism.

It sounds great on paper (like socialism!), but when you scratch below the surface, you either find what Mr. Lord describes, or anarchy.

No, thanks.

chuck| 8.23.11 @ 10:00PM

EXACTLY! Anarchists are huge followers of Paul.

irish19| 8.24.11 @ 1:36AM

And most of them would last about two minutes if the excrement actually did hit the rotatory air circulating device.

Have you considered| 8.23.11 @ 11:43AM

Doctor Right, how Exactly do you propose to cure these defects?

Again, I see many rhetorical statement regarding what the dangers are, but I rarely see any realistic HOW to cure the problem.

Are you proposing that we declare preemptive war on Iran?

I am a Peace Through Strength type, who believes that we should be ready, able, AND Actually WILLING to nuke them to hell.

An Absolute declared willingness to obliterate them is IMO the best deterrent. Unfortunately at this point, I don't believe they have a real fear of this from us.

Again, What Exactly do you Propose we DO?

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 1:41PM

I don't advocate nuking/bombing/killing anyone. That should always be the LAST resort, especially when civilian casualties can be expected.

However, I don't advocate a naive, bubble-headed approach to foreign affairs, either.

In that regard, I suppose I'm a "Peace-through-Strength" guy, too. Those who would dare to raise a hand against us must know that there WILL be severe punishment if they do.

Iran is a threat. The next President must acknowledge this, and be ready to act - and yes, that means preemptively, if necessary - to protect this country.

Ron Paul does not understand this. That's why he must never be in the White House.

Have you considered| 8.23.11 @ 3:18PM

Dr. Right, you start by saying you don't advocate nuking/bombing/killing, and that it should be reserved for the LAST resort.

Then you turn around and say yes, you do advocate preemptive war....which I must conclude means nuking/bombing/killing as a FIRST resort.

Am I getting the message correctly?

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 5:24PM

Yes and No.

Sometimes, a preemptive strike IS the last resort.

Unless you'd rather wait for a disaster to kill thousands of innocent Americans first??

Is THAT the Paul foreign policy in a nut-shell?

Morerice| 8.24.11 @ 1:16AM

Oh, I get it: a preemptive strike is a first resort and last resort at the same time! Kinda like a military final solution.

The absurdity, hypocricy, and idiocy of the anti-Paul crowd here is utterly astounding! This comment tops the list of what seems to be what passes for "conservatism" today.

irish19| 8.24.11 @ 1:40AM

"The absurdity, hypocricy, and idiocy of the anti-Paul crowd here is utterly astounding!"
If it really bothers you, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
However, on the matter of Iran, as other posters have pointed out, suitcase bombs and the like would be a real threat to this country, especially given our porous borders. Were it up to me, I would make it clear that Iran could expect to cease to exist as a country just as soon as they test a nuclear device. Finis.

Red Phillips| 8.23.11 @ 12:00PM

Mr. Lord, the Founders debated whether we SHOULD EVEN HAVE A STANDING ARMY, and they ended up limiting appropriations to the Army to two years to protect against the dangers of a standing army. Stating that this or that Founder supported this is that war, regardless of the merits of the war, does not prove your contention. Non-intervetionists do not oppose all war, and people of good faith can argue the wisdom of many of our past hostilities. Modern style interventionism is based on the presumption that the US has a special role/responsibility to play in maintaining global order, beyond what is necessary for simple defense. This is a modern ideological imposition and IS NOT consistent with conservative philosophical first principles. To try to impose this modern ideological mindset on the Founders is embarrassing. How in the hell do you “promote democracy” when you are ambivalent about even having a standing army? The Founders had no interest in global crusading. They were simply trying to get their fledgling country up and running.
BTW, the Monroe doctrine, whatever its wisdom, did not establish an American protectorate. It was not offensive but defensive . It declared the Americas off-limits to future colonization by European powers. It was intended to protect the United States, not spread the American way to benighted foreigners.

irish19| 8.24.11 @ 1:43AM

"the Monroe doctrine, whatever its wisdom, did not establish an American protectorate"
I think you may be reaching here. The Monroe Doctrine, as I understand it, was a message to the European powers of the day that the Americas were out of bounds for them, and that the U.S. would respond with force should they meddle in our sphere of influence.

Kevin Gutzman| 8.23.11 @ 2:14PM

Mr. Lord says both in his article and in the Comments that Washington ordered the invasion of Canada during the Revolution, and that Washington was therefore an interventionist. After all, he says, "Canada had not attacked the US. The American problem was with the British."

Is this a joke? Canada was part of the British Empire during the Revolution. Washington hoped by invading to knock Canada out of the British war effort, and even to enable Canadian residents to join in the Revolution. Lord speaks as if this were a separate effort -- but that's like saying that invading Okinawa was starting a separate war with Japan, because it was the Home Islands that bombed Pearl Harbor. When Burgoyne invaded New York in 1777 at the head of a British army in his ill-fated Saratoga Campaign, he came from Canada.

That isn't inconsistent with Ron Paul's foreign policy position. Rep. Paul voted for military action in Afghanistan after 9/11; he believes that the US military should be used for the Founders' purposes, for the Constitution's purposes: for defensive purposes. Just as Washington did.

This is, of course, the best Lord can do in his attempt to make George Washington into a neoconservative. It's actually, authentically embarrassing. George Washington, like Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and other Founding Fathers, believed in limited government. He knew that permanent war would transform our republic.

American politicians commonly want to have it both ways. They want to take novel positions, but they also want to claim that every Good Guy in American history agreed with them. Mr. Lord's pathetic effort here is emblematic of that tendency.

Red Phillips| 8.23.11 @ 5:35PM

Whatt the hell does Kevin Gutzman know about American history and the Constitution anyway? He's obviously just another one of those raving liberal Paulbots!

Oh? Wait a minute...

http://www.amazon.com/Kevin-R......d_i=507846

John| 8.23.11 @ 7:36AM

I am a lifelong conservative.
I have voted Republican my entire life.
I am the CEO of a business (128 employees).
I am a husband, and father of 3.
I am a Christian.

I am not a racist.
I am not an anti-semite.
I am not an isolationist.
I am not weak.

I am a concerned American citizen...

I am voting for Ron Paul.

Mike Hawk| 8.23.11 @ 8:18AM

In Nov '12 you won't.

WZP01| 8.23.11 @ 8:28AM

I will. There's no suitable alternative. Screw the GOP. I'm worried about the US.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 8:42AM

Then write-in a vote for Paul on November 2012.

Obama will be grateful.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 8:49AM

Then tell Obama he's welcome, because I'll be doing the same thing.

Of course, I'm not the one who is stupid enough to believe there would be a difference between Obama and the neo-cons who represent the media darlings.

All Obama is doing is continuing the Bush Doctrine. As if a neo-con is going to change that.

So lets turn this around.

Obama will be grateful that you didn't vote for Ron Paul for the GOP nomination, because it's the only way people like me will vote for a republican.

It's all YOUR fault.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 9:29AM

You Paulies are unaware that with each post, you affirm Mr. Lord's statements.

Comparing Conservative Republicans who disagree with Ron Paul to Obama is EXACTLY the same as the quotes cited in the article by Libertarians who think Reagan was a disappointment and that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are socialist sell-outs.

You people are a joke.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 10:25AM

You are the joke.

The GOP has absolutely no chance without Ron Paul. The only republican who has any chance in hell is Ron Paul.

The GOP establishment has been losing support left and right over the past 6 years. Ron Paul and those who are like him is the only new incoming blood to the GOP.

You can't win without us, and you'll never get our support like this. Face it, you are the "fringe" now. You don't have the votes, you don't have the support.

Your guys won't even go to the straw polls because they knew the people aren't behind them.

You can not and you will not win without us.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 11:36AM

You have it EXACTLY backwards. Paul CANNOT win without Conservatives.

He doesn't have them.

He never will.

He CAN'T win.

He WON'T be the nominee.

So pick-up your toys on election day, go home, have a temper tantrum, and refuse to play.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 12:55PM

He's already won. You just haven't gotten the memo.

He's tearing up your candidates in debates, he's forcing them to parrot his positions - which will only serve to justify him in the eyes of the people. While at the same time, making those candidates look stupid in the process because they can't really explain things properly.

You're only source of being able to say anything is foreign policy, which only about 25-30% of Americans support for you - if that many since I haven't seen recent poll numbers.

He gets more money from active military serviceman than all the other candidates combined. He gets way more than Obama - who gets 3 and 4 times as many donations than the other GOP candidates, and also more than they have combined.

He is the only candidate that has any grassroots support to speak of. The only real competition is from the Tea Party, via Bachmann or Palin.

And he's doing it while being shut out by the media and the media trying to create a meme that he can't win. And your candidates can't get the bus moving with the full weight of the establishment pushing them.

Your candidiates have been going downhill for years and it's not going to stop. The people are sick of it.

Your party is so out of touch with the American people it's almost funny. The only support your candidates get are from big money voters and corporations using PAC's. The exact same people who have bailed out the banks and put our economy in such shambles.

The only reason people like you say he can't win is because it's all you've got left. But people ain't even buying that anymore.

You're done. And the only one that's sitting around throwing temper tanturms are people such as yourself who resort to childish things like ignoring, calling names, misrepresenting things, and so on.

I don't know if you are a parent. But there is a reason why you're parents always knew when you were lying. They ain't as dumb as you think they are.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 1:45PM

Sorry, I guess YOU didn't get "the memo", but I watched the debate in Iowa.

Not only did Ronnie NOT "tear-up" the other candidates, he made a complete fool of himself on the topic of Iranian nukes, and he himself got "torn-up" by Rick Santorum on Iran and the 10th Amendment.

FYI, the RINO-GOP establishment candidates are NOT my candidates. I'm a Conservative first, and a Republican second. But Ron Paul is not my candidate, either.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 8:01PM

When the other candidates begin taking positions that are similar to yours, then yes - that is a result of them being torn up in the debate.

72% of the country is against the current foreign policy. Only 16% of the 28% left support it.

Have fun trying to win an election with 16% supporting your foreign policy. Ron Paul is the one that will have 72% of Americans agreeing with him.

irish19| 8.24.11 @ 1:46AM

Linky, please.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 9:10AM

Ron Paul will be our next Presdient. Half the people in the this country by polling, Gallup Harris and others, would vote for him right now. That is dispite the fact that the media has been ignoring him and salndering him. He will get 60% of the vote if nominated. He has the people on his side for bringing the troops home, ending all foreign aid, and taking over the Federal Reserve.

All these liars have left is to haul out the anti semite canard. They are desperate and it shows. Their 3 remaing candidates. Romney, Bachman and Perry are dumb as tree stumps. They begged Paul Ryan to get in. He isn't that stupid.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 9:33AM

"Ron Paul will be our next Presdient."

No, he won't.

Let's assume Paul gets the GOP nomination.

Upon winning that victory, the media will IMMEDIATELY begin to rip him to pieces by discussing each and every item that is listed in this article.

Paul would lose in a landslide.

But you guys would still be happy because you could blame "the Jews" for sabotaging him, so it all works out in the end.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 10:00AM

The media has been ripping into Ron Paul for decades. All it has done is make him the most popular politician in the country among thinking folks. The more the merrrier. The people actually check out wht he stands for and they love him.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 10:22AM

Paul's supporters are useful idiots.

The media is currently hyping Paul, in case you hadn't noticed. Even mega-Libs in the media like John Stewart and Bill Maher have been singing his praises lately.

Ever ask yourself why?

Because they want him to be the nominee...Because Conservatives WON'T vote for him. Because Paul's foreign-policy views would alienate independents. AND...Because they want to expose him and his koo-koo followers.

Like you, Jack.

Dan Hirsch| 8.23.11 @ 9:43AM

I can see the headline now,

"Old white guy defeats Hope and Change Incumbent!"

Yea, right. Not holding my breath over here, anyone?

To Jack in Wisconsin, how did Bob LaFollette's refusal to publish the duly passed Budget Repair Act this February sit with you? Citizenship does not make right!

Sheesh...

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 10:03AM

I went to the innaguarations of both Reagan and Bush. I just bought an new tuxedo for the upcoming one for Ron Paul That is how confident I am.

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 11:37AM

Yes, and you also had dinner with Bill Buckley, work in a soup kitchen, etc. Sure........

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 1:46PM

Your right I do. I have the pictures to prove it. Come on over and help at the food pantry. I just brought a huge load over within the last hour. Get off your fat ass and do something for your fellow man. I got a picture of me and old man Bush on 2 occasions. He has his battleaxe with him. I have lots of pictures of me At Reagan's innaugeration in 1985 and Bush's in 1989. The tux sits my closet. It was a great buy. I also have a picture of me with Buckley at that dinner I told you about. I have pictures of me With Oliver North, Michael Medved, Dan Quale, Pavoratti and others. When your a fatcat you get your picture taken with a lot of people.

Nick| 8.23.11 @ 5:41PM

Jack in Wi.,

"I just brought a huge load [...] I got a picture of me and old man Bush [...] I have lots of pictures of me At Reagan's innaugeration [sic] [...] I have pictures of me With Oliver North [...] When your a fatcat you get your picture taken with a lot of people." (Emphasis mine.)

"And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad and enlarge their fringes. And they love the first places at feasts and the first chairs in the synagogues, and salutations in the market place [...]." - The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Chapter 23

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 10:02PM

What a phoney Catholic! Get out of your mother's basement and do something for humanity. I am not bragging about my charities. I am, answering a guy who doesn't believe I work for the poor and destitute. A neocon like you would rather see Americans dying in the streets and granny kicked off dialysis then cut one penny from Israel's lavish subsidy.

Dan Hirsch| 8.23.11 @ 12:03PM

Jack, my friend,

Would either Reagan or either Bush turn completely isolationist ala Ron Paul? Between them they had 20 years as Commanders-in-Chief to run from the world like little scaredy cats.

They didn't.

If Ron Paul is the most popular politician in the country, why is anyone else contesting the GOP Presidential race? Are they all that stupid?

Jack, take a minute. Look carefully at Candidate Paul you may be over-committed...I'm just saying look hard, because you sound unreasoned and unreasoning in your support of him.

PS:

Also, won't your new tux be kinda' old in 2013 for the next inaugural?

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 1:58PM

Look: I have been studying politics for well over half a century. Old Bush was a flop. I could tell you a great story about him and me. But everyone knows what a lousy typist I am. It would take too long. Ron Paul is not and never has been an isolationist. That was just pejoritive invented by rabid warmongers before WW2. He believes in the traditional foreign policy of this country. That is no permament foreign entanglements and we mind our own business. We trade wwith people and try to show a good example. We don't stick our noses in anyone else's problems. We defend ourselves viorously but we don't go looking for fights. We don't attack people period except if they are about to attack us. Then we fight according to the traditional rules of war based on Christian Just war princples.

Reagan was for peace and spoke of it many times. He hated war and kept us out of them. He wanted to eliminate all nuclear weapons. He would never have gone near any neocon war. Eisenhower wanted out of a permanent warfare state too. He had to much soldierly ethics to put up with what you neocons are up to.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 2:17PM

I heard that Jefferson REALLY appreciated the architectural improvements you recommended to him for Monticello, too...

...And that Seward is glad you recommended he buy Alaska.

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 4:15PM

:-)

HeadNEast333| 8.23.11 @ 4:43PM

Nice!

HeadNEast333| 8.23.11 @ 4:32PM

That is what I plan to do if Paul does not win in the Primaries..along with most of the people I know.. You might want to consider who you want more.. Paul or Obama..Go ahead call me stupid for dong this. Paul is better than any of theses other criminals... A vote for anyone else besides Paul is a vote for more of the same whether it is Obama, Perry, Santorum or Romney.

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 5:08PM

That's precisely what we Democrats are looking forward to! Seriously, the present GOP is a disintegrating coalition of traditional pto-business Wall-streeters, tea party populists, and libertarian anarchists. As Yeats penned, "the center cannot hold." After a bruising primary season, the parts will be unassemblable.

Truth to Power| 8.23.11 @ 7:12PM

Stop imbibing in the hemp. You're looking in the mirror again.

John| 8.23.11 @ 8:56AM

Mike,

Are you telling me what to do?

I hope not.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 9:34AM

He's telling you a fact: You WON'T pull the lever for Ron Paul in November, 2012.

Dan Hirsch| 8.23.11 @ 10:13AM

John can always write it in, whilst tipping his hat to the re-elected President Obama, he can...

John, you have plenty of time to decide who to vote for - you may have options you haven't even thought of.

Don't tread on me...

John| 8.23.11 @ 7:47PM

Dan and others,

I've thought about voting for Ron Paul for the past four years. I have already decided to vote for him and I do not take my decision lightly.

Please respect my decision as as a citizen and voter and stop replying to my posts in such a condescending manner.

Regards,

John

JP| 8.23.11 @ 7:36AM

Ron Paul has been in Congress for over 3 decades. And what does he have to show for it? One would think that after a decade or so he would have at least formed a few political coalitions. Nope. Other than to scream, "A pox on both your houses!", the man hasn't accomplished anything other than to collect a federal paycheck.

It is much easier to give speeches and write books (a disease of this age) than to actually govern. The House is where the action is at; it's where the rubber meets to road. Usually lawmakers who pile up the years in the House begin to angle for important committee chairmanships. Besides the power of the seat, the chairmanships give the timeservers a chance to put thier ideas to use. They steer the agenda, supervise the language of the laws, and in normal times oversee the federal bureaucracy (Not much of that these days. One would think Paul would relish the role of harrassing federal bureaucrats, Jessie Helms sure did). They also form short-term political alliances in order to ensure that thier ideas get put into law. Yes, there is alot of horse trading and compromises. A committee chairmen gets dirty. But that is the way of democracy.

Paul preferred to be the enternal Outsider who howls prophets of doom at the very institution he supposedly hates. That is his perogative. The voters of his district elected him 16 times. But that doesn't mean the rest of us are obliged to follow him.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.23.11 @ 7:52AM

JP,
you nailed it. Ron Paul has never accomplished anything...except gathering the lunatic fringe fellow screamers.
Mr. Lord
Thank you for thee research and filling in the history.

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 4:16PM

He was terrific in "Borat".

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 4:16PM

...or was it the other one?

John| 8.23.11 @ 8:25AM

Not quite sure how you thought Ron Paul wasn't actively involved. He serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Joint Economic Committee, and the House Committee on Financial Services, and is Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 8:54AM

And this argument again.

Lets turn it around.

Consider that congress has an approval rating of 11% due to the things they have accomplished.

And Ron Paul was the only person who stood up and said no to the policies that have netted them such a low approval.

And that is exactly why I'm voting for him.

Considering the shape and direction of the country currently, I'd say the people who have "accomplished" things are the ones we need to get rid of.

PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 10:33AM

And therefore John McCain is the best qualified Maverick to run for President, again. A man who compromises like him and knows how to make friends with the Democrats and roll over, er, sell out, er, betray, er, moderate conservatives ideas will win because liberals who voted for him in the primaries are sure to stay loyal to him.

How did that work out?

Jester2069| 8.23.11 @ 11:17AM

1) Thank you for not knowing the facts; it makes this argument easier. Ron Paul has spent a total of 22 years in Congress, and has not "been in Congress for over 3 decades." Elected 16 times? Math anyone?

2) You say Ron Paul hasn't accomplished anything, but he's done his role as a Congressman for a good, long time - he's listened to his constituents and returned their tax dollars to them. He did all of that *while* following the Constitution to a T, pointing out where others didn't, and never once voted against it.

I guess facts are just easy to ignore for some ppl.

HeadNEast333| 8.23.11 @ 4:51PM

He has consistently voted with the constitution. No one else has the voting record to show for it. Standing on principle sometimes means you stand alone..He no longer stands alone.

Shawn| 8.23.11 @ 5:57PM

Considering Congress' approval raiting (16% approve, 78% disapprove) you might think the guy calling for a "A pox on both your houses!" to be in the vast majority of American thinking...

Butler Reynolds| 8.23.11 @ 7:41AM

Well, there you go. If Ron Paul's campaign picks up steam, this is what is going to come out of the big government right.

Not much different in style from the mud slinging, FUD, and accusations of racism that often comes from the left.

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 7:41AM

Harris Poll: If Ron Paul Won GOP Nomination, He Would Split Vote With Obama.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), an official candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, has performed well in several polls throughout his campaign. In may, Paul took second place in a CNN/WMUR poll of likely Republican voters. In June, Paul won a Republican Leadership Conference straw poll. At the beginning of July, Paul came in first in a Texas GOP poll, conducted by the Azimuth Research Group.

Perhaps the best indication of Paul’s candidacy so far is a Harris poll released today by Harris Interactive. According to the Harris poll, Obama and Paul would split the vote right down the middle if they were to run against each other in 2012.

Mike Hawk| 8.23.11 @ 8:20AM

Rube Paul will not be the GOP nominee. Too old, too kooky, followers are too nutty. Worse yet, he is not a conservative.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 8:57AM

Ron Paul is the most conservative member of congress based on voting records.

I'm guessing you have no clue what platform GWB ran on in 99-00? I'll give you a hint - it's the one Ron Paul is running on now.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 9:15AM

Clint: Where the hell have you been? Ron Paul splits the vote with Obama in the new Gallup Poll. It was all over the front page of Drudge yesterday. You don't have to quote old polls. This dispite the dispicable lies and blackout of the main stream media. Ron Paul is the Man for peace and prosperty. He is the soldiers best friend.

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 9:27AM

I'm sorry, I was in a knife fight, in a bar in Philly.

You oughta see the other guy.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 9:35AM

I'm betting he kicked your ass.

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 9:45AM

It was a Joisey Broad. She told me, she kicked your ass, right before she died.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 10:24AM

A real Jersey girl would wipe the floor with a pansy-Paulie from Pennsylvania like yourself.

The way you numb-nutz drive is indicative of your lack of intestinal fortitude.

JimH| 8.23.11 @ 1:16PM

Nice alliteration.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 9:35AM

I am an old bar room brawler myself. Thats why I like places like this. I like kicking this lying scum right in the philisophic teeth.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 10:25AM

If you brawl like you argue, I'm guessing you don't have many teeth left.

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 11:38AM

Did William Buckley join you in those bar fights, Jack?

Drunken Sailor| 8.23.11 @ 12:04PM

It oculd have been Ronald Regan, or Paul Ryan. Jack claims to have known or met them all. If I didn't know better I would think he was Jack Hunter, the southern avenger, and just added the "In Wi" to throw people off.

Drunken Sailor| 8.23.11 @ 11:24AM

How come you don't mention that in that poll, while Ron Paul split the vote with Obama, thee were at least two canidates that beat Obama? Cherry picking?

Dan Hirsch| 8.23.11 @ 12:06PM

And, I believe I beat Obama, too...as an unnamed Republican....

HeeHaw!

Don't tread on me...

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 7:45AM

It's about time that TASOnline shined a light on the cockroaches Paul campaign and their wack-job leader.

The fact that Paul may have some good and common sense ideas about domestic and monetary policy does NOT excuse his dangerous, naive, isolationist, and idiotic foreign policy.

The Paulistas can bleat all they want about how Paul supports the military, and how Reagan liked Paul, blah-blah-blah. The fact of the matter is that Paul's ideas about foreign relations, as expressed by Paul himself, would embolden our enemies (and yes, we have them), and endanger Americans at home and abroad.

We don't need "radical and permanent change" from either the Obama or Ron Paul, and we don't need an army of angry, ill-informed, light-brown shirted Paulistas and their "Cult of Ron".

Ron Paul is a RINO. He is not a Conservative, he is a radical libertarian with questionable past associations and doltish followers.

Was that clear enough for you, Clint-William R.-Sean, and Jack the anti-Semite?

Jester2069| 8.23.11 @ 11:29AM

This might hurt your brain, and for that I'm sorry, but you need to get friggin' informed already.

www.juancole.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole#Iran

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 11:40AM

So there's an "intellectual" who disagrees with my position?

And who agrees with Ron Paul??

SO???

How does that affect the facts?

Hmmmmmmm???

HeadNEast333| 8.23.11 @ 5:02PM

You can lead a horse to water..

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 7:50AM

Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a POLITICO/TargetPoint poll: one that’s libertarian-minded and largely indifferent to hot-button values issues and another that’s culturally conservative and equally concerned about social and fiscal issues.

The survey, an exit poll conducted Thursday by Edison Research at the massive Tax Day protest on the National Mall, found that the attendees were largely hostile to President Barack Obama and the national Democratic Party — three-quarters believe the president “is pursuing a socialist agenda.”

Yet they aren’t enamored of the Republican Party as an alternative. Overall, three out of four tea party attendees said they were “scared about the direction” of the country and “want to send a message to both political parties.”

Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.

Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values — the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent.

When asked to choose from a list of candidates for president in 2012, Palin and Paul also finished one-two — with Palin at 15 percent and Paul at 14 percent.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 8:13AM

Your constant confusing of the GOP with Conservatism is either willfully misleading or just plain dumb.

I'm guessing the latter.

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 8:36AM

We didn't confuse The GOP RINO-CINO Arlen Specter with Conservatism.

We didn't confuse The Serial Traitor to Conservatism, John McCain With Conservatism.

I didn't confuse McCain-Finegold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, Gang of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 & 2003, TARP with Conservatism.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 8:44AM

You ARE confused...

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 8:59AM

You make such a compelling argument. I will be forgetting the actual truth and philosophy of conservative and will be pulling my support for Ron Paul as a result of this great debate you've put up here.

Yeah...

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 9:40AM

Whatever.

Your mind is already made up.

Besides, I'm not operating under the illusion that I can change your mind and convince you NOT to vote for Paul.

My objective is to make sure that the independent voters I know aren't infected by the cancerous political ideas that Paul and his army of fools express. And on that score, I'm winning.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 10:38AM

You can't win.

You are the fringe.

The GOP lost almost half it's support as a result of bush. The only new support to the party is from people like Ron Paul.

The main place Ron Paul is really an issue for people like you is foreign policy. And that is exactly the reason why people left the party to start with. What did Obama get elected on? Oh yeah, a different foreign policy - which he didn't hold up.

GWB was elected on "no nation building" and such. People don't like it.

If you really cared so much about conservative issues, then you would stop this charade and support Ron Paul. The only candidate who is conservative and has a foreign policy people will vote for.

Which is why you are so worried about Ron Paul taking your support. Maybe you will convince 1 in 4 people or whatever, but it doesn't matter. You are the fringe now. The support for such a foreign policy was short lived, and only as a result of the attacks.

Otherwise, you can count on another 4 years of Obama.

You can't win. Ron Paul can.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 11:42AM

"If you really cared so much about conservative issues, then you would stop this charade and support Ron Paul."

Sorry, I'm not a "follower". I don't need a loony pseudo-messiah to believe in.

And Ron Paul is NOT a Conservative.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 12:57PM

Please name just 1 candidate who is more conservative than Ron Paul, who has been in office for more than 4 years(IE: Long enough to have been in office during the bush years when republicans were in power).

I'll wait.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 1:47PM

Rick Perry.

Michelle Bachman.

Rick Santorum.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 4:15PM

"Social conservatives" are not real conservatives.

Nick| 8.23.11 @ 5:29PM

USS Constitution,

Social Conservatives are the ONLY conservatives.

Bruce | 8.23.11 @ 2:31PM

Herman Cain
Alan West

And you lost me when you said WE were the fringe. It suddenly struck me. You Paulites actually think you're mainstream...stunning.

It took me this long to realize most of you are truly delusional. Ron Paul will never...ever...win the Pres. Yet somehow you believe its a forgon conclusion.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 4:14PM

The neo-cons of the GOP are the fringe. They have lost tons of support over the past 6 years and they aren't gaining it back.

The GOP has no chance in the next election, just like it had no chance in the last election.

HeadNEast333| 8.23.11 @ 5:06PM

LOL you just keep telling yourself that..I will expect you to leave the country when he wins.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 9:41AM

And if you think ANYTHING that Clint posts is "compelling", then you're as nutty as he is.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 9:46AM

I despise Arlen Specter.

I really despise John McCain.

I was opposed to McCain-Feingold.

I was opposed to McCain-Kennedy.

I supported McCain-Lieberman 100%. Enemy combatants ARE NOT entitled to a civilian trial. If you think they are, then PLEASE produce the Constitutional support for such an opinion, as well as precedents from US history. Otherwise, admit your ignorance.

I opposed the "Gang of 14", and would have urged the RNC to primary every single one of them.

I opposed TARP, the "stimulus", and the auto-bailouts.

And I oppose Ron Paul.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 10:46AM

What they tried to do was illegal under both Geneva Conventions and Military Justice, and that is why it was over-turned by the Supreme Court.

If they are guilty, then why would it matter if they got a trial? Is it that hard to prove they are guilty? And if it is that hard to prove, then why are they locked up to begin with?

It should be an open and shut case.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 11:44AM

They're NOT "civilians".

They're NOT US citizens.

They're NOT protected by the US Constitution.

If you think they are, you know NOTHING about the issue you're attempting to discuss.

JimH| 8.23.11 @ 1:19PM

The Constitution does not grant rights to people, Americans or otherwise. What it does is tell the Federal government what it may and may not do.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 1:51PM

So much for "The Bill of RIGHTS", right?

And those "inalienable rights" like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

...roll eyes...

Josh| 8.23.11 @ 2:01PM

Right,

Try reading the 5th amendment again, my friend. It says "All persons...", not "All US citizens..." Care to dispute the obvious disparity between what you are arguing an what is clearly written in the 5th amendment? Care to provide any evidence as written by the Founders contrary to what they clearly wrote?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.....nstitution

BTW, your ad hominen attacks are childish and imply a lack of an intellectual capacity. If your argument is sound, then these attacks shouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, your arguments are akin to school yard name calling contest.

Josh

JimH| 8.23.11 @ 3:05PM

I’m not sure if this is directed to me or not as I made no attack, Ad Hominem or otherwise. I will agree that the Constitution enumerates some rights of individuals, but it does not grant them. The Bill of Rights was added to gain support for ratification by those concerned with granting too much power to the government. You may consider it hair splitting, but the point is that our rights do not come from the government or any group of people.

Josh| 8.23.11 @ 3:08PM

No Jim, not you. In fact, I agree with everything you said. As you said, rights come from out creator (or as exists in nature) not from our government.

My comment was to Dr. Right...

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 7:01PM

So when the Founders wrote the US Constitution, your thinking is that "All persons" included, literally..."all persons" ??

Ok...let's extrapolate, using your brilliant (sarcasm intended) logic.

If "all persons" are covered by the Rights guaranteed in the US Constitution, then in essence, "all persons" are US Citizens, or at the least, are deserving of protection

Well, now...that's ironic!

Since you're not too bright, I'll explain. Your position is actually an argument IN FAVOR of interventionism!! If "all persons" in the world are literally covered by the US Constitution, then we must proactively ensure that their rights are protected. And if that means getting involved in foreign entanglements...So be it!

Of course, that's absurd. "All persons" applies to US citizens, and only US citizens.

Now toddle off, and don't argue anymore with the adults.

You're not too b

Deborah D| 8.23.11 @ 2:17PM

My sentiments exactly.

Deborah D| 8.23.11 @ 2:18PM

That response was to Doctor Right's post about being opposed to Spector, McCain etc.

Oldefarte| 8.23.11 @ 1:31PM

Oh [since you're obviously blogging your own thoughts instead of the usual copy/paste jobs] I get it now by 'we didn't confuse'. What you therefore did by contrast was you obviously STUPIDLY bought into Obama/Democrats' HOPE&CHANGE; bullexcrement [since you were anti-McCain] and therefore are the sole reason why this country is in the economic/financial/fiscal toilet. YOU be source of Gump's absolutism of STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES!!!!!

Basil| 8.23.11 @ 7:53AM

Daryl Zanuck was not jewish.

Deborah D| 8.23.11 @ 2:19PM

He said that in the article.

Charles| 8.23.11 @ 7:56AM

Rather than give Mr. Lord's smear attempts too much attention,
I recommend the video available through this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lbykFYzYT4

Regards,

Charles

Old Soldier| 8.23.11 @ 7:58AM

Surf over to http://reason.com/blog

Domestic policy is a no brainer conservatives with libertarian tendancies like me. Foriegn policy / defense, and immigration is where libertarian purity is too much to swallow for many.

Ron Paul can complain about being ignored - but he wouldn't even be the leading Libertarian candidate if the nedia wasn't so thouroughly ignoring Gary Johnson. As popular 2-term Governor, Johnson is far more qualified than Paul.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 9:19AM

Ron Paul is tied with Obama in the latest Gallup poll. He has been tied in others as well. They have lied about him and ignored him. It hasn't worked. The people who are educated and read, are behind Ron Paul. The soldiers best friend.

Old Soldier| 8.23.11 @ 9:25AM

Not me.

He's been hanging around Congress for decades getting earmarks for his district placed into bills he later votes against - bringing home the bacon while posing as a purist. He has never led anything.

I could vote for Gary Johnson if he makes sense on foreign policy and immigration. I have no desire to see another inexperienced ideologue learning on the job and in over his head.

WZP01| 8.23.11 @ 9:45AM

You do know how earmarks work, right?

Appropriations bills are the ones which say something like "we will be collecting $100 billion in tax revenues, or borrowing it, to use for government spending." After that, whether the money is earmarked or not, the $100 billion will be spent. The only difference between earmarked spending and non-earmarked spending is that when money isn't earmarked, it goes into an account for the executive branch to spend however they want, and that money is not accounted for.

When the executive branch spends money, there is no paper trail and it can be spent or lost in the system with no accountability.

When a congressman earmarks that money, it is accounted for, adding transparency to government spending, and the money is used for infrastructure projects for the people.

If there are going to be appropriations bills, you want earmarks. You want to know where money is being spent, and most of all, you want that money being spent here.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 9:58AM

Adding Earmarks does not add to government spending.

The money for earmarks is allocated BEFORE anyone takes it. So even if no politician ear marked something, the money would still get spent.

When he does the earmarks, all he does it put in requests from people in his district. Meaning - he is representing the people who elected him.

You know, the same taxpayers who put into the fund to start with. So basically, he's just getting some of their money back. If he didn't claim the money for his district, it would go somewhere else, still getting spent. Would you want your politician to do that?

He serves the people he represents.

He also then votes against the same bills, and votes against the things which allocate the money, and so on.

I personally can't see a better way for a congressman to do it.

When I first heard about earmarks I thought exactly what you did. But after having it explained like above to me, it made sense.

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 7:59AM

"I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom."
- Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist

Bruce | 8.23.11 @ 2:37PM

"...57 states..." Barack Obama, nobel peace prize

STEVEMAN| 8.23.11 @ 8:11AM

This started as a pretty insightful piece. Unfortunately, it quickly dissolved into the tired anti-Semite rhetoric. You lost all credibility with me when you linked that Ben Stein video...

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 8:23AM

The "tired" anti-Semitic rhetoric?

Is that how we describe the truth these days? Even when backed by fact-checked references, historical documents, quotes, books, AND video???

We just dismiss it out of hand??

That's called evasion.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that Paul's rabid fans on this board, particularly the loathsome "Clint", have refrained from their usual style of post-ing today? They're not calling anyone a "neocon, Israel Firster." Are we supposed to think that's only a coincidence?

The Paulista creeps on this forum routinely demonstrate every single one of the characteristics that Mr. Lord describes, including the thinly veiled anti-Semitism.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 9:22AM

Anti Semite, Antisemite, Antisemite. That old canard and another pile of lies is all you have left. Ron Paul is the peoples choice. He is the soldiers best friend.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 9:48AM

But it works SO well, Jack...The truth ALWAYS does.

Ron Paul will NEVER be President.

KFChickenhawk| 8.23.11 @ 5:22PM

Kent Snyder, Paul's close friend and campaign manager, was a homosexual Jew who died from complications related to HIV.

You should be more ashamed of yourself than Mr. Lord.

Durzo| 8.23.11 @ 8:16AM

Ron Paul knows who the real enemies of this country are, and they are not in the middle east.
Once you take the time to understand Ron Paul's positions and his motivations, there is no going back.
We've heard this all before; if you don't like Obama's positions, you are a racist; if you don't like neoconservatism, you obviously just don't like Jewish people. Horsecrap, and you know this.
Ron Paul is gaining support by leaps and bounds, so you have to put the propaganda machine in high gear to protect your bankers, your military industrial complex and your corporatism.
What has Ron Paul accomplished? He has awoken the sleeping giant; he has reminded Americans of what we are supposed to be. He has inspired millions with the possibility that a politician can be honest and principled.

Mike Hawk| 8.23.11 @ 8:22AM

Sorry pal, but ME countries have declared we are their enemy. Better pay attention. They hate us for who we are.

David Toland| 8.23.11 @ 8:44AM

Mike,
"They hate us for who we are." Tell me, how many people do you hate, just for the reason of "who they are"? Does this make any sense at all?
What makes much more sense is that they hate us for what we have done to them. Take Iran for example - did you know that in 1953 they had a democracy, and our gov't installed the Shah of Iran, who was a ruthless dictator....Now does it make more sense why Iranians hate our guts?

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 9:54AM

You're ignorant of history.

The fact that Mohammed Mossadegh was elected is irrelevant; so was Hitler. Mossadegh was a socialist who was cozying-up to the Soviets (Remember them? Ronnie Paul said they were a BIG threat last week) and who had nationalized the oil industry in Iran, threatened our economy.

Operation Ajax, which got rid of Mossadegh and installed the Shah, was a brilliant plan. But what you Paulies conveniently ignore is that it never could have worked without the support of the Iranian people, many of whom had grown weary of Mossadegh's autocratic tendencies.

You need to learn history before you spout the talking points and carry "Dr" Paul's water.

Jeremy| 8.23.11 @ 11:08AM

Who died and made us God of the world? What makes us think we have the right to overthrow an ELECTED government and install a dictatorship in it's place? Do you think Iran would be (as scary as MSM says) if it wasn't for us installing the Shah in the first place? Regardless of Mossadegh's autocratic tendencies, we have no RIGHT to topple governments as we see fit.

This is called blow back, and Ron Paul rightfully so has spoken about it many times including the Fox News Debate a few weeks ago where he gave R. Santorum a lesson in history.

What if another government starts to believe that the USA had "autocratic tendencies" by your statements then that would be A-OK, or is it only America that gets to make the judgement calls? More American exceptionalism then?

BTW, Ron Paul did NOT say that the Soviet Union was a BIG threat as you wrote. That was Michelle Bachman. Want a source? how about Fox News: http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dp.....h_14642437

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 1:54PM

"Do you think Iran would be (as scary as MSM says) if it wasn't for us installing the Shah in the first place?"

Actually, Mr. Chamberlain, if it wasn't for Jimmy carter's fecklessness, Iran would still be an ally, not an enemy.

But I guess that whole "blowback" thing only works when you can blame it on the Pro-Israel lobby, right?

AND Ron Paul said the Soviets were the REAL threat. I heard it, and so did the rest of the country.

David Toland| 8.23.11 @ 12:23PM

The point_Dr.Right, is that we intervened in a government where we had no right to do so. By your logic, since Iran was "threatening our economy", we had every right to overthrow their gov't. Well, China now threatens our economy, by your logic, we should overthrow their gov't. Maybe you need to learn some logic, dumbass.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 1:56PM

You're in WAY over your head, dummy...

WHO says we had "no right" to intervene in Iran?

You don't really understand how the world works, do you?

And yes, if we could enact policies to cause the government of Communist China to crumble, we should do it - immediately. Do you think Reagan got rid of the Soviet Union by adapting Ron Paul's isolationist ideas??

David Toland| 8.23.11 @ 4:07PM

Yes, I understand how the world works, everyone acts in their own perceived best interests, including the U.S.
We intervened in Iran because of money, and we suffered the consequences. I don't believe for a minute that the Iranians hate us for who we are.

Also, because the Soviet Union collapsed on Reagan's watch, doesn't mean he was responsible for it. Have you considered that the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway, without our massive military buildup?

BTW, a conversation with you doesn't even qualify as "way over my head." LOL

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 7:05PM

Actually, you're at the bottom of the sea, in too deep, and spouting the talking points.

WZP01| 8.23.11 @ 8:54AM

It's obvious that you've paid no attention to anything that Osama Bin Laden said in the tapes. He wanted to bankrupt us. He blamed Clinton's actions in Iraq and Albright's statements that 500,000 dead Iraqi children were "acceptable", in spite of the fact Iraq had done absolutely nothing to us.

It's not who we are, it's what we do.

Dev| 8.23.11 @ 9:54AM

Wake up, Mike, and try not to regurgitate hateful nonsense. I lived in the ME for 5 yrs, Beirut. I speak from direct, personal experience - nobody in the ME 'hates you for who you are'. They don't 'hate your freedom' either, btw. Those that do hate, tend to have relatives in coffins, or missing limbs.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 8:25AM

Israel is in the Middle East, and Paulistas HATE Israel.

WZP01| 8.23.11 @ 8:33AM

I don't hate Israel. I just think it's time that they take their own defense seriously, without turning to us to sacrifice our soldiers or money for them.

They have an amazing military and are more than capable of defending themselves.

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 8:40AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Israel is our close friend. While President Obama’s demand that Israel
make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,
without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United
Nations.

“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington."

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 9:24AM

Actually, our currently policy gives more to the other countries in the middle east than we do to Israel. At about a 4-1 rate. We give the other countries 4 times as much in money than we do to Israel.

So actually, Israel would be gaining more as a result of Ron Paul rather than less.

Furthermore. We took a secular country in Iraq and installed a government based on Islam.

Oh darn those facts. Always getting in the way of baseless name calling and lies.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 9:27AM

And btw, when Iraq was our big ally in the middle east during the 80's and we were pumping in all these "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to Iraq. Israel had to bomb Iraq's nuclear facilities for their own protection. Which btw, Ron Paul supports Israel doing this.

I tell you what, if these are the kinds of policies that you believe are good for our friends, please don't ever make me your friend.

Le Cracquere| 8.23.11 @ 8:22AM

Thanks, Mr. Lord. Marshalling an argument against cranks is a thankless job, and a pointless one if the goal is to convert them. Nevertheless, it's important to remind others of who and what Mr. Paul is, and whence his support comes. Your much-needed daylight is useful to inattentive Republicans who might otherwise make common cause with the tinfoil-chapeau crowd.

He's all we need: a "conservative" candidate who would oblige me to hold my nose and pull the lever for four more years!

Sean| 8.23.11 @ 8:30AM

Very sloppy reasoning from Mr. Lord
1. Noninterventionism means not to go looking for wars when we ourselves are not attacked. By your own definition Ron Paul is as conservative as George Washington because he voted to go into Afghanistan after we were attacked.
2. Antisemitism. The most Jews are on the left and are allies with the left just like most black are on the left politically. Troskyite Jews make up the founding of the neocons. Most Republican Jews come from this branch so yes calling them neocons would be correct and not antisemitism. They themselves are not conservatives. Oh by the way Washington was fighting the British.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.23.11 @ 8:44AM

Washington was fighting the British."

Correct.

The Canadians. however, are Canadians. And he approved and organized the invasion of Canada. Canada is not Britain.

WZP01| 8.23.11 @ 9:04AM

Canada was under British rule at the time. Canada didn't declare its independence and sovereignty from the British Empire until 1867.

Washington was fighting the British.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 9:04AM

/facepalm.

I didn't know Washington was still leading wars in the late 1800's. Since Canada wasn't even formed until 1867.

And even then, Canada didn't become independent from England until - 1982.

I guess next you'll be telling me Washington lead an army against America since the Revolutionary war was fought over here.

Sean| 8.23.11 @ 9:08AM

Do you even know your history? Canada was part of the British empire and British armies were coming into the colonies from there.

Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanistan because he thought it was in our interest. That shows he was willing to defend our country. He isn't willing though to engage in nation building.

Solo| 8.23.11 @ 8:44AM

Actually, Sean...
The Neocons were "Ex-Trotskyite Jews".

They were young college kids/political intellectuals who had become (in their own words) "Mugged by reality" and had come to realize, again in their own words, that "...the left no longer knew what it was talking about".

They became conservatives (to a point). Hence the term Neo (new) Conservative or "NeoCon", a contraction invented by one Michael Harrington (committed leftist and current day member of the Socialist party) as a term of derision.

You see, Sean, the left HATES the neocons with a passion. The PaulBots hate the neocons with a passion.

And both groups hate them for the same reason.

WZP01| 8.23.11 @ 8:57AM

And what was their main reason for being angry with the left? The left was tired of Vietnam. They wanted to continue fighting.

Progressive warmongers infiltrated the Republican party and have systematically destroyed it.

Nick| 8.23.11 @ 12:21PM

Sean,

1) President James Madison (Father of the Constitution) invaded Canada during the War of 1812. If the Founders were noninterventionists, President Madison should have just defended American merchant shipping and United States territory, correct? Why did he invade British territory when the reason for the war was British conscription of American sailors on the high seas?

2) Treating any group, whether it is racial, religious, or national, as if they are all alike is prejudicial. The American ideal is to treat everyone as an individual. So, if you look at a black man, and assume he is a democrat, you are being prejudiced. If you assume every Jew you see is a leftist/socialist, you are definitely being racist.

Some people believe that you are only anti-Semitic if you're a nazi or a Wahhabi jihadi. This is not true. If you believe the worst about someone, just because they are Jewish, you are an anti-Semite.

Sean| 8.23.11 @ 12:42PM

I think you don't know what noninterventionist means. Yet again Canada was part of the British Empire. If you are war with a country its colonies are also at war with you. Nonintervention doesn't mean you can't fight an offensive war in defense of yourself. Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanistan to take out Bin Laden. Instead it turned into a nation building exercise.

I think you need to read Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell on prejudice. Of course all Jews aren't leftists and all neocons aren't Jews. Look at Peter Schiff he is Jewish and isn't a neocon. So when someone call a Republican Jew who supports multiple wars to spread Democracy and supports high government spending a neocon it isn't antisemtic its just the proper label for the most part.

Nick| 8.23.11 @ 1:17PM

Sean,

I don't think all of you noninterventionists can agree on what it means.

Many noninterventionists here, at AmSpec, have used the Confederate States of America as an example of noninterventionism. The South just wanted to secede, and had no territorial claims on the North, so the argument goes. The South was just defending itself. (They conveniently leave out the part about Lee invading Gettysburg.)

Now, you are saying it is okay to conquer enemy territory during a defensive, noninterventionist war, correct? Is it okay to keep this conquered territory after the war is over? To make sure the enemy doesn't become a threat again?

Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell treat people as individuals. The term neocon might have started out as you claim, but, it has come to be used as a pejorative against only Jews. Unless, you can name any non-Jews who are routinely labeled as neocons in the conservative sphere of influence?

Sean| 8.23.11 @ 1:52PM

The South did want to secede. You think Lee invaded into PA to take it over and keep it? I doubt that very seriously. In modern times it isn't OK to take over others territory. It is OK though to attack another country after we have been attacked and destroy its military and depose its leadership and then promptly leave.

I don't think you have read Sowell and Williams that much. They have addressed prejudice many times in a positive light. William's even has explained while filling in for Rush that he was prejudice in picking his wife.

Nick| 8.23.11 @ 2:27PM

Sean,

Stay on topic. President Madison wanted to take over Canada. He preemptively invaded the province. British troops had not invaded from the north.

The non-interventionist creed is that we can only fight a defensive war to protect our borders and shipping. Why was the "Father of the Constitution" justified in preemptively invading Canada? Shouldn't he have just protected American shipping?

"In modern times it isn't OK [...]."

Why the qualifier, Sean? So, it was okay to keep territory in the past, but not now? It sounds like you practice situational ethics.

As far as Mr. Williams and prejudice goes, I made my point perfectly clear. I was talking about presuming the worst about a certain group rather than looking at the individual and his actions. Like assuming that every black man that you see is likely "on the left politically." That type of thinking is lazy.

Sean| 8.23.11 @ 3:02PM

Non-interventionist doesn't mean we can only fight within our own borders. I don't know where you got that concept. In 1812 it was perfectly fine to attack the British where ever they were especially on our border.

Yes now most countries borders in the civilized world are pretty clear. There is no need to go conquer other countries and take their land.

It is perfectly fine to make assumption about groups based. And it is perfectly fine for the an individual to be able to be prejudiced and it is often prudent. Just the other day I was at Home Depot. I saw some old guy in line so I went to the next line because my prejudice told me he was most likely slow. Turns out I was correct as he held up his line and I was out before he him.

Nick| 8.23.11 @ 4:54PM

Sean,

"I don't know where you got that concept."

From the non-interventionists whom I have debated repeatedly about the justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom. They consistently say that unless Saddam attacked us, we had no right to invade. (They conveniently forget that Saddam shot at our aircraft, in the No-Fly Zone, for almost 12 years. It doesn't matter when I point it out, either, because we were enforcing UN resolutions.)

"There is no need to go conquer other countries and take their land."

Why? Because you say so? Where is your argument?

"Turns out I was correct as he held up his line and I was out before he him."

This is not prejudice, it is deductive reasoning. There is a huge difference. Try learning it.

David Toland| 8.23.11 @ 8:35AM

the GOP, just like the Dems, do not want smaller government. A smaller government means less goodies for the politicians to give to their supporters, GOP and Democrat alike.

When it comes right down to it, the GOP claims to less government and less spending are nothing but talk - Boehner is every bit as good a liar as Obama. Consider that the tea party pushed the Republicans in the debt ceiling debate as far as they could to get spending cuts - and what did they get? Nothing but another commission to come up with recommendations. Which recommendations will most likely be ignored, just like Simpson-Bowles.

Conclusion: there isn't any difference at all between Republicans and Democrats except for their different special interest groups....

Vote Ron Paul 2012

Sean| 8.23.11 @ 8:38AM

FDR was for war so maybe the war position is liberal. As we know FDR was a big liberal. Neocons have much in common with FDR. They want social programs at home and wars abroad.

Dev| 8.23.11 @ 8:40AM

I don't care where Dr. Paul fits (or doesn't) on the political spectrum. I despise bigotry in any form. I don't agree with complete non-intervention. And I'm not a gold bug. Any other critique of Ron Paul that you might offer would also be irrelevant to me. Because he's the only candidate I trust to deal with the issues that matter most to me: The Treasury issuing bonds at interest when it should be spending legal tender into the economy for free; an unsustainable fractional reserve banking system; a debt-based money supply.
These problems are fundamental, their resolution crucial to the restoration of this nation. I will continue to support Dr. Paul as the one candidate who recognizes that fact.

David Toland| 8.23.11 @ 8:47AM

Well stated. I agree completely.

S. R. Feldman| 8.23.11 @ 8:45AM

...And if you want some Bircher/New world order stuff,
see Paul's Farewell Speech (1982).
This was sold as a separate little
book by the LNC during the "88
campaign (and it's in the Congressional Record... or was,
anyway...)

Mike Hawk| 8.23.11 @ 8:47AM

The only thing Ron PAul will do in January of '13 is retire from public life at the age of 77 after a modestly distinguished life in Congress.

Purple Lips| 8.23.11 @ 8:51AM

I wonder if he will donate his considerable war chest to charity?

Mimi| 8.23.11 @ 8:49AM

Honest and principled we all believe in! To not be a faithful alli to Israel , and NOT defend ourselves from EVIL at home and abroad is NOT HONEST & PRINCIPLED !
To tie our troops hands behind their backs and not agressively and....quickley defeat the ENEMY is what most Americans oppose!

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 8:54AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense."

Mimi| 8.23.11 @ 8:59AM

Also I REPEAT , there is NO consensus for voting for RON PAUL ! To tear down our ability to defend evil and also "THE VERY AGE and FUTURE HEALTH " of the Honorable Representative from Texas is the reason and concerns. In this critical junction of our NATION we cannot elect a RISKY , emotional vote ! WHAT ? a repeat of the HORROR of 2008 ????

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 9:19AM

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,

On Iran,The President should:

4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 8:51AM

Ames, Iowa -- The results of the Ames Straw Poll:

1. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (4823 votes, 28.55%)
2. Congressman Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%)
3. Governor Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%)
4. Senator Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%)
5. Herman Cain(1456, 8.62%)
6. Governor Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) write-in
7. Governor Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%)
8. Speaker Newt Gingrich (385, 2.28%)
9. Governor Jon Huntsman (69, 0.41%)
10. Congressman Thad McCotter (35, 0.21%)

Mike Hawk| 8.23.11 @ 9:02AM

SO who really gives a ssh*t what the straw poll is?? It doesn't give any meaningful result. Just gives you Paul kooks a false sense of euphoric phony success.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 9:18AM

Apparently the media and all the political talking heads in every election year my entire life except this one. Sure meant alot last election when Romney won it.

It's always been a measure of grassroots support.

Suddenly, when someone like Ron Paul does well - they are meaningless.

What must really piss people like you off is that Ron Paul is in the mix despite getting horrible press from the media. Imagine how well he might do if given a fair shake.

This election race is more like handicapped drag racing. Where the media keeps talking about how Ron Paul can't win, and they think - how can he win since we are giving the other guys 3/4 track headstart.

And he's still blowing your doors. lol.

"Oh it don't mean nothing". Spoken like a true loser.

Dick Nome| 8.23.11 @ 9:30AM

Yep, Romney really kicked ass in that last election preseason straw poll... and the following primaries. Sure was important. Capt McQueeg barely registered and went on to blow the general election with a pitiful campaign. Yep, Straw polls should be rule.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 9:43AM

What?

McCain never blow any election out. The only reason he got the nomination is because Romney out of the blue dropped out of the race.

And how well did McCain do in the general election? Oh yeah - President Obama. He never had any real support and it showed.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 9:45AM

After re-reading what you posted, I'm not sure we actually disagree.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 9:30AM

The Gallup poll of yesterday. Other polls as well have Ron Paul in a statistic tie with Obama. The people are behind Ron Paul and hisdrive to bring our troops home end all foreign aid and get our money back to a stable currency. Send Them a message. Vote for Ron Paul for peace and prosperity.

Drunken Sailor| 8.23.11 @ 2:37PM

And the Gallup poll has Perry and Romney both ahead of the Obama/Paul tie, yet you never mention that.

Drunken Sailor| 8.23.11 @ 2:36PM

Didn't Ron paul win the 2008 straw poll there as well? Tell me again how well he did in the primaries.

Red Phillips| 8.23.11 @ 9:03AM

Mr. Lord, it is people like you that make the education element of the Ron Paul campaign necessary. On foreign policy you are simply wrong. Non-intervention is the policy that naturally flows from the authentic conservative mindset. This should be so face obvious for anyone remotely familiar with the philosophical first principles of conservatism that explaining it comes off pedantic. But here goes. The idea that America has some special role to play in maintaining world stability or spreading democracy or whatever above and beyond what is needed to simply defend the country is an internationalist ideological imposition. It is NOT CONSERVATIVE. It has more in common with French Revolution Jacobins or Soviet Marxists who also saw their countries as the bringers of enlightenment to the benighted foreign masses.

Also, on history you are wrong. The Founders debate vigorously at the Constitutional Convention whether we SHOULD EVEN HAVE A STANDING ARMY! Chiefly it was Madison, that pinko commie I guess, who argued that we shouldn’t. While the standing army forces won that debate, the limits in the constitution on funding the Army in two year intervals was intended to prevent a permanent large standing army that all believed was inimical to the liberty of a free nation.

(To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; ~ Article 1 Section 8. Perhaps Mr. Genius Lord would like to square that language with his modern ideological interventionist imposition.)

The idea that Congress might have to at times “raise” an army implies that they did not foresee a big one just sitting around all the time. To take modern ideological interventionism and attempt to impose that on the Founders, WHO EVEN DEBATED THE NEED FOR A STANDING ARMY, is laughingly absurd. The Founders DID NOT INTEND the US to play world globo cop, and any attempt to suggest they are on your side makes you look foolish.

More later. There is too much misinformation in this post to clear up in one reply.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 9:44AM

Yes, they indeed debate whether a standing army was necessary. I guess you did not read the part about the conclusion of that debate. The answer was, 'yes.'

Mr. Lord is not implying nor saying that we are or desire to be a global cop.

Jonathan Gillespie| 8.23.11 @ 10:01AM

And Dr. Paul isn't saying we should never defend ourselves. There is a big difference between attacking, say, Iran "Because they might hurt us", and having a centralized military that isn't scattered all over the world.

We go to war now to prevent war. We patrol the entire world because, as one reader said here, "If not us whom?".

Ignoring the fact that we're not meant to be the world police, we simply can't afford it anymore. I have yet to see any other candidate, left or right, come out and admit what we all know -- we're broke, and endless campaigning is part of it.

Outside Paul's prowess as an economist and his understanding of the fiscal policies that got us into this mess, this is still a valid point.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 11:13AM

Mr. Paul also said he would not have taken out Bin Laden, he would allow and even encourage Iran in making nuclear bombs, and he would give full citizen rights to terrorists. He would not have any problem cutting the defense budget by 50 or more percent. His prosecution of the War on Terror would be non existent. You seem to think he is the only person in the US calling for a more careful and considered national interest foreign policy approach. None of us are advocating long expensive protracted occupations and nation building at our expense. Some of his ideas are irresponsible and crazy. Some of his ideas are right on the mark.

Jonathan Gillespie| 8.23.11 @ 12:56PM

Completely false. He wouldn't have taken out Bin Laden WITHOUT the approval of Pakistan -- without making them aware -- because it's a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty to just charge in and do it;we can't just disregard international law. He never encouraged Iran to build a nuclear weapon; he just said it's none of our business if they had it.

Further point: You say you guys aren't advocating protracted occupations and nation building, but what is the end-game of containment of Iran? Don't tell me it can't go hot if we're in that region, and that we then wouldn't get bogged down into yet another protracted fight.

Red Phillips| 8.23.11 @ 11:33AM

"Mr. Lord is not implying nor saying that we are or desire to be a global cop."

Simon, have you seen the Navy's new slogan? America's Navy: A Global Force for Good. Hmmm...

In fact, Lord style interventionism does imply that we are supposed to play globo cop whether he admits it as clearly as the Navy now does or not. The interventionist mindset (very unconservatively I might add) assumes for the US a unique role/responsibility for maintaining global order. This cannot be denied. Why else would you hear interventionist asking "What are we going to do about Syria?" to use a current example. Do people in Moldova, for example, ask themselves what they are going to do about Syria?

Some interventionists eschew the democracy promotion rhetoric of the neocons and instead view everything in terms of obviously exaggerated risks, but all interventionists are by nature internationalists who presuppose an exalted role for the US in world affairs. They can’t not think like this which is why Paul’s non-interventionism seems so foreign to them. They can’t fathom a mindset (the mindset that flows naturally from conservative presumptions) where the US only tends to its own affairs.

Solo| 8.23.11 @ 10:04AM

@ Red Phillips

And you, sir, are wrong on current events.

"Also, on history you are wrong. The Founders debate vigorously at the Constitutional Convention whether we SHOULD EVEN HAVE A STANDING ARMY! Chiefly it was Madison, that pinko commie I guess, who argued that we shouldn’t. While the standing army forces won that debate, the limits in the constitution on funding the Army in two year intervals was intended to prevent a permanent large standing army that all believed was inimical to the liberty of a free nation.

(To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; ~ Article 1 Section 8. Perhaps Mr. Genius Lord would like to square that language with his modern ideological interventionist imposition.)"

The standing Army issued was settled and you will notice that the Two year appropriation for standing armies conveniently coincides with the Two year term for each Congress.
You will also notice that this appropriation is re-issued with every year's budget--thus rendering you objections within the context of the Constitution, moot.

"The idea that Congress might have to at times “raise” an army implies that they did not foresee a big one just sitting around all the time. To take modern ideological interventionism and attempt to impose that on the Founders, WHO EVEN DEBATED THE NEED FOR A STANDING ARMY, is laughingly absurd. The Founders DID NOT INTEND the US to play world globo cop, and any attempt to suggest they are on your side makes you look foolish."

The Founders formed their foreign policy initiatives and attitudes within the context of the geopolitical realities of their time and the then current state of a fledgling nation just emerging from a revolutionary war.

And your attempt, sir, to impose your 21st Century ideological isolationism onto the 18th Century Founders is either hopelessly naive or flabbergastingly disingenuous.

Red Phillips| 8.23.11 @ 10:29AM

Solo, why are other appropriations not limited in the same way? Why were appropriations for the Army specifically limited? The historical context is clear. As Joseph Story writes below: (I disagree with Story about a lot of things, but this is a simple historical statement of context.)

“It may be admitted, that standing armies may prove dangerous to the state. But it is equally true, that the want of them may also prove dangerous to the state. What then is to be done? The true course is to check the undue exercise of the power, not to withhold it. This the constitution has attempted to do by providing, that "no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." Thus, unless the necessary supplies are voted by the representatives of the people every two years, the whole establishment must fall. Congress may indeed, by an act for this purpose, disband a standing army at any time; or vote the supplies only for one year, or for a shorter period. But the constitution is imperative, that no appropriation shall prospectively reach beyond the biennial period. So that there would seem to be every human security against the possible abuse of the power.”

So again I say, to try and make globalist interventionist ideologues out of the Founders who feared a standing army is simply absurd. Period.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu.....12s29.html

Solo| 8.23.11 @ 11:10AM

@Red Phillips.

I am not trying to make anything out of the founders other than what they were: a pretty diverse bunch.
Yes...some feared a standing Army. But...some saw the value in such an army, obviously, or the prohibition against a standing army would have prevailed. Is that not self-evident?

We, as a nation, have long since moved beyond such fears and have embraced the standing military, (Navy, Marines, Army and Air Force) as an integral part of preserving our way of life.
To suggest to do otherwise is to attempt to apply 18th Century sensibilities to 21st Century realities.
It is this that Paulism suggests on foreign policy and it is simply not viable....and hasn't been for a very long time.

Your argument suggests that we shouldn't have a standing military. Why else raise this issue?
And so, let us project that approach to a 20 year window whereby we've had no standing army--no Air Force--no Marine Corps, etc. AND....by some miracle of Divine origin, we have remained unmolested by the rest of the world.
If attacked.....then what? Will we re-design and re-build our military complex at that time? Will there be time?

You get my point, I think. It's absurd.
And..it isn't reflective of the actual world we live in. This is why it is downright dishonest to attempt to apply the attitudes of SOME of the Founders back in 1789 to the realities which exist in 2011. But...your argument (and Ron Paul's argument) attempts exactly that.

Back during the 2008 campaign for the nomination, Ron Paul attempted to make that very argument for a limited military. He claimed (on national television) that all we actually needed was one Nuclear Sub parked off the coast of North Carolina for our defense.

Despite his laudable opinions on some subjects, this is a man so dangerously delusional and so completely trapped in his anachronistic tendencies, that he could never be taken seriously as a man who should ever be allowed anywhere near the levers of real power.

In essence, he's a crackpot! Period.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 11:38AM

If attacked - you raise an army. Do you know what they mean by "standing" army? Why would you for some reason assume that would mean no army ever?

And then you have the 2nd amendment - which is why nobody has invaded us in a long time. No country is ever going to be able to take over the US through military might. Japan wouldn't dare set ground on the US, because they know we are a defacto armed military in it's citizens. Unlike other countries who do not allow the people to carry arms.

And yes, there will be plenty of time. Wars don't just open up over night. It's always known well in advance that a war is about to start. And thankfully, our position geographically gives us even more warning. I don't think Canada or Mexico is going to invade us any time soon.

The people with our 2nd amendment weapons is the largest military in the world. Larger than our standing army.

Also, the president can give out a Letter of Marque and Reprisal to deal with things like terrorist and other such groups. That is - hand it over to the private sector. It's actually pretty effective. Rather than taking over entire countries and pouring trillions of dollars into them, we'd be doing Seal Team 6 type operatives privately and taking out the people of importance.

Hell, they could have just done that back in 2001 and we could have gotten on with our lives. Bet your ass the next person who thought about doing such would think twice about it, when they are just personally the ones who take the bullets and not all the people they've managed to manipulate doing it for them.

Jeremy| 8.23.11 @ 11:44AM

To add to that, when they did go to war. The leaders actually went with them, what a novel concept. That instead of sending our youth to be killed in a war, they themselves stood up and showed their conviction of the cause and went in front of their armies. Wow, imagine that; leaders with such a strong conviction of their war effort that they were willing to risk THEIR lives instead of just the youth of the nation.

DRed| 8.23.11 @ 9:05AM

I don't know what's less accurate: implying George Washington was a neo-conservative or saying Ron Paul is a neo-liberal. Regardless, this comment thread should be a fun one.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 9:47AM

DRED, skip back to the Huff and Puff. There is an article over there where they are fighting over who is more communist enough and who is more revolutionary that you might want to join in on. Take your cousin feak ball Libertarians with you.

Nathan| 8.23.11 @ 9:12AM

I don't even know where to begin....

How can you so casually call people who are against neo-conservatism anti-semetic? That is the most blatant, dangerous non sequitor I have read in years.

Let me get this straight: Because I do not believe in endless wars in the middle east that do nothing but bleed this country dry and create new enemies every day by blowing up their families, not to mention feed the military industrial complex (yes I said it, look up Eisenhower stupid), I'm anti-semetic?

I am almost shaking. Fuming. The people in the ME do not hate us because of our "freedoms," that tired line needs to stop being repeated, it exposes ignorance. They hate us because we've been raping their countries since the end of WWII. Look at what we're doing now: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria. Iran? How stupid do you think we are? America has become the occupational, empirical force in the ME. What if China came and did the same crap to us? You're damn right I would become an "insurgent."

I'm tired of this. Our country is crumbling. It may already be too late. And our sacred Government has been hijacked and is the problem, not the solution. The "mainstream" is what has brought us to the brink of disaster. Why on earth should we keep listening to them?

Saying that if I don't support the ruinous path that our country is on is anti-semitic is a blatant lie and irresponsible. Your case is so weak that you have to resort to name calling, pathetic.

I am an American Citizen.
I am a Ron Paul supporter.
I am not racist.
I am not an isolationist.

I AM a furious citizen. Furious that we have let our "leaders" take us to the brink of disaster. Furious that we have allowed these corporate media hacks brainwash my fellow citizens.

The poster who said that the sleeping giant has awoken is correct. We, the aware people of the United States, will no longer idly stand by and watch the corporate media, corrupt government, and the military industrial complex destroy the country that we hold so dear.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

We are at stage 3 of 4. Guess what comes next?

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 9:25AM

You are a self deluded neo-liberal.

Jonathan Gillespie| 8.23.11 @ 10:03AM

And you're calling him a label you read five minutes ago, ostensibly because it allows you not to think or consider his point of view. I have jackboots from the Russian surplus store, if you want them.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 11:02AM

No, I have been using that term for quite some time actually. I have addressed his point of view at length throgh out this thread including your below. Jackboots? What are you doing with them?
Russian? Wow. You are a lot more lefty than I ever imagined! No thanks, keep them..wear them out.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 11:03AM

You will need those jackboots while your chasing after those neo-con Jews.

Truth to Power| 8.23.11 @ 11:13AM

It is an appropriate label though. It is a ton more appropriate than the neo-con label used as code for Jews. It reflects the radical ideological nature of Paulbots.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 11:47AM

neo-con = jews?

Since when?

I mean I've known alot of neo-cons in my day, and I don't remember that many, if any, of them being jewish.

And many of the Jewish people I do know aren't Neo-cons at all.

If anything, I would have thought it meant crazy Armageddon Christians who think it's their duty to make bible prophecy come true(their interpretation of it of course).

I mean, the actions of the US don't seem to me to be in favor of the Jewish people. I always felt like they were just being used for other goals. Histories most popular scapegoat.

So I really don't get this Neo-con = Jews stuff.

Jonathan Gillespie| 8.23.11 @ 12:59PM

Sarcasm, folks -- I don't own Jackboots.

And I wasn't aware that neocon just became "Jew". Can you guys enlighten me on what other political labels now have racial overtones? I thought we were all against this kind of nonsense; Lord knows the tea party has suffered enough from race-baiting.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 9:28AM

Resorted to name calling. That is really funny. can you spell, C-L-I-N-T.

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 10:27AM

I KNOW what comes next.

Ron Paul loses the nomination. America wins.

Nathan| 8.23.11 @ 10:52AM

You know? I suppose you've made a TON of money on all the Fed's financial bubbles bursting with that crystal ball of yours. Could I borrow that sometime, I need to head to Vegas.

Douche

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 11:56AM

Yes...I know.

I'm secretly a member of a Bilderberg-led cabal of proto-Zionists.

We control the media, the banks, the financial markets, and Hollywood. We decide what you'll want to wear, eat, sleep, watch, read, and think.

Our plan is ALMOST complete. Once we elect another GOP-dupe to the White House, we will see that he surrenders ALL sovereign, US authority to the Knesset in Israel, and establishes Judaism as the official state religion of the new USZ - The United States of Zion.

I will be making A LOT of money on this "transaction". And in all honesty, that's really all that we Zionists care about, so L'Chaim!!!

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 9:23AM

Thank you, Mr. Lord for telling the truth. Over the past year, I have been coming to this web site and have learned a great deal about so-called Libertarianism, at least the Ron Paul variety. They are indeed neo-liberals in every way including the self delusions, denial, arrogance, and stubborness that I have seen in liberals most of my life.

Take a look at the kook in the comment above me rambling on about communist Jews that decided to join the GOP, conspiracies of international jews, and jews in wall street, banking, etc. They then have the incredible arrogance to deny that they are not anti-semitic.

Then there is the obsession with Ron Paul and his so-called father of the Tea Party bullshit and the constant misqoutes of Ronald Reagan to give credibility to their conservativism.

If that was not enough mental disorder, then there is the isolationism and non-interventionism or whatever you may want to call it. Like liberals, they act as if they were the only group to come up with the concept of careful consideration of national interest when approaching war. Stealing and appropriating anything that serves their political interest seems to be a forte, just like Liberals. The ideas of fiscal conservativism and small government have been around a long time before Ron Paul and his robots showed up.

Of course, all our founding fathers were modern day Libertarians! Yeah, I can see Franklin, Washington, and the boys rallying for homosexual marriage, drug legalization, and mocking religion.

They are classic political Trojan horses. All conservatives should be fully aware of their potential betrayal and dangerousness to conservativism and this nation. The similarities between these modern Liberaltarians and Liberals is astounding.

I see and hear the same fundamental distorted belief that America is somehow wrong, bad, and monstrous in its foreign policy.The same distorted jew hatred, hatred for the military-industrial complex, and hatred for religion and conventional morality is shared with their liberal counterparts. Let us also notice the exaggeration of numbers, the inflated self importance, the worship of a LEADER figure, the over identification as a distinct group against all others, the scape goating of a particular minority group, and the paranoid conspiratorial political paradigms.

Thank you again for your insight and courage to tell the truth.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 9:37AM

"Of course, all our founding fathers were modern day Libertarians! Yeah, I can see Franklin, Washington, and the boys rallying for homosexual marriage, drug legalization, and mocking religion."

The rest of your post was also trash. But I found this extremely funny.

Ummm, do you know anything about the founding fathers at all? I mean anything?

I'm not sure about gay marriage, since well marriage is not something they would even consider the state being involved in at that time.

But the other "accusations" you made. That is EXACTLY what they did.

Hemp was the cash crop of America, and wasn't given any thought at all. Drug laws didn't even exist at all until the 1900's. And the reason hemp was made illegal was due to the loggers in the early 1900's going crazy because hemp was going to put them out of business as hemp is much more renewable than trees are, shorter growth period and easier to process. Washington was a huge grower of it.

Jefferson wrote his own bible and flat out rejected religion.

The entire reason they moved here was to get away from the Church/Religion, so they could do as they believed was best, and practice religion - whatever it may be freely.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 9:51AM

DRED asked me to tell you that you could always join his band of crazies. He is a little shy.

Your response was excellent. I rest my case. You are making this too easy.

PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 11:01AM

Simon, his response doesn't sound crazy. His points may not be well researched, but they are fundamentally sound. Drug prohibition is largely a big government push. Why don't we go back to alcohol prohibition?

Solo| 8.23.11 @ 9:44AM

Well said, Mr Templar.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 10:46AM

Your premise that the US is becoming more secular is false to start with. Yes, Hollywood, the media, and the educational system controled by liberals has become more secular. Most Americans remain religious and do believe in God and traditional morality. Your states rights solution is fraught with many problems when it comes to these social issues and is not an easy solution. Other states will be forced to recognize these other rights and laws. THE California rejected homosexual marriage but that did not stop the liberals and cultural marxist from steam rolling over the will of the people at the state level.
Hey, I got an idea? How about the government stay the hell out of the social engineering business all together and stop making laws that create new rights for every pervert group and victim group that bubbles up? How about the courts going back to their mandate? How about enforcing the current constitutional rights and stop making up new ones for every frickin self identified victim group that pops out of a decaying society of endless victimization and entitlement?

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 10:48AM

Sorry, my comment is directed to Johnathan Gillespie.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 10:48AM

Thank you, Solo.

Jonathan Gillespie| 8.23.11 @ 10:07AM

Consider this: Paul's idea of letting the states decide social issues is brilliant. You should be on board with it if you are a Christian (like me).

Why? Because by arguing for federal definitions of moral issues, you're encouraging handing over the keys to moral quandries to the federal government's definition of whatever is moral at the moment.

That is all fun and games when it's a definition you agree with, but what you are missing here is that this country has gone increasingly secular, and is continuing to do so, and you and I both know that we need to bring this power back to bases of constituents who can fashion the laws in their local areas to suit their beliefs. That's the beauty of States' rights: no more what works in Oklahoma being forced on Nevada, or Rhode Island, or California.

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 9:33AM

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,

On Iran,The President should:

4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

Andy| 8.23.11 @ 9:36AM

Wow. The cult of Ron Paul followers have infiltrated these comments. Hey Paul supporters: It's okay to support the candidate of your choice, but don't you guys realize that you come off as REALLY kooky? You really are cult-like--it is very weird.

Jonathan Gillespie| 8.23.11 @ 10:09AM

Let's say the establishment black-listed your favorite candidate, then when they did talk about him (or her), either distorted their viewpoints or slammed their supporters. How would you feel?

Michelle D| 8.23.11 @ 9:43AM

I don't support Ron Paul, I think he is very wrong on many issues and I do not want to see him elected, but this is one horrible piece, and you get no respect from me for it.

Guilt by association, labelling, randomly throwing around racism charges.. Why attack the man and his supporters instead of trying to educate them? This accomplishes nothing, all it does is make them more defensive than they already are.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.23.11 @ 9:47AM

Mr Lord this should be required reading at all conservative and Republican events (CPAC, Ames Iowa Straw poll, etc.).

If RINO liberalterian Ron Paul by some quixotic fluke became President he would be the new Tyler a man disowned by his Party, mocked by the opposition and a disgrace to the office of the President. A Paul presidency like Obama's would be a waste of 4 good years in which a conservative (Perry, Ryan, etc.) could have been implementing a strong foreign policy based on a stout national defense and a growing economy founded upon supply-side economics. A Presidency that recognizes the danger of imperialistic Islam and support democratic states like Israel.

The Paul we should be watching is not crank Ron, but his son Rand. Will Rand morph into his father (a traditional earmark grubbing DC pol) or will he move into the Jim DeMint wing of the Senate and Party? If Rand chooses the latter he will become a significant player in GOP politics despite upsetting some in the Tea Party over earmarks.

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 9:55AM

Uh Oh !
Little Micky RINO is in the building.

Yesterday he was busy badmouthing Our Other Tea Party Co-Favorite Sarah Palin.

Margie| 8.23.11 @ 1:46PM

Micheal,

Rand Paul is buds with Adam Kokesh. I've done my research, a couple of years ago.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.24.11 @ 1:06AM

Thanks Margie that says it all he's a younger version of his father. That's too bad, because on some issues he has made some sense.

Nathan| 8.23.11 @ 9:49AM

Simon Templar, what the hell are you rambling on about?

"I see and hear the same fundamental distorted belief that America is somehow wrong, bad, and monstrous in its foreign policy."

You're god damn right that our policy is monstrous and wrong. I'm tired of my tax dollars and our country's good name being used to enrich the war profiteers and slaughter millions of innocent people, and having lapdogs like you defend them against anyone that sees through the bullshit. Don't you understand that these people would not think twice about sending you and/or your children into some sandbox to die, all for money and power. If you are such a proponent of these wars, go grab a gun and head on over, they'd love to have you.

Why do you think Paul gets more donations from the military than all the other candidates combined? Why do you think that troop suicides are at an all time high? It's because the people on the front line see the bullshit up close and personal and can no longer stand if. How dare you claim to know more than the troops and how dare you so carelessly defend their slaughter.

The idea that dissent is unpatriotic is erroneous. I will not sit back and cheer everything that "America" does simply because I was born here. I cannot be a cheerleader for the murders that have taken control of our government. If you truly believe the crap you spew, you are nothing more than a puppet, paid or unpaid.

Anyone with a mind that operates on logic and reason can see through the lies, and more and more people are waking up.

Sam Vaughn| 8.23.11 @ 9:54AM

Nathan, you can convince conservatives to your position, but not when you spout the same old same old coming out of the mouths of Progressives/Liberals. Chill, you sound like somebody from the Daily Kos and I don't think that's what you meant.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 10:14AM

He does not have to convince anyone to his position. We know what his real positions are.
I do think this is exactly what he meant, that is my point.

The conservative movement does not need a neo-liberal to tell us that the US needs to reevaluate it's foreign policy. Conservatives have been arguing this for decades. The ideas of military intervention based on national interest, a strong military defense, careful consideration of foriegn aid and involvements, effective quick military strikes with both entrance and exit plans, and avoidance of long occupations is as old as conservativism itself.

Much of our foreign policy of the twentieth century was based on progressive notions and progressive philosophy. With the exception of one war effort, all military involvements were started by democrats, led by them, and screwed up for the most part by them.

The concept of a neo-conservative is a left wing fabrication. The idea that the Reublicans and conservatives are warmongers is another fabrication.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 9:57AM

Another case in point. You argue just like a liberal. You distort, manipulate, put words in peoples mouths, skirt the issues, ignore salient criticism, and throw out false premises. Oh, I forgot the emotionalism.

DRed| 8.23.11 @ 10:07AM

You're wonderfully un-self-aware, Simon. But please don't lump me in with the Paulites.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 10:28AM

DRed, they share about 80 perecent of your world view space. They are those neighbors next door that are so much like you, but you think are crazy, that it makes you shudder and uncomfortable. Dred, what do you know about self awareness....you are a walking projector. You know nothing more than your dogma and what you are told to think. You have never attempted in your entire life to step out of your little comfy zone. Most people out here know that I was once like you but more logical and willing to listen and learn. I never took anyone's views of this world as God's truth and always had a skeptical nature even when I was left leaning and probably more radical than you.

Here is a little something you can chew on.
There is some truth in the liberal view of the world and its history...half truths at best and many deceptive lies. It is not completely innacurate but in many ways is a revealing picture. The problem is in its solutions...they are not only dead wrong but nihilistic.

DRed| 8.23.11 @ 10:49AM

I agree with Ron Paul about ending the war on drugs. I think that's about it.

Margie| 8.23.11 @ 10:41PM

"Ending the war on drugs."

Yeah, his idea is to give in and let the drug dealers have a free for all.

Brent Hartman| 8.24.11 @ 1:24AM

Drug dealers only profit if they have a black market to opererate in. Drug dealers agree with Margie on the issue of prohibition.

Margie| 8.24.11 @ 2:58PM

Drug dealers don't deserve to be walking the streets.
We need them off the streets, bud.
And behind bars.

Sam Vaughn| 8.23.11 @ 9:50AM

The article was thought provoking. The last thing we need right now is another pretender. If Ron is a Liberal wolf in sheep's clothing put up to muddy conservativism I want to know. I'm tired of the destructive hypocrisy of Liberalism that looks more and more like Stalinism everyday. My last trip through an airport was met with a nude body scan, a body search, interogation over the contents of my wallet, I'm a middle-aged business person, a professional, and treatment more appropriate to criminal suspects while people of obvious muslim origins were passed over. Something is wrong with this country and I'm tired of pretenders.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 10:05AM

Here you go, Ron Paul introduced a bill about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwsdq69AHnw

Sam Vaughn| 8.23.11 @ 9:50AM

The article was thought provoking. The last thing we need right now is another pretender. If Ron is a Liberal wolf in sheep's clothing put up to muddy conservativism I want to know. I'm tired of the destructive hypocrisy of Liberalism that looks more and more like Stalinism everyday. My last trip through an airport was met with a nude body scan, a body search, interogation over the contents of my wallet, I'm a middle-aged business person, a professional, and treatment more appropriate to criminal suspects while people of obvious muslim origins were passed over. Something is wrong with this country and I'm tired of pretenders.

Sea Cucumber| 8.23.11 @ 9:51AM

A pitiful attempt at rewriting history. The author attempt to disappear the entirety of the Old Right. The closest he comes to acknowledging that the anti-New Deal, anti-War right existed at all is a crude attempt to smear John T. Flynn as an anti-semite (a favored tactic of leftists, it should be noted). What about Nock, Mencken, Garet Garret, or Rose Wilder Lane?

It is also striking that for all the effort Mr. Lord goes through to link Paul's foreign policy with the left, he never acknowledges the communist origins of his own policy prescriptions. I'm not sure if he's being disingenuous here, or is simply unaware of the neoconservatives' Trotskyite origins.

Since Mr. Lord likes quoting people, here's something from Bill "the gold standard of conservatism" Buckley:

"we have got to accept Big Government for the duration–for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged...except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores."

Michael Tomlinson| 8.23.11 @ 9:53AM

Mr. Lord couldn't you add Pat Buchanan to the list of shameless anti-semites and bigots discussed in this piece?

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 9:58AM

Uhb Oh !

Little Micky RINO attempts to play The Anti-Semite Card, once more.

D. Catman| 8.23.11 @ 9:54AM

So this whole article is created to accuse Dr. Paul of being an anti-Semite which is based solely on the words of those who are attached to him or his campaign in a historical context.

No words of Dr. Paul can be construed to be anti-Semite unless you believe that Israel does not have the right to determine the best way to defend itself against its own enemies. Because that is what Dr. Paul believes. The U.S. of America does not have the right to tell a sovereign nation how to conduct its own foreign affairs as we have been doing for a very long time.

If you want to know just how disastrous this influence can be please read the book "Six Days of War" by Michael Oren "http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-War-Making-Modern/dp/0345461924/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314107369&sr=1-1"
Pay particular attention to how hamstrung the leadership of this sovereign nation was by the need to please their "masters" in Washington.

The greatest anti-Semetism in the world today is the US government "restraining" the State of Israel from defending itself and its people from the direct attacks. Imagine if some other country told us that we couldn't attack Japan or shouldn't attack Germany once they had declared war on us. Which American would have listened if we were told to refrain from destroying the Taliban? Yet that is what happens constantly when it comes to Israel.

Dr. Paul's position is the most respectful and moral position.

By the way... Canada (more correctly the British province of Quebec) was not a sovereign nation when General Washington (not a Jew) invaded. It was part of the British empire and the purpose was to draw British resources from the main battle front. It was also intended to convince the French-speaking parts of Canada to join in the fight.

sam_ihs| 8.23.11 @ 9:55AM

Poor agrumentation. All of it weakly drawn quilt by association. Every non-interventionist must be anti-semetic because the non-interventionists of WWII were? Lew Rockwell says some good things and some bad things, but he worked with Paul decades ago. I understand we have to look at the people Paul chooses to surround himself with but these connections are too weak for my taste. I like my accusations of anti-semetism like I like my coffee.
And finally, the idea that neo-con is a code word for Jew is laughable. It reminds me of the claim that all criticism of Obama is racial driven, its only something that could be believed by someone looking for closet racists behind every tree. And even if they say they're not racist, well you know better. The biggest connection between neo-cons and Jews is they are both Zionists, although the neo-cons do it out of a twisted evangelical idea of ushering in the end-times through their political ranglings.

Ed Ward II| 8.23.11 @ 10:00AM

Mr. Lord doesn't understand anything. Or perhaps he understands, and is an afraid elitist. Ron Paul is supported by small donors, not elitist megamillionaires like Obama, Romney, Perry, Kerry. We common people know the score, and it's time to boot out elitists Obama, Romney, Perry, and lackey Lord.

Larry in Iowa| 8.23.11 @ 10:01AM

Paulism has become a religion for many of his supporters. Every campaign season a certain percentage of the electorate become fanatical supporters of a fringe candidate. In 2007 and again this year that candidate is Ron Paul. His disciples recite chants about the constitution but blindly ignore comments about allowing Islamists to obtain nuclear weapons. Like most cultists, they would rather go down in glorious defeat while demanding perfect purity, than take 90% of what they want and try for the rest later. The problem is, they are also happy to take the rest of us with them. They would be perfectly content with another four years of Obama, and all that would entail. if the alternative is one of the other Republican candidates.

Jonathan Gillespie| 8.23.11 @ 10:11AM

Maybe folks are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, and are voting for principles. Maybe we're not settling for the lesser of two evils anymore. -1 + 0 is still -1.

Oh, and if go after Iran for having a nuke, I'm sure you want your children on the front lines, right? And you'll happily chalk up higher taxes to pay for it?

THINK!

Sandy| 8.23.11 @ 10:02AM

Thank you Mr. Lord, from the bottom of my heart. I'm sure you knew to put your flak jacket and helmet on before hitting post. Nothing brings out the Paultarians ire like a dose of truth. I especially appreciate your connections of Paul to the anarchist Lew Rockwell. Not nearly enough people have looked into the Paul/Rockwell relationship. Rockwell was Paul's chief of staff for several years, and is actively involved in his campaigns.

I truly wish that Paul was considered a top tier candidate, and had to go through the same vetting that the top tier candidates all go through. Paul wouldn't last a day with some intense scrutiny. His relationships and connections would make Obama's connections look like pikers. He has taken donations from David Duke, the head of the KKK, the birchers, and several other more than shady organizations. The Paulistas want you to think he has so much support, because he has huge money bombs. The fact is that in 08 some of Paul's biggest donations came from Google and Verizon, you know those bastions of conservatism, not, that are in bed with Obama.

Thank you for naming the correct term for Paul, neoliberal, I have been asking some others what he would be considered as he is not a conservative, and he is not a libertarian. I've been referring to him as a Liberaltarian. He cherry picks what he likes of each ideology, and winds up being rejected by all.

Again, thank you Mr. Lord. Excellent excellent job. I hope this article is spread far and wide. Maybe we can get some to do some serious vetting on this dictator wannabe.

Carlos Sandoval| 8.23.11 @ 10:03AM

I am partial to many of Ron Paul's ideas and identify as conservative. I care deeply for occidental culture, and our nation. I want strong borders and a strong national Defense. Marxism is an atrocity and a blight. Liberal policies do a great deal of harm. Federalism is a dead weight. And so forth.

It is interesting that the author doesn't mention the Liberal ideology underpinning expansionist foreign policy. Social engineering indiscriminately, unrealistically at ridiculous public cost? Terraforming the middle-east? Keynesian militarism to invigorate the economy? Public works, and jobs programs for Afghanis? No explanation of how this is conservative. No mention of Leon Trotsky's contribution to the modern Republican party. Or the multitude of ideas and identities legitimately entertained under the label Conservative.

Ron Paul didn't even need to acquit himself in that youtube. I did a quick search for John T. Flynn... One of the first entries was at mises.org. Mises, you ask? Yes, he was Jewish. As are Murray Rothbard, and Peter Schiff. Peter Schiff, about whom conservative overman Ben Stein has said: "I was wrong and Peter Schiff was right -- in a very big way...." If Ron Paul is anti-Semitic, he's is doing a profoundly bad job at it. And probably, the author should feel shame for what he's done. "Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol and son Bill Kristol" &c. - When all referenced appeals to authority come from a narrow, opposing, (and discredited, re: glorious failure) band of political discourse, that doesn't bode well for the argument. And just for reference, Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul, instead of being the same person, are actually two different people. And considering the state that our nation is in, yes, there are probably some untenable ideas sustained in the common discourse.

I'll take the author's word that John T. Flynn was an abomination and a wretch. A man of his time perhaps? Plenty were. I'm fine with condemning him though, not knowing his situation. But - that does stop, say, someone like Lovecraft from being an excellent author. At cursory, here's what Wikipedia had to say: "Although Flynn distanced the Committee from the claims of extremist and anti-Semitic groups, such as the National Union for Social Justice, his old pro-war leftist allies cut him off..." Pro-war leftist allies. Oh no! Now the pro-war left (The American Spectator?) has a problem with the despicable Mr.Flynn. Who, I'll repeat, very well may actually be despicable. To its seeming credit, the referred book "As We Go Marching" appears to be concertedly anti-fascist.

The author of this article seems more interested in silence than discussion. Aspersion by slight of hand (a liberal technique). The sort of intellectual narrowness that dominated Conservative Icon Bush's era. Put that on their lapel-pin of infallibility. If guilt by association is all it takes to tear down a single man... Then inevitably must the Republican party rot in its casuistic neoliberal Trotskyite crapulence.

Bohemian Tory| 8.23.11 @ 2:22PM

Carlos Sandoval wrote:

"I'll take the author's word that John T. Flynn was an abomination and a wretch."

Don't.

John T. Flynn was a highly respected journalist and author whose contributions were eagerly sought after by William F. Buckley in the founding years of National Review. He fought tirelessly to keep anti-semites and Nazi fellow-travelers away from the non-interventionist organizations he belonged to.

He is really a fascinating person who has had two biographies written about him, one in the last ten years. I've read every book he wrote and there is not the slightest bit of anti-semitism in them. The books are easy to find because he was prolific and I encourage people to read them (especially “The Roosevelt Myth”).

Mr. Lord should be ashamed of himself for slandering a man who has been dead for over 50-years to try to attack Ron Paul, whatever Paul's merits may or may not be.

C Bowen| 8.23.11 @ 10:04AM

Jeffery Lord thought Iraq was a threat and to this day, believes they really had WMDs.

He lacks the honor to do salvage the remainder of his life.

Red Phillips| 8.23.11 @ 10:09AM

Continued...

Modern day RINOs are not non-interventionists. Mr. Lord either completely lacks a nuanced understanding of these distinctions or he is intentionally smearing with guilty by association. (I suspect the former facilitates the ease with which he does the latter.) RINOs tend to be foreign policy realists. They are less bellicose and more inclined to multilateral arrangements than are your typical interventionists, but like interventionists they are internationalists and share the belief that the US should play an exalted role on the world stage.

Unfortunately there are few if any other principled non-interventionists like Paul in Congress with which he could fairly be compared. The closet would probably be his son Rand and John Duncan of TN and Walter Jones (recent trends) of NC, all Republicans and all associated with the right-wing of their party. Duncan is generally associated with the paleoish impulse of the party/movement. (Since Mr. Lord seems philosophically and nuance impaired, he may not understand what I mean by paleoish so to keep him from having to look it up [although it would probably do him some good] a close approximation of paleoish might be Buchananite.)

So to sum up, Paul’s non-interventionism has little relationship to RINO style foreign policy realism, and if Mr. Lord doesn’t understand this he shouldn’t be writing front page columns for a serious magazine.

Also, it is not so easy to in hindsight label politicians from the past as either clearly liberal or clearly conservative as we think of those terms today. Lord attempt to do so is sloppy and obviously agenda driven. The modern coalitions of left and right are largely a post WWII phenomenon. Was fundamentalist Christian and anti-evolution crusader Williams Jennings Bryan really a clear cut liberal? Bryan represented the coalition of interests that his party represented in that day. What is clear by Bryan and other examples is that the anti-war “isolationist” impulse largely found a home in the heartland masses. It was primarily East Coast city dwelling elites who were clamoring for war. Now may I ask Mr. Lord which party it is today that says it represents the values of the heartland masses? And which party represents the interests of urban elites?

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 11:03AM

Mr Lord is either dumb or a liar. He reminds of the other girly man, to quote Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg. They in my opinion don't know how to put 2 true words together.

Thomas Paine| 8.23.11 @ 10:09AM

Jeff, did you just use a liberal tactic and call him names? come on man.

I just got done reading "The World Must Know" - The 250 page U.S. Holocaust Museum Book...The official, official holocaust book.

According to this: FDR and his staff and Britain knew that the holocaust was going on, allowed it to happen - and time after time - set a quota on how many Jews could come in as refugees and time after time sidestepped the issue. Only in 1944, an election year, did FDR acknowledge the problem. Let me tell you - countries like Sweden were far more accepting then our own country of jewish people.

After the war, our displaced persons camps were known to be disgraceful. Earl Harrison, dean of Penn Law School was dispatched to write a report about these camps...he wrote "We (The United States" appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them, except that we do not exterminate them. They are in concentration camps in large numbers under our military guard instead of SS troops. One is led to wonder whether the German people seeing this are not supposing that we are following or at least condoning Nazi policy."

Actually, after the war. We let more ex-Nazi's into our countries then Jews...They made great scientists and blended into the upcoming cold war battle just fine...the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Theres about 15 other points I could make with that point, but you get the drift. Anti-semitic? Ron Paul - get your revisionist facts straight.

The fact is that fighting unsustainable wars that dont end and waste taxpayer dollars are neither liberal or conservative. But they are big government. Big government has thrived under the Bush Years...when the government of this country, to the thrill of neocons and now democrats under Obama, used the 9-11 attacks to usurp power from the citizenry claiming "We must fight Terrorism". 3 wars, patriot act, tsa, homeland security, supercomputers, and trillions spent later - our government hasn't made us more safe (by its own admission) and hasn't defeated terrorism - an enemy that makes perpetual war easy but will not last because the U.S. is a superpower losing to men living in Caves....and at any time we could take over any country we wanted - we choose not too because government keeps getting power and the military gets higher and higher funding...You would think that men living in caves, who have no way to reach America - must be a bigger threat than the Soviet Union who had nukes in Cuba.

You are right though. In classic terms, a liberal is one who wants less government and more freedom. A conservative is one who wants more government and goverment control.

But call him a neo-liberal, a quasi-old man, a libertarian, and anti-war dove, a dr, an air force veteran, an un status-quo candidate...

the neocons are done. It is hypocritical to support war (big government) but to then not want to feed people in poverty. It is a contradiction in philosophy to hate government entitlements but want the government to pass amendments that deal with social issues. "Oh lets not give them wealth, but lets have the government curtail their social freedoms and beliefs because their different from us." That's the predjuice, that's the dishonesty of your policies. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq, Afghanistan - for what? for what? what have we accomplished through these wars. Nothing. Let the big dog rest for a couple of decades. Cut globalization, lets work on Americanization of industry and manufacturing. Lets be free.

Jack in Wi.| 8.23.11 @ 11:09AM

They will throw granny off dialysis and let the people die in the streets rather then cut one penny from Israel's lavish subsidy. Germany got 1.5 billion under the Marshall Plan and rebuilt their country. They paid the money back. Israel has recieved many hundreds of billions and still is a massive charity case. It has never paid a penny back to anyone.

PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 11:19AM

I was a big supporter of the military until I was "drafted". Here's the story behind the double quotes for the word:

Our company hired a director who was a former naval military officer and he claimed that the military was the best way to run things (although he clearly washed out of the military if he felt a need to work in civilian life after doing his 4 years after ROTC).

Anyways, he ran things like he was taught in the military which apparently included petty favoritism, looking the other way, punishing messengers, and narrow minded thinking. I longed for the old Soviet Union as an improvement. He got things done but it cost $500 for a hammer, so to speak. Well qualified civilians quit.

The military, like the government, was TOLERATED by our founding fathers. The left doesn't like the military because they view America's enemies as socialist and therefore friendly to their cause. But once they gain power, we'll all be living in the military way.

Drunken Sailor| 8.23.11 @ 2:50PM

So because of one wash out from ROTC you paint all persons in the military as like him? First of all ROTC isn't even the real military (Yes, it is different). Secondly 4 years didn't teach him much and from your description he wouldn't have lasted 20 in today's military. I know, I did my 20 and watched guys like that get pushed out or quit. Maybe that was a sign of your time but it is not todays military and they still deserve your support.

PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 3:44PM

I appreciate that, Drunken Sailor (what an ID!) For the record, there are lots of bad managers in the civilian world too.

Drunken Sailor| 8.23.11 @ 4:55PM

All too true. And thanks my moniker is in tribute to our goverment spending and not my state of inebreation. Though I am fond of J.D. and am expanding my bourbon expeirence.

Brian Watkins| 8.23.11 @ 10:11AM

You need a history lesson, sir. You're also confusing neoconservative with conservative. Yes, RP is most certainly not a neoconservative, thankfully, and compared to those creeps, I can see how you call him a neoliberal.

But, RP is the classic definition of conservative. Even your left-wing liberal fanatics agree with me there (you've seen all the articles and press about RP being a severe right-wing conservative, right?)

In fact, RP is the most conservative man who has ever run for president. Literally. Don't confuse George Bush's definition of conservative, with history's. They are practically polar opposites.

Nathan| 8.23.11 @ 10:17AM

Lots of paid trolls in this comment section.

Operation cointelpro, anyone? The establishment is scared...

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 12:14PM

Not an issue.

They are easy to spot as they follow certain guidelines, and most of them get ignored.

JimH| 8.23.11 @ 1:26PM

Paid trolls? Where do I get a job like that?

Jonathan Gillespie| 8.23.11 @ 10:19AM

There is no doubt that there are fanatics in every party or movement, as there are in this one. But information mining in a direct attempt to string together some loose association with anti-semitisim is dishonest at best and dangerous at worst.

Rather than analyze Paul's cogent positions on the economy, his predictions that have been transformed into talking points by his contemporaries, and his practical understanding that -- like it or not -- we simply can't afford to be world cop anymore...the author simply bows out and casts Paul and all his supporters with the age-old race card.

The most shocking thing in this entire race, thus far, to me as someone who has been far right and far left (and now independent, largely because of junk like this coming from the big two) is how people willingly swallow what they are fed by the establishment about this candidate. I wish people would really step back and give this guy a chance, as opposed to seemingly letting themselves believe whatever nonsense trash they hear (why? Because what Paul says, truthful as it is, is just too uncomfortable?)

I would suggest the author find employment more apropo with someone who slanders and goes out of their way to misconstrue and misrepresent a conservative candidate. I suggest moveon.org, or the more liberal blogging opportunities of the Huffington Post.

Stuart Koehl| 8.23.11 @ 10:21AM

I prefer the term Paulicans to Paulists. The Paulicans were a manichean sect that flourished in the Balkans in the 9th-10th centuries. The followers of Ron Paul are a manichean sect that happens to be flourishing now. The original Paulicans came to a sticky end when they decided to set up their own ideal state in opposition to the Byzantine Empire. The present Paulicans are likely to suffer a similar fate because they have trouble drawing the line between what they wish was so and what actually is so.

Thomas Paine| 8.23.11 @ 10:36AM

that was clever. I enjoy the history. And man, I really don't care. We cant stay on this big government course. Our declining civil liberties , the value of our money, the low standard of our political representation, the unsustainable wars. The way dems and repubs have continued the same policies for 11 years...Obush, geithner, bernanke.

The way people still listen to guys like Karl Rove or confuse patriotism (which is good) with nationalism (which is bad).

I was watching CSPAN last night and they had the congressional black caucus meeting in Atlanta. And I saw an ex civil rights warrior in John Lewis tell his black constituents that "The Tea Party and Extreme Right-Wingers hijacked the government during the debt ceiling debate." He sold black people out for the "necessary evil you must hate republicans vote." Obamas programs dont help the poor, they keep them poor. Bush bailed out then he stimulated banks (domestic and foreign) not families. Republicans do the same with these wars. How does war keep one safe? It certainly doesnt keep soldiers safe. It certainly doesnt keep the civilians over there safe. It doesn't stop blowback...which we caused in Iran, in Afghanistan, and in other parts of the middle east.

You can only endure the status-quo for so long. When the lie becomes truth, or people have completely forgotten history or when people turn to revisionist history (Reagan putting honor on Vietnam for instance)- then you gotta fight for freedom. win or lose.

ConantheContrarian| 8.23.11 @ 10:26AM

Why did we intervene in Iraq? Twice? The first time to rescue Kuwait (peaceful, indolent Muslim Arabs) from Iraq (bellicose Muslim Arabs). Screw that. Let them kill each other, and lord it over others of the same ilk. The second time? Weapons of Mass Destruction? Harboring terrorists? Kill the terrorists in covert operations. Let Iraq use the WMDs against its enemies.

Why did we intervene in Vietman? Oh yeah, to stop the spread of communism. If so, it was a half-assed intervention. We have so many cultural Marxists and commies in the USA presently that we should have had a civil war in the 1960's instead of fighting in Asia.

Why did we intervene in WWI? I can't figure it out. The more that I read about it, the crazier it seems to me, and I don't see America's interests at stake.

Why did we intervene in the Pacific, which intervention caused the Japanese to attack us? Because we didn't like their expansion into Asia? Were the Japanese mean, and of course we all know that mean people suck?

I don't think that non-intervensionists/isolationists are neo-liberal or liberals or whatever you want to call them. They don't want to stick their noses in other people's business.

I like Jeff Lord, but this article smacks of RINO-CINO agenda to smear Ron Paul.

PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 10:46AM

Indeed! (Intervention in WWI). The author's argument that intervention is "conservatives" makes one argue that perhaps conservatives should re-evaluate intervention.

Let's go back even further to the civil war. It was a bloody mess that didn't provide real freedom for blacks until the so-called civil rights movement 100 years later. In addition, as others here have pointed out, it helped to increase federal power and undermine states' rights. The seeds of Obamacare were planted by Abraham Lincoln!

And the Spanish American war. That was a boondoggle. We didn't suffer any serious harm from it, but it wasn't necessary. The Mexican war was a war of expansion. We also invaded Hawaii. Now THOSE were wars good for us, but also set the foundation for our modern anti-American illegal immigrants.

Onto WWI. No WWI means no WWII. It also means no Bolshevik revolution.

Onto WWII: Hitler was bad, but so was Stalin. FDR helped to build the cold-war that we later fought. One mess after another.

Vietnam. 'nuff said.

Gulf war I, meet Gulf war II, meet 9/11, meet war on terror.

Yeah, "conservatism" is great.

PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 10:29AM

Using this guilt-by-association or opposition model, conservatives are anti-semitic by definition since a majority of American Jews vote Democrat. Ergo, disagreement with Democrat American Jews is a sign of racism.

In the meantime, the Democrats have no problems engaging in outright racism via white guilt and bashing masculinity. (Then again, conservatives have largely played dead on both issues especially lamenting the rise of single parent households but refusing to address the 500 lb gorilla of women's equality and hyper-chivalry that created the mess.)

ConantheContrarian| 8.23.11 @ 10:34AM

You sound as if you have been reading "The Spearhead".

PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 10:51AM

I was writing this stuff when you had to use NCSA browsers. :-)

Women's equality and feminism has split the country in half. What does "feminism" mean. It doesn't mean literally equality. It means a world that exists to suit feminine interests (and a narrow set of them at that.) It literally means man-haters and regards children as chattel.

Look at the direction the country has gone in. It is now legal for women to abandon babies at firestations, assuming they haven't aborted them first, while lecturing men and society that unwed mothers deserve unlimited child-support and welfare because men "create" babies at conception whether they're married or not.

So we get some "conservative" politicians who promise to slow down spending, a little, and make sure that taxes on the wealthy aren't raised. It's not a lot to get working men to take off their lunch to go vote.

PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 10:52AM

I find americanwomensuck.com pretty amusing.

Ryan| 8.23.11 @ 10:32AM

Several issues about the article, and I like Jeffrey a lot on here:

1. Stein REALLY went overboard on the anti-semitic claim against Ron Paul. It IS a guilt by association issue there, but Paul DOES have an issue with anti-semitic backing because of what he recommends. It doesn't make him one, but it DOES make him vulnerable. Ron Paul has had in the past and probably currently has issues with some people attracted to his message that a majority of both sides of this debate don't like.

2. The word "paleoconservative" and all that it implies should have been used, or at least referred to. Ron Paul is no liberal.

Margie| 8.23.11 @ 10:40PM

Baloney. Stein didn't even call him an anti-semite. You must not have even watched the video.

Ryan| 8.24.11 @ 8:29AM

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ben.....arry-king/

Margie| 8.24.11 @ 3:10PM

"Paul: They’re terrorists and murderers because we’re occupying them.
Stein: No we’re not occupying them. That’s the same anti-Semitic argument we’ve heard over and over again."

Typical of you, Ryan to side with the enemy. (The enemy being the Father of lies).
You seem to never be able to tell the difference between right and wrong, and always defend those who practice deceit.
Why is that?

He said it was the same anti-semitic argument~ and it was.
He didn't call him an anti-semite.

TheRegulator| 8.23.11 @ 10:34AM

Captain Crazypants rides again. Ron Paul cultist...the same ones who believe the Twin Towers were blown up by the US government-911 Truthers..them and their kook candidate have zero credibility.....
He has his own private A.C.O.R.N. style of groupies who follow him around and scream like cheerleaders at any function he’s allowed to speak at. America’s Neville Chamberlain.
He doesn’t understand that Iran is perfectly happy to sacrifice its own people in order to destroy the west and restore the mahdi. At least with the Soviets we knew they didn’t want to get their own people killed, same as us.

The " Bilderberg" conspiracy believers are Ron Paul cultist...the same ones who believe the Twin Towers were blown up by the US government-911 Truthers..them and their kook candidate have zero credibility...they better be careful or the black helicopters flown by Masons and Jeeeews, under the control of the Tri-lateral commission who are under the thumb of the Bilderbergers will sic the aliens from Planet X9 on their butts!!

SovereignMary| 8.23.11 @ 10:37AM

THE U.S. IS NOT THE ANNOINTED OR OFFICIAL POLICEMAN OF THE WORLD
I remember Ron Paul stating that the U.S.S.R. was a far larger threat to us than Iran is today. Did we start a war with the U.S.S.R. because they were developing and then developed nuclear power? No. Pres. Reagan stood his ground and stood them down and eventually that "Wall" came down because the U.S.S.R. bankrupted themselves with putting so much of their capital into military machine.

What Pres. Reagan practiced was, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

Because Iran threatens to build their nuclear capability does not mean that we threaten or start a war with them. We and other free world countries hold onto our nuclear capabilities and keep on improving all our military capabilities -- and just as what happened with the U.S.S.R. they will fall on their own face when they waste their funds on military spending to the detriment of the lives of their own people who will turn on them because they have been starved out of funds, jobs and food.

Israel is a wealthy nation and has the capability of purchasing as much weaponry as they need from us and other allies. They do not need the U.S.'s or the U.N.'s permission to defend themselves against Iran, Iraq, Libya or any other country - including nuclear defense if they deem it necessary.

The United States should not be the policeman of the world - nor should we be stationed in Germany, Italy, France, Japan, S. Korea and all the other nations throughout the world. Let all of those nations expend their capital and their military to defend their own countries and quit using our troops as free fodder for all the other nation states.

We are the largest Debtor Nation in the world. We should be expending our capital to have our troops defending our borders - and bring our troops home to do just that.

JimH| 8.23.11 @ 10:43AM

On the whole, Paul’s foreign policy position of non-interventionism largely matches what was understood as the conservative position until about the 1950s when conservatives such as Buckley recognized a growing Soviet threat, both external and domestic and decided that the necessary growth of the State and military industrial complex, warned of by Eisenhower, was a price worth paying to oppose it. I think that those termed by some as Neo-Cons are descendants of Scoop Jackson Democrats. These had no problem with big government, but became alarmed by the move to unilateral disarmament by the left of the Democratic Party. From WWI until the nineties virtually all major military action has been done under Democratic administrations, often with conservatives demurring. My position, and I think that this is echoed by many conservatives is that we ought to careful to become involved abroad and it should be in our national interest to do so, but once having done so, we ought to fully commit. Many American and allied lives have been lost by incrementalism, dubious rules of engagement and unclear objectives.

H Abdullah Shabazz| 8.23.11 @ 11:00AM

We're broke, because of our aggressive military empire.

Look at Brazil, their defense. The cost, 5% what our Pentagon spends. Theyve never lost a war. None of their guys are getting killed.

Weve got 400 years worth of oil. We can make anything we need. We dont need to be bankrupting ourselves, on a useless military and a needless empire, just to spread legal abortion and our vaunted liberalism to people who dont want it.

Red Phillips| 8.23.11 @ 11:02AM

Here is what that pinko commie Joel McDurmon wrote at that pinko commie website American Vision in an article entitled "Five Truths that Republicans Hate."

There is nothing inherently or historically conservative about our national standing military. It was a Republican-led effort that ignored everything the American founders wrote about the dangers of standing armies and centralized the state militias into a national army, the outlawed state militias. Shortly after the Militia Act of 1903, in one ten year span before WWI, the military budget rose from $2 million to $53 million—a 2,650% budget increase. The whole program was carried out by Progressives which at that time dominated the Republican Party. These were men whom Republicans generally revere as well, Republicans: William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Elihu Root. Historically, big war has been carried out under progressive Democrats: Wilson got us into WW1, FDR WWII, Truman Korea, and Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam. Progressives love war inherently: it was one aspect that grew directly out of social Darwinism. Conservatives fight when necessary to protect their own land and freedom, except against property taxes, apparently. (emphasis mine)

So I guess all the people before the Militia Act of 1903 were actually closeted neocons yearning to intervene. The historical ignorance of the Founders were actually neocons crowd is so palpable you can cut it with a knife.

Nick| 8.23.11 @ 1:02PM

Mr. Phillips,

Your understanding of the "standing army" clause in the U.S. Constitution seems to be lacking.

The reason for the two year appropriation limit for the Army goes back to the English Civil War, more than a century before, and the struggle between the king's executive power to keep his standing army, once raised, and parliament's power to cut-off support for the king's army.

This is covered very well in Joyce Malcolm's To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Check it out, you won't be disappointed.

Also, perhaps you could answer a couple of questions that I posed to Sean, above.

President James Madison (Father of the Constitution) invaded Canada during the War of 1812. If the Founders were noninterventionists, President Madison should have just defended American merchant shipping and United States territory, correct? Why did he invade British territory when the reason for the war was British conscription of American sailors on the high seas?

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 1:46PM

As has been pointed out numerous times, Canada did not exist until 1867, and did not seperate completely from England until 1982.

He did not attack Canada. He attacked the British.

You know, that country that was constantly trying to take us back over, burned the capital to the ground and so on.

Nick| 8.23.11 @ 2:11PM

USS Constitution,

That is not my point.

The non-interventionist creed, as I understand it, is that we can only fight a defensive war to protect our borders and our shipping.

In the case of the War of 1812, the British Navy was conscripting American sailors. No British troops had invaded from Canada. President Madison was trying to take over the province preemptively.

How could the "Father of the Constitution" violate the Constitution so egregiously? Wasn't the Commander-in-Chief supposed to only protect merchant vessels on the high seas and defend us against invasion?

What justified the preemptive invasion of Canada by the president?

Sean| 8.23.11 @ 3:07PM

Nick,

If we use your definition of non-interventionist then Ron Paul isn't one. He did vote to attack Afghanistan and go over there and take out Bin Laden.

Nick| 8.23.11 @ 5:11PM

You're off point, again, Sean.

C Bowen| 8.23.11 @ 4:30PM

Nick;

I think you are confused. Madison's political power came from the Southern War Hawk clique who were desperate to invade Canada and teach their Loyalists neighbors who had left a few decades back a thing or two . Had to do with property rights of the Loyalists in the South.

Madison was also duped by the spy/British Agent John Henry (a latter day Chalabi who convinced soccer moms and Jeff Lord that Saddam was going to invade Cleveland) that the Federalist Party in New England was going to secede.

Jefferson, another suspicious chap, spoke like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, stating, the US would take Canada simply by marching in--like Iraq, another spectacular failure if even more so.

I suggest if you are serious about understanding the 2nd Republic America under the Constitution, one must start with the legality of the Constitutional Convention, the various parties involved, and the anti-anti-Federalists (e.g. Pat Henry, Luther Martin.)

The Constitution is a bit of a ruse and confuses the issue--one has to consider what the people thought and what was necessary to get a majority to be at least temporary 'duped' into supporting a national government over the Articles.

As to the War of 1812; New England refused to pay for it, and held onto to their gold while the rest of the states when into severe debt to pay for the folly. After the war, power in the country turned dramatically to New England/Massachusetts, squandered by the South over a silly war to shut the Loyalists up.

Happy to provide more if you like...

Nick| 8.23.11 @ 5:16PM

C. Bowen,

Those sure are a lot of tangential issues. And I'm sure some of them are even true. But, they don't address my points, do they?

I believe the Constitutional Convention amended the Articles of Confederation legally.

And, since when was Patrick Henry an anti-anti-Federalist?

C Bowen| 8.23.11 @ 7:46PM

A) they are true points and easy to look up in our Internet age, but to a deeper point, it doesn't actually answer your question.

B) you offered a statement of faith in your second paragraph--and I trust you get the deeper implication, which is the problem I am attempting to address, and it is not wise to mess with faith on of all things, this shabby posting system.

So, to deal with last point--it must have crossed your mind that the original parties were misnamed, right? I mean, the Anti-Federalists stand for federalism as we know it, and the Federalists, stood for a strong central government.

This is the first clue of politicians muddying the waters, is it not?

I don't really wish to go until we cover this first point, but to venture forth, Pat Henry amongst others understood what the Constitution Convention was all about. An entirely illegal, or rather extra-Articles of Confederation, gathering to form a new central government that would be voted on for ratification.

Our fore fathers, being suspicious of democracy, would, by their own definition, never allow such things to chance, so one must consider the powers behind the scene--and the threats, intimidation, and bribes that go along with any democratic action.

In that light, the anti-Anti-Federalists formed to tell the citizenry that is was a put up job--not a dime's (obviously worth a lot more then) bit of difference between the two parties.

To the extent that latter line still rings true (no difference between the two parties) you might begin to understand the formation of a deeper American political tradition--agree with it or not, we are mere observers.

So Madison banned the notes of the Constitutional Convention--he closed the door to the press, and banned the notes; he sought to replace the Articles---try to find the legality. Notes were not published until well into the 1830s; is that the sign of a serious new government decided by sovereign votes?

I'll offer one link to get you started--if you dare:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north445.html

I will leave at the moment, and I am happy to go on, even share a means of email exchange if you wish--though I rather you just start on the website I post at--you do have to figure this stuff out for the big if, if we get to attempting to understand the American Right in the 20th Century, and now our time, one needs to understand the root of the problem as it is.

Choose wisely, as they say.

Nick| 8.24.11 @ 3:56PM

C. Bowen,

The Articles of Confederation required the assent of all thirteen states to amend it's provisions. All thirteen states ratified the U.S. Constitution, the thirteenth being Rhode Island.

C Bowen| 8.23.11 @ 7:58PM

I missed a layup so please allow a follow up--why do you think, when you read it, that Henry, who of course opposed the Constitution, was not an anti-Anti-Federalist? Did not the Anti-Federalists support the adoption, claiming victory with their Bill o' Rights? Where did these ideas--I mean this sincerely, get placed into our heads, what institutions? Why do we think this way?

How can one not see that Pat Henry was striking at the fake opposition?

Nick| 8.24.11 @ 3:32PM

C. Bowen,

Patrick Henry is called an anti-Federalist because he wrote, under the name Cato, against the essays written under the pseudonym Publius, 85 of which would later be published as The Federalist, in 1788.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 4:42PM

They were not being "conscripted". They were being FORCED into the British Navy without notice. It's called "Impressment". Basically, they were forcing Americans into slavery to fight against the US.

I think that alone is enough to say it wasn't preemptive, and justification for war.

The British were trying to supply our enemies in those regions(Indian tribes). Basically, the plan was to recruit the Indian tribes as a nation to go against the US. Which is why the particular area you mention was attacked.

The troops were sent up to that area to secure the area, and it basically ended the entire thing as the British had no way to reach and supply the Indian tribes. Which of course, we had many battles with.

Now, the desire to expand into the Indian lands is another story.

C Bowen| 8.23.11 @ 5:01PM

USS C;

Debatable. If you check the Congressional debates of the era, the New England constituency really had no record of impressment of their citizens. James Truslow Adams (yes, an Adams) covers it in his New England history book series.

It was a lie concocted by the 'War Party', like WMDs in Iraq. If 160 years from now, they are teaching kids that Iraq really had WMDs...well you get the picture, I trust.

Nick| 8.23.11 @ 5:25PM

USS Constitution,

"It's called 'Impressment'."

You say tomato...
Fine, the British were impressing American sailors. This doesn't refute my point.

"I think that alone is enough to say it wasn't preemptive, and justification for war."

I was referring to President Madison's excursion into Canada as being preemptive, not the whole war.

You still haven't addressed my points. If the Founders were non-interventionists, why did President Madison, The Father of the Constitution, invade Canada? Shouldn't he have just protected merchant shipping and repelled any British invasion of American territory?

C Bowen| 8.23.11 @ 7:47PM

The problem might be use of capital letters? The Founder James Madison was loose on scruples, he was a politician with a keen eye towards how history would view him, so he covered his tracks. Doesn't mean we have to worship him as a deity, right of course?

Citizen Jerry| 8.23.11 @ 11:12AM

Good article, although Jeffrey is often given to verbosity.

I really don't understand those who equate libertarianism with conservatism. The only thing the two have in common is a disdain for collectivism.

Yes, Ron Paul has some good ideas. But his gang of Paulinistas are loud, in your face, and really annoying. I was at a TEA Party rally this spring to help celebrate America, only to have Paulinistas shove his literature at me.

As for us not being policemen of the world ... well, the world needs a policeman, if only to keep the bad actors from blowing things up. I don't see anyone else stepping up for the job.

Jonathan Gillespie| 8.23.11 @ 1:02PM

Explain to me how we're going to afford it.

Jason| 8.23.11 @ 11:21AM

Did you ever think that maybe, *just maybe*, letting Israel do its own thing, and stopping the funding of its enemies, might be the most pro-Israel thing our government could do?

Allan Bernake| 8.23.11 @ 1:13PM

I see what you are saying, but more fundamentally, why should Israel's interests concern America?

They are a sovereign nation. We are a sovereign nation. Nations are not people. Nations are not "friends"; their relationships are formed through expedience, are steered by national interests, and are not of a lasting nature.

Why are we entangled and allied with Israel?

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:50PM

Except that he also opposes Israel's attempts at self defense, and supports Hamas.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:50PM

Except that he also opposes Israel's attempts at self defense, and supports Hamas.

Lloyd F| 8.23.11 @ 4:12PM

"He" being who exactly?

Brian| 8.23.11 @ 11:27AM

Let me some this up you can call Ron Paul whatever you want. Liberterian, Conservative, neoliberal etc but in the end how is that Conservative and spending and nation building working for you. How is that Federal Reserve System working for liberty and INDIVIDUAL Freedom. I find this entire rant on Paul to be nothing more then an attempt to stop and ot derail the REEDUCATION of facts and a new idea on liberty. It appears to Jeff "Lord" more conservatives with no money think all wars are justified, sustainable and the words of the founding fathers and even our OWN HISTORY are worth bankrupty. This is nothing more then we know what is best, we believe in big government, and putting our noses in places it does not belong. Is this what America wants? Or after trilion in debt and wars that never end will they get some education.
Ron Paul is not teaching anyone anything he is just giving people a VOICE to what most of Americans who have any common sense are seeing.

Christine| 8.23.11 @ 11:27AM

My friend sent me this knowing I am a Ron Paul Supporter. This was my response.

I appreciate the post. I'm always trying to find something "wrong" with Paul, say devil's advocate, so I don't repeat my past voting mistakes. However, this article does nothing but give a (re-written) history lesson, and attempts to categorize Paul by dissecting his policies into about 20 different pieces and then attempts to associate those pieces to 20 (or 30) different people, that are no more Constitutional than Obama. It's a smear campaign on an intellectual level and nothing more. For example, to say someone is anti-Semitic, because they believe in non-intervention, is simply apples and oranges. Ron Paul believes in following the letter of the Constitutional Law. Period. He believes in repealing the amendments that violate that law. That's as conservative as it gets, no gray areas. All this quasi - neo crap ... quite a catchy subject line however, grabs your attention. I hope people read the article and realize it's true purpose. We are not responsible for the policing of the Middle East, a problem we created ourselves. Here's a scenario ... the Middle East has decided that (Name Omitted) is a threat to their country on some erroneous and misguided intelligence and (or maybe we just have something they really, really want) bombs Copake killing 200 innocent people. Then continues to bomb, kill, invade "for our benefit" all of the northeast for 60 YEARS!! Do you think there would be a few "Red Neck " terrorists around ?? Maybe thousands, millions ??? The more troops I speak to, damaged, blown up and reject by the people we are supposedly "helping" the more I am convinced that THEY are right. We need to bring home our troops and get back to the business of this failing country called the USA. Ron Paul has defended and promoted the citizens of the US by voting for the system of government that allows us a voice in what happens in our lives and leaves us to live and believe the way WE choose for the past 30 years, and EVEN has the record to prove it. It's time to stop supporting the government and the financial institutions that run them, and return to liberty and democracy.

Jared| 8.23.11 @ 11:30AM

I'm not going to get into a heated debate. All I'm going to say is that I have thoroughly researched both sides of history and I find myself on the side of Dr. Ron Paul. I'm active duty military, have been for 8 years and I'm ending my career so I can get out and campaign without limitations for Ron Paul. I guarantee whether Ron Paul is elected president or not, there are going to be so many books written on him and how he was right and how unfairly he was treated. I'd bet everything I own on it. Ron Paul is the real deal, if you're so arrogant and ignorant to see that, well I don't really know what to tell you. For your own sake though, forget party lines and what the media tells you, especially this worthless article, do the research for yourself.

Allan Bernake| 8.23.11 @ 12:50PM

Yes, but who will publish and promote those books? The publishing industry is just as controlled as the other mainstream media cartels.

Instead of burning books they simply prevent them from being made.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.23.11 @ 11:33AM

I just love it when an article this informative comes on line.
Heh! Every PAULBOT...comes ALIVE with their hilarious screeds.

It gives the rest of us a pretty well rounded picture of who they are.... heh...without even changing screens.
Some are screamers...some are sneaky-slick.

All are loosers.

Christine| 8.23.11 @ 11:36AM

Actually, we are just more interested in knowing the truth.

Kirk Daughtry| 8.23.11 @ 12:33PM

You mis-spelled "losers". I'm not surprised that someone who resort to low-brow ad-hominum attacks does not take the time to check his spelling. Why don't you shoulder up a rifle and go fight in Afghanistan, Mr. Apologist-for-the-Failed-Status Quo? Keep on making excuses for abject failure and corruption the like of which only Rome knows! Did you earn your degree at GW Bush University, Mr. Wonder-Brain?

Jason| 8.23.11 @ 11:39AM

Furthermore, let's examine just the basic logical flaws of this article: correlation equals cause; projection upon statistical coincidence; guilt by association.

9thID| 8.23.11 @ 11:44AM

Mr. Lord - GREAT commentary on the Paubots' true ideology and agenda. Maybe now those who are sick of the Neo-Marxist Democrats and GOP RINOs will see that the conservative path does not lie with Neo-Liberals like Ron Paul.

It should not be surprising to anyone when you stated that: "non-interventionist "Paulist" politicians of the 20th century were overwhelmingly not conservatives at all. They were men of the left. The far left." Both Liberals and Libertarians share those first 5 letters of their ideology because they come from the same root of Libertinism.

Libertarians are only "conservative" on fiscal issues. They are NOT conservatives on Social and National Security issues. This is where they share common lineage with Liberals. While Liberalism ends in totalitarianism, Libertarianism ends in anarchy. Neither is what our Republic was founded and envisioned to be, and why we were not "given" a democracy. Both Liberalism and Libertarianism are the antithesis of our Constitution and both are a clear and present danger to liberty...

Jonathan Gillespie| 8.23.11 @ 1:05PM

That's exactly right. Poor Ron Paul, in camp with those crazy dangers to liberty like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Eisenhower.

Solo| 8.23.11 @ 11:44AM

@ Red Phillips:
"So I guess all the people before the Militia Act of 1903 were actually closeted neocons yearning to intervene. The historical ignorance of the Founders were actually neocons crowd is so palpable you can cut it with a knife."

Hmmm...you might find this essay interesting:
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.....eocon.html
"NeoCon Nation: Neoconservatism c. 1776"

It's a long read but well worth it, being the lover of history that you are.

iamse7en| 8.23.11 @ 11:44AM

Actually, I'd say that Ron Paul is the only conservative when it comes to foreign policy. The others are completely reckless (finances, international relations, safety, etc). Not to mention our behavior is strictly forbidden by the Constitution, especially when you read the Founders' interpretation of that important document. Ezra Taft Benson said it best:

“Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies ... The proper function of government must be limited to a defensive role." (Ezra Taft Benson, “United States Foreign Policy”, Preston, Idaho, June 21, 1968)

Solo| 8.23.11 @ 11:52AM

There's nothing in the Constitution describing foreign policy, at all.

Just another "fun fact" for the PaulBots to grind on.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 12:11PM

Way to show you have no clue how the constitution works.

I'll give you a hint. It's not a document that says what powers you don't have, it's a document that says what powers you do have.

If it doesn't include such things, it's an argument against you, not for you.

However, given all this I know you are in fact wrong, as it does have things regarding declaring war, signing treaties, Letters of Marque and Reprisal and on and on.

So please, tell us more about how your view are unconstitutional.

Solo| 8.23.11 @ 12:52PM

@ USS Constitutional

"Way to show you have no clue how the constitution works.

I'll give you a hint. It's not a document that says what powers you don't have, it's a document that says what powers you do have.

If it doesn't include such things, it's an argument against you, not for you.

However, given all this I know you are in fact wrong, as it does have things regarding declaring war, signing treaties, Letters of Marque and Reprisal and on and on.

So please, tell us more about how your view are unconstitutional."

Actually, Mr. "Constitutional", it is both an expression of power and a restriction of power in that it states what the Congress may do and what it may not do.

It does not, however, prescribe any particular foreign policy preference. It leaves the decisions up to the Chief Executive and the Congress to decide based on what is best for the nation at the time.

You may not agree with what they decide at any given point in time, but you cannot claim the Constitution as a justification for your particular preference.

And that, my friend, is a fact.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 1:10PM

It's called the 10th amendment.

When the constitution was being formed, there were 2 basic arguments about the amendment and bill of rights.

1 side wanted to list the most basic rights, for fear that if those rights were not listed they could be someday taken away.

The other side didn't want to list any rights, because they feared if the rights were listed, we would someday be restricted to only those rights. That the constitution would only list what the government could do, and that would be all it could do, such rights were in by default.

The end compromise was the bill of rights and the 9th and 10 amendments to put a lock on the constitution. These days the 10th amendment may be ignored in large part, but if you want to talk about what is constitutional then it matters.

In regards to foreign policy, it gives the different branches different powers. Only the congress has the power to declare wars for example. The president has the power to issue letters or marque and so on. In doing so, yes it in large part DOES in fact set the boundaries and direction for our foreign policy.

And those things are not being followed. And if it's not being followed then the actions are unconstitutional, regardless of what preferences may exist.

Solo| 8.23.11 @ 2:11PM

@ USS Constitution

"In regards to foreign policy, it gives the different branches different powers. Only the congress has the power to declare wars for example. The president has the power to issue letters or marque and so on. In doing so, yes it in large part DOES in fact set the boundaries and direction for our foreign policy.

And those things are not being followed. And if it's not being followed then the actions are unconstitutional, regardless of what preferences may exist."

Not..exactly. The Constitution allows the President to issue Letters Of Marque and to take unilateral action against Piracy and "Laws Of Nations" to protect U.S. Interests.
The Congress retains the power to declare war but....where in the Constitution do you imagine you see the requirement for Congress to use a specific phrase in making that Declaration?

The whole point behind the Constitution's requirement to place the war making powers with the Congress was to ensure that the People were behind the effort. Is this not self evident?
They did not want the Chief Executive to make these commitments unilaterally.

THAT is what the Constitution describes: The process--NOT some neo-isolationist philosophy.
So....no. There is absolutely no prescription for foreign policy preferences within the Constitution. It is designed (as any reasonable person might expect) to allow the people to act in their own interests and as they see fit to confront a threat.
As such...the Constitution describes process--not policy.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 4:59PM

Umm, "To declare War", would require a Declaration of War. A Declaration of war means you are notifying a nation that you consider yourself to be at war with them.

If Congress is not sending an official letter declaring war, then they have not declared war.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. Of course, the only reason you are even talking about this is because you don't want to actually Declare war because if you do then you have to treat prisoners as POW's. Your entire argument and reasons for saying this have nothing at all to do with the meaning and intent of the constitution, because you know good and well what it means.

It's this kind of going around the constitution that Americans are tired of. We don't care how you think you can spin it, and are rather offended by it honestly.

Isolationism has nothing to do with military. In fact, it doesn't even mention the word military.

Isolationism means you don't trade with people, don't have diplomacy with people, and so on. I don't think anyone is in favor of that.

Also, non-intervention does not in any manner mean we do not protect our interests. It means - we do not get involved in other peoples affairs that do not affect us. Big difference.

How are educated people supposed to take your arguments seriously when you mess up on basic definitions - all the while knowing it's not correct to begin with?

Jeff Aaron| 8.23.11 @ 12:17PM

Actually, there is is. The Federal Government has enumerated, specific responsibilities, one of which is to provide for the national defense. Do we really need to invade Afghanistan to defend ourselves from the Taliban? None of these countries or groups has the ability to truly threaten the United States military or populace. Sorry, if Israel can hold them off at home and only use special operations and intelligence to fight terrorism outside their country, then we can too.

I'll also mention that the Constitution requires a formal declaration of war by Congress. Some of these wars would not have been started if that were not circumvented, inappropriately and unconstitutionally, by the War Powers Act.

You are right though, foreign aid and trade embargos are not described in the Constitution. I just think that is stupid because I don't think we need to be giving other countries money. If they need humanitarian aid, e.g. food, medicine, etc, I'm all for it. With foreign aid though, usually at least a big piece of the money is siphoned off by the ruling class. Most recent example: just look at Iraq.

I certainly don't agree with Paul on everything, but I trust him way more than Obama, Romney or even Perry. They appear to be too influenced by money. Look into Obama's promises vs actions, Romney's odd political donation patterns (most of it from individual contributors) and Rick Perry's ties to Chinese business investments in Texas relating to the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Please educate yourselves. Use articles and reader comments as a starting point, but with how easy it is to do your own research these days, there's no need to take anyone's word at face value. Mine included.

Solo| 8.23.11 @ 11:50AM

One of the things that tickles me the most about the PaulBot narrative is that a foreign policy approach which pre-dates "NeoConservatism" by hundreds (and in some cases 1000's) of years is, somehow, "NeoConservative" in origin.

Jeff Aaron| 8.23.11 @ 12:04PM

The term "neo-conservative" was not coined by libertarians. It is in wide use by the public in general and is not derogatory; it is a descriptive term. I agree that the policy of empire making has been used for thousands of years. Examples include Napoleon, the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, the Mongolian Empire of Ghenghis Khan and the Second Reich. These all share two things in common: 1) their leaders either had or seized politicial power; and 2) they all fell after overextending themselves.

9thID| 8.23.11 @ 11:51AM

The latest vision of Libertarianism I have read about is revealed in their plot to construct large oil-rig-type platforms in international waters so they can do whatever they want without having to live under a Judeo-Christian based Constitution. Says a lot...

Jeff Aaron| 8.23.11 @ 11:55AM

This is an interesting article but I think the historical ties are generally a big stretch. Comparing contemporary libertarians with politicians from WWI and WWII is a big task better suited to a longer article- but taking that and then attempting to extrapolate Ron Paul and others' behavior based on behavior of McCarthy, Hitler and others doesn't make any sense.

The suggestion that everyone who dislikes neo-conservativism really hates Jews is kind of ridiculous.

I followed your quote links and some are empty- the great majority of the others all come from Lew Rockwell who was a known nutjob. He is less extreme now, from what I have heard, but his prior outbursts have severed his relationship with all but the most extreme libertarians. And he is just plain uncivilized. But I digress.

In summary, this article is an interesting academic discussion but it lacks a logical argument and appropriate references.

MIke Hawk| 8.23.11 @ 12:04PM

This whole thing has become typically Rube Paul, old, tedious and crazy. I'm outta here for today. I can only take so much kookiness.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 12:13PM

So, I guess the old adage "The truth hurts" has merit.

Solo| 8.23.11 @ 2:21PM

"So, I guess the old adage "The truth hurts" has merit."

It must. Behold the hysterics by various PaulBots.

Slacker| 8.23.11 @ 12:18PM

The sad thing is republicans never have their own freedom candidate, so they adopt a libertarian now and then. That the old goof can attract so many followers proves the individual liberty position resonates with many Americans.

Too bad the establishment republicans and evangelical wing find individual liberty is too extreme for their party.

Kirk Daughtry| 8.23.11 @ 12:28PM

Jeffrey Lord,

Who died and made you the Lord of the American Empire? You come across as the consumate snob. Why don't you shoulder up an M-16 and go fight in Afghanistan? We have not had a truly fiscally conservative Republican in as long as anyone can remember. Face it, Mr. "Neo-Con", we, the American People are fed the hell up with endless wars, paid for by our grandchildren, who will one day curse elitist war-mongers such as you. Nations which live by the sword, die by the sword, or, go bankrupt. Sound familiar?

Drunken Sailor| 8.23.11 @ 2:58PM

Why are you posting here? Don't you have work to do at Barak Obama 2012?
http://my.barackobama.com/page.....rkdaughtry

I did carry a gun, fought in Iraq, was scheduled to fight in Afghanistan until the unit's orders were changed and then I retired. How about you? Ron Paul will never get my vote unless it is between him and your boy Obama

thejerkstore| 8.23.11 @ 12:20PM

Basically what I see is a dissent from conservatives, neo-cons, et al that we need to "police" the world. On other fronts we agree, so on this one issue, albeit a large one, we agree to disagree.

My question, which is never answered, by the cons is how do we pay for it? The country is broke, not the 14 trillion broke, but the 100-200 trillion broke, qouted by the Cato Institute, Naills Ferguson, David Walker etc. This includes all of the future liabilities, off the balance sheets war funding, state and county expenditures, SS and Medicare and everything else. The debt is unpayable. It will not/ever be paid yet you insist on financing the war machine abroad.

If somebody can tell me how we continue down this path, the welfare/warfare state pay our obligations and police the world, I'm all ears.

kerry| 8.23.11 @ 12:36PM

I agree with thejerkstore. how are we supposed to pay for all of this crap? I also think that European socialism was enabled by our large military presence there. I do believe we must stand up to threats and be pro active, but we do need to bring some of our troops home and close some of these bases. I also believe the war in Afghanistan is a waste of lives! That said, there is something amiss with Mr.paul on a number of fronts: his labeling Israel as "scary" and that Iran has a right to nukes? His blaming the U.S. for islamic extremism is really bad. I wish the article had been a bit more fleshed out. The author was consumed with the jewish "question". There is a lot about Paul's ideas that need to be pointed out as dangerous and anti American

Jonathan Gillespie| 8.23.11 @ 1:08PM

Ah but you see, there's the rub. We (myself included) have or have once been guilty of equating every war with some of kind of sacred purpose and importance as WWII, ever since WWII.

For the left, it is social programs being treated as some sort of sacred cow.

But we can't afford either at the levels they are any more. And no one wants to admit it!

Grant| 8.23.11 @ 12:34PM

Mr. Lord,
I'm surprised you forgot the newsletters. A proper Ron Paul bigotry smear is not complete without quotes from these documents. Please get with the program.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.23.11 @ 12:38PM

Heh heh!
See what I mean?

C'mon, there just have to be more than 238 Paulbots in the country that read TAS. You guys are letting your side down.
We want to hear some more rants from you loosers.

Jonathan Gillespie| 8.23.11 @ 1:09PM

"side"? I thought we were trying to fix this country, together. Or are we divided now because the talking heads want to marginalize a large block of voters?

Tony Olsen| 8.23.11 @ 12:42PM

This is a terrible article.

Jeffry Lord appears to be more of a big-government Republican than a freedom-loving Republican. Jeff is the reason why my Liberal friends claim that Republicans are also heading to totalitarianism... they're just taking a slightly different path to totalitarianism than Liberals/Democrats are.

Jeff fails to back up his attacks on Ron Paul, instead just blurry the issues by first placing Ron Paul in with other groups and then talking about what other people in those groups have done. (Kind of like placing an innocent civilian in the middle of a police shoot-out and then incorrectly accusing him of hating police).

Jeff does, however, seem to share the views of many current corrupt Republican politicians... which Republican voters (Libertarians in their core) have been trying to root out for generations.

While conservatism means "to conserve/preserve existing traditions", Conservatism today is the belief in limited government and the love of freedom/liberty. The founding fathers are praised for their having founded a country based on these principles despite their own individual imperfections. Since this view was not traditional view at the time, they were Liberals of their time (seeking to change from the traditional). I find a better, more accurate term here is Libertarian (current Conservative) and Socialist/Totalitarianist/Communist/Statist/etc... (current Liberal).

Republicans in congress who are called R.I.N.O.'s are those who fail to keep to these Liberty/Freedom-based ideals and instead grow the government.

conservative Bob| 8.23.11 @ 12:44PM

I knew when I read the headline and then the article that the comments section would be on fire.

I was not disappointed. (Maybe the wrong word.)

I believe in 'supporting' one's candidate but that is not what we have here.

We have a dedicated core screaming names at those who do not share their faith.

I suspect this core will sit one out the election if their guy fails to get the nomination, which quite frankly is what is going to happen to Paul. He is not going to be nominated.

No candidate is going to appeal to everyone in the GOP primary and certainly not in the general.

On our side (the GOP/Conservative/Libertarian/free market/limited government) of the selection process we are attempting to find the candidate that resonates most with our beliefs and can articulate them well enough to gain the support of the majority of the people so as to win the general election. In short we are looking for someone who shares the most of our common goals and beliefs.

If we demand that the eventual candidate meet all of our individual requirements we will simply not find a candidate.

If we take the position that unless our single issue is central to the platform of the candidate selected we will stay home, we will lose the general.

If we take the stand that unless the candidate swears fealty to our full range of principles, and then on those principles we will withhold our vote then we will all experience 4 more years of Barack H Obama.

We can console ourselves as we watch this great nation pass the tipping point and slide irreversible into decline, that we stood on absolute principle.

My suggestion is to fight as hard as we can for our chosen candidate, support vigorously who you will but conduct those battles in a manner that when the primaries have ended we can join together to defeat our true adversary Obama and the progressive/socialist/communist/democrat/left.
Mr. Lord as usual a well written article.

Jonathan| 8.23.11 @ 1:11PM

Bob...Jeffrey has just called Ron Paul supporters anti-semites. And you're giving him a pass - why?

Who is really subdividing the house here?

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 1:17PM

Try the fundamentalist below.

conservative Bob| 8.23.11 @ 3:13PM

Jonathan
I think his brush was not as broad as you suggest. I think he said that there were those close to Paul and that 'some' of his supporters appeared.

In my own reading of articles and comments over the years I have wondered and in some instances asked the author if their use of 'neo-con' was not a more PC substitute for 'Jude' as used in the 30s and 40s in Germany. The vitriol exposed a level of animosity stronger than foreign policy differences would explain.
Maybe the problem here is that to most of the Paul supporters I read there is no middle ground in the area of national security or foreign involvement. It is either total isolationist or I am a 'neo-con'.

Everything is not quite so black and white.

We are (or were) the most powerful economic engine on the planet and in all of human history. Our government/economic system, at least as designed, set us on this path from our founding. Until recently we were 6% of the world’s population producing 34% of the world’s goods and services. Such economic power requires markets beyond our shores, and the defense of those markets and interests.

While I will readily admit that our foreign policy has had many misadventures and that many of those adventures skirted constitutionality I do not agree that our constitution demands that we be isolationist.
I do not agree that the only plausible choices are one extreme or the other. We do not have to be the world’s police force in every possible instance, while at the same time neither is it any longer possible to retreat to within our own boarders and exist as fortress Americana.
The travesty of our foreign policy is not that we have involvements around the globe, it is as in everything else in our over reaching over intrusive government. We the people have for too long been disengaged and the same bloated ineffective inefficient mission creep that plagues the rest of our dysfunctional federal government does so in our foreign policy as well.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:48PM

Nicely written, Conservative Bob.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 4:11PM

OT, where have you been? I have been do most of the heavy lifting here, buddy, and I am getting a little tired. How about sharing some of that wisdom, wit, and bull crap cutting you are famous for!

conservative Bob| 8.23.11 @ 3:17PM

As to the specifics of the anti Semitism of Paul or his supporters I cannot say with any certainty other than I am reasonably sure that most are not. However the words of Paul supports and their terms they use to disparage those they disagree with certainly lend themself to this charge when discussing and disputing foreign policy differences. Throwing aside completely the anti-Semitism charge I would say that Paul is too much an isolationist for me and I think for the country.

C Bowen| 8.23.11 @ 8:13PM

Were you scared of Saddam "conservative" bob?

conservative Bob| 8.23.11 @ 8:42PM

What?
No actually I was not.
But I don't think that is what you are getting at is it?

Drunken Sailor| 8.23.11 @ 5:01PM

Well spoken Bob!!!

I can cordially disagree with someone over their canidate at let it slide. But so many Ron Paul supporters are over the top and rabid that they give any supporter a bad name (you know who you are). That, in my opinion is why Mr. Lord wrote this article. It is in reaction to all the Pro Paul attacks seen on this board lately. Many are fed up and fight back just because of a few who name call.

There is no perfect canidate. Pick the one you agree the most with, do what you can for them, and if they do not win, then look to the next step. Do any of us (except for the trolls lurking about) want 4 more of Obama? I think not.

C Bowen| 8.23.11 @ 8:15PM

Mr. Sailor;

Were you scared of Saddam?

fundamentalist| 8.23.11 @ 1:05PM

Jeffrey Lord must have been born yesterday. Of course Ron Paul is not a conservative. He is a libertarian. He wants to end the war on drugs by legalizing most of them. He wants to stay out of needless wars. He wants smaller government.

Conservatives are war mongers. They're not happy unless American boys are dying somewhere in the world.

Conservatives are incredibly gullible, naive and arrogant for thinking that they can change the ancient cultures of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Conservatives don't want smaller government; they want a huge, overbearing federal government that they can use for their own purposes.

Conservatives are not friends of free markets; they are friends of big business.

Those Republicans who favor small government, peace, freedom and capitalism need to wake up and realize they're in the wrong political party.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 1:16PM

Keep talking. You are revealing a great deal and making it easier for us, conservatives to expose what you actually are. I was disappointed you did not quote Reagan. Oh, I forgot he was a Libertarian.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 1:38PM

Newsflash: We want Ron Paul to be "exposed".

Doctor Right| 8.23.11 @ 2:02PM

Then you're getting your wish.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:47PM

Paul was an OB/Gyn. He has no idea of the damage to the minority communities that will ensue by legalizing drugs. He is an idiot on that, as well.

ItzDaTruth| 8.24.11 @ 12:22AM

As opposed to the damage done to minority communities that has ensued by prohibiting drugs? You can't have it both ways.

Thom| 8.23.11 @ 6:01PM

Fundamentalist,
Conservatives are war mongers? Was Woodrow Wilson a Conservative? Was FDR? Was Harry S. Truman? Was JFK? Was LBJ? How about Abraham Lincoln? All these people started, freely engaged or did nothing to prevent a war of some consequence while Reagan and the Bushs’ wars are but a single battle in WWII terms for cost and causalities. Don’t confuse frustration with not being able to “deter” war with an adequate defense capability with being pro war. All but FDR initiated “war” of their choosing while FDR just sat there and did nothing while both Germany and Japan spent a decade building up their capabilities and forces. FDR signed a naval treaty that gave Japan naval superiority in the Pacific and they violated that 1935 treaty by 20-30% every chance they got. We paid for that at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. FDR’s doing nothing had far greater consequences to the nation than everything Reagan and Bush’s could have ever dreamed of. Calling Iraq and Afghanistan “wars” singly or combined is almost a non event in the annuals of actual “wars”. Our losses on D-Day alone are comparable to all our losses in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined over a decade. Proportionality gives perspective and without it words just become meaningless rhetoric like “war monger” has become. The 19th Arab souls who drove those planes into our buildings and killed nearly 3000 of us wanted “war”. Your solution would seem to be what to that kind of attack? I’d be interested to hear how you would have dealt with 9/11 as President. Impress us?

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 1:10PM

PolishNightee:

Let us recap the craziness.

"Washington was a huge grower of it."
Washington may have indeed have grown hemp, I doubt he was smoking it nor would he have legalized or promoted the use of cocaine, heroine, crack and every other poison. To make an assertion otherwise because he grew hemp for rope is absolutely childish, sophmoric idiocy.

"Jefferson wrote his own bible and flat out rejected religion.'

This is a classic Liberal warping and historical revision. To make the claim that our founders rejected religion on the basis of one founder who was actually a deist and in reality did promote religion and religious expression as a central foundation of a good society is just plain astounding, communist clap trap, tiring, old and deceptive horseshit.

"The entire reason they moved here was to get away from the Church/Religion."

Then here comes the best one. Pilgrims, persecution of religious expression in england and europe, new jerusalem, first ammendment, black robe clergy, colonies set up for practice of religious beliefs, state constitutions encouraging and supporting religious belief, tax exemption of churches...none of that rings a bell?
The entire reason was to build churches, practice their beliefs, and promote morality and religious belief.

This is why I have come to believe that liberaltarians of today are not conservatives but Trojan horses and a serious threat to freedom. Yeah, this is sound thinking! It is nonsense and the same crazy crap I have put up with from liberals all my life.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 1:22PM

"Washington may have indeed have grown hemp, I doubt he was smoking it nor would he have legalized or promoted the use of cocaine, heroine, crack and every other poison. To make an assertion otherwise because he grew hemp for rope is absolutely childish, sophmoric idiocy."

"Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere."
- George Washington

In Washington Journals(1765), he mentions being a bit upset with himself for not separating some of his male and female hemp plants. Now, there is only 1 reason for this, the female plant is more potent for smoking. Because well, otherwise it's a good thing as it means more seeds for planting more crop.

He did in fact smoke it. It wasn't a big deal at all then, and certainly not illegal. Hemp was actually given between countries and their leaders as gifts and so on.

"This is a classic Liberal warping and historical revision. To make the claim that our founders rejected religion on the basis of one founder who was actually a deist and in reality did promote religion and religious expression as a central foundation of a good society is just plain astounding, communist clap trap, tiring, old and deceptive horseshit."

Umm, you can read the bible if you like. He basically took all the mystical stuff out of it, leaving the important lessons of Jesus and the philosophy and reasoning.

The point with the founders was not to do with religion, it was to do with people forcing their religion on others. Separation of church and state is not to get rid of religion, it's to protect it. However, yes Jefferson and others did openly mock religion and they all came to America to get away from the Church of England and forced religion.

You have absolutely no concept of freedom, much less what is a threat to it.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 2:10PM

As I said earlier, it is exactly the same as arguing with a liberal- distortion, name calling, historical revision, smarmy arrogant attitude, false premises, ridiculous conclusions, over generalizations, side stepping, and a few downright lies. You did not address anything that I stated. Just your usual tripe.

It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion..another example of your Liberaltarianism. you go ahead there is live in your fantasy world. One thing is for certain, you are a minority, your Leader will not be nominated, and you will be exposed for the crazy cranks and hypocrites you are. You are wasting my time. You are just another troll. You are damn well not conservative.

I can tell you this. From this day forward I will do everything in my power to see you, your philosophy, and your robots and Leader are exposed for the trojan horse that you are. I should actually be thankful to all of you today as you have truly opened my eyes and confirmed my suspicions.

PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 2:49PM

Simon, your responses often undermine your case that USS Constitution and RP are radicals. Simply engaging in namecalling is something the left does regularly.

Let's consider Ben Stein. In his own blog on AmSpec, he chastised his fellow American Jews for voting overwhelmingly Democrat. Now if non-Jew were to make that statement, it would open them up instantly to charges of anti-Semitism. And that's the problem: With the anti-Semite label thrown so easily around, it undermines the seriousness of the charge. It's like leftists calling everyone they disagree with "fascists" or "Nazis".

Let's get back to the sub-topic: Founding fathers and drug addiction: Back then, it probably wasn't considered as such. Alcoholism was barely even acknowledged as a vice and was more like a way of life. That's not a good thing, of course, but just a sign of the times. Crack open Sherlock Holmes (yes, I know he wasn't a founding father) and the guy is on opium. The drug was as we know it has an interesting history and much of it was based upon bashing racial minorities (white women being drugged and taken advantage of.)

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 4:05PM

The evidence provided in the article and the statements made here by libertarians, particularly made today, overwhelming convict them of their anti-semitism, their thuggery, and their hatred for religion among a few.

The drug war was largely the work of criminal and communistic forces that have promoted and pushed drugs into western society for both profit and the destruction of the West. Bashing racial minorities is a another liberal fantasy.

The drug war of the federal government has largely failed because of the inherent corruption of progressive government and its inability and unwillingness to control the border. The other reason it failed is your lax and permissive attitude about it.

What is needed is the recognition that this is a health issue and these addicts are sick, dysfunctional members of society. They need to be treated as such. Those selling the stuff are criminals and should be considered terrorist and treated as such. Surprised?

Seek| 8.23.11 @ 3:23PM

Freedom to adhere to a particular religion is, by definition, freedom to say "no" to other religions. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are flip sides of the same coin. Church-state separation -- it remains a great idea.

Oops, I may have engaged in an ad hominem attack. Or was it a false premise?

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 3:49PM

Then stop interfering with others expressing their religion, stop insisting that people who believe in religion and God are crazy, and stop insisting that religion has no place in the public sector whether it be our court rooms (the ten commandments), our schools (banning of mention of God in valedictorian speeches) or the rights of a parent to teach religion to their daughter.

Yes, it was a false premise. No one is restricting your right to say 'no' or forcing you to submit to any religion nor are you required to forcibly participate or support a religion. What you have been advocating is the federal governments intrusion in restricting religious citizens from expressing religious beliefs. The last I checked I could not find any state advocating a specific state religion over another and requiring citizens to join it by force.

Seek| 8.23.11 @ 7:24PM

It is not interfering with religious expression by barring the use of private force against dissenting individuals. That's as much the essence of church-state separation as the ban on a government-run church.

Separation does not preclude or "mock" religious belief; it protects it. And, no, a taxpayer-supported public school shouldn't have the authority to force students to pray -- a private school, yes, but not a public one.

Brian Gosper| 8.23.11 @ 4:11PM

OOOOH-very scared, Simon! You told me, eh? So please tell me who is doing the name calling there, Simon?? When you know NOTHING of who I am and what I (and most in this movement) believe? Like I said before, you must be looking in the mirror again and thinking you are seeing us.
Guess I should run back into my middle America bliss and think that just electing a new set of Republican deck chairs is the answer, right??

America should quake in fear at the establishment Repube-icans like you just as we should from the left and the current Marxists running this country. Got news for ya there "Simon-says" TRUE patriots and Constitutionalists are growing en-mass in this country and the establishment left and right is losing their minds-as so elegantly demonstrated by your replies.
you can demonize whoever you want and try to take the fringe actions of a few and spin that as the majority but you will fail because as I stated before such fringe exists in all groups--even in your "kooky" establishment circles--and we will continue to grow and reassert America on its true founding.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 4:26PM

I am not chasing conservative media personalities down alleys and threatening anyone like a thug. I am not accusing every single individual, think tank, organization, and media outlet that they are not true patriots, constitutionalist, Israeli Firsters, and a host of other explicatives because they do not supprt Ron Paul or agree with every single point he makes.

I am not claiming that I see a jew behind every bank, war, wall street, financial meltdown, tree, or neo-con....whatever the hell that is. Nor am I trying to claim that a particular politician is the father of the Tea Party. I am not mocking religion.
The fringe actions of a few? Your fringe was out in full force today. The article is quite damaging whether you want to admit it or not. I am sure lord could go on naming more names for another 5 pages. The dozens he did point out will suffice. You boys need to do some back tracking and quick splaining. You represent loons, you are not the Tea Party by any stretch, and you damn well do not represent most conservative Americans. Go away...you are boring me. I hear DRED's throwing a party..go over there where you belong.

Margie| 8.24.11 @ 3:18PM

Yaye Simon!

AngelaTC| 8.23.11 @ 1:22PM

Hemp isn't marijuana. Nobody ever got high from smoking hemp.

Our founders rejected a national religion. The Constitution was amended, and now the states are prohibited from creating state religions, a decision that Paul disagrees with.

Neoconservatives take away freedoms with every new law they pass to "protect" us.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 1:29PM

Hemp is the name for Marijauna.

It wasn't called Marijuana until the logging industry went after hemp in the 30's. Because if they had called it "hemp" instead, nobody would have fell for the propaganda. So they instead called it a mexican plant(marihuana - not hemp) to fool people into thinking it was something else.

Seek| 8.23.11 @ 3:26PM

I'm glad state governments are prohibited from mandating a religion. As it should be. Government at no level -- federal, state or local -- should have any business instructing individuals what to believe or how to worship. There is nothing "neoconservative" about this principle. Rep. Paul is wrong.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 5:03PM

Ron Paul has never said anything about wanting to establish a religion. What is he wrong about?

This may qualify as one of the most out there stretch of his positions.

Seek| 8.23.11 @ 7:26PM

I was responding to AngelaTC's comment. And I stand by my own.

AngelaTC| 8.23.11 @ 1:18PM

Amazing that a former political adviser for Reagan doesn't seem to remember that Paul's foreign policy is essentially Reagan's.

The GOP lost hard in 2006 because the American people were tired of the wars in the Middle East. I don't "get" why the GOP is determined to continue to defend and embrace such horrifically failed policies.

Thom| 8.23.11 @ 5:15PM

You mean Paul is for going into Lebanon again and getting between two warring parties in the Gulf again? I guess Granada does not count? And Panama?

abramson| 8.23.11 @ 1:25PM

In retrospect, the spectacle of the United States entering World War II has an almost dreamlike, fatalistic quality. There was never, prior to Pearl Harbor, any literal threat to the national security of the United States. And there was no popular enthusiasm, except among a small if influential group of "internationalists," for the United States' accepting responsibility for the maintenance of "world order." - Irving Kristol who was this influential group of "internationalists"? hmm?

Wharf Rat| 8.23.11 @ 1:38PM

After reading all of these comments, and the extremely fun back and forth between "conservatives" and what would be called "Paulistas" (which I guess I would be counted as), I'm ashamed of the 3 decades I spent being identified as a conservative.

A little old obstetrician appears on the horizon and actually has the gall to tell what he believes is the truth about the state of our great nation, and you "conservatives" call his supporters and his ideas ridiculous, without even contemplating that maybe... JUST MAYBE, there is merit in his line of thought.

I know you all mean well, and wish you no ill, but wow! What happened to you guys? We as conservatives used to be the Daddy Party of the United States, keeping the Mommy Party (the liberals) from spending all the grocery money. Now you just want to spend all of our country's cash blowing up brown people and then humorously later wondering why they might get a little irked at that... or blaming it on them "hating our freedoms" that they don't really care about. They're more concerned about their dead relatives that we turned into pulp. I know that's how we'd feel if someone did that to us, and we'd be a LOT more vicious in response. Japan learned that lesson many moons ago.

Return to your roots. You folks are better than this. Even if you don't agree with Dr. Paul on everything (which, God knows, I certainly don't as well), listen to what he says objectively. Don't just call folks names because their ideology doesn't agree with what you THINK conservatism is. And try wearing someone else's shoes for a couple miles of walking, and you'll find enlightenment.

That's why despite my vehement disagreement with some of the mocking comments on here (from both sides, to be fair), I believe that everyone in this comment box means well. Everyone here can learn a little bit from each-other. Let's not sink to arguments and mockery. Discussion is much more fruitful.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:46PM

It's not Paul's domestic policies. It is his ruinous foreign policies that ignore human motivation (like his POT legalization policies).

Tom| 8.23.11 @ 5:59PM

And by ruinous foreign polices you mean not spending American lives and American money for Israel.

Slacker| 8.23.11 @ 3:53PM

I’m in full agreement with your post. It’s no secret I establishment republicans loathe libertarians but, yikes these folks are meaner than lefties.

Thom| 8.23.11 @ 5:11PM

Wharf Rat,

I’ll be glad to “Return to your roots” when modern weaponry returns to Brown Bess’s, 12 lber being the largest land cannon and it takes weeks if not months for death to arrive on our shores like it did in the 1770s….. The root word in conservative is “conserve” and in the age of modern weapons it is simply not possible to “conserve” liberties with our collect heads up our arses…..and hope we will be ok by emulating past behaviors for which we paid a very stiff price for. I’m all for being the lone rabbit in my very own field of grass without a single care in the world but I left those fairy tales behind about age 6….. The compression of time and space brought about by technology, as it has countless times in the past tends to get in the way of living in the past. The Rodney King view of the worldly relations has never really worked anywhere for very long and unless you wish to discount centuries of recorded history of conquest, letting the world burn around you will eventually come back to bite you because with every conquest the current nemesis gains resources to become more powerful and reach further. The game of “Risk” is a simplistic simulation of this but the actual real world stage version is a bit more ugly and costly to play. I’m all for going back in time to a place and time that never really existed but short of a time machine we are going to have deal with this world as it is not as we would wish it to be. That’s the nature of the beast….

Tom| 8.23.11 @ 5:58PM

The so called conservatives here are trying to prove how proIsraeli they are by accusing anyone who supports Ron Paul of being antisemite. Any mention of Israel and you are antisemite. End of discussion. The proof is that Ron Paul recommends books and knows people who they say are antisemites because they criticize Israel. So Obama is anti semite because he is good friends with Reverend Wright and Louie Farakahn. And Reverend Jackson is anti semite for hymietown, and Reverend Sharpton is anti semit.
Listening to you so called conservatives who isn't antisemite.
Did you ever think that we think of Israel as just another country and not the 51st state that we have to support and defend.

Thom| 8.23.11 @ 6:15PM

Did we defend Israel in 48? 56? 67? 73? 81? Have we actually ever defended Israel from attack by its neigbhors in the last 63 years? Once?

Kevin Gutzman| 8.23.11 @ 1:54PM

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/201.....-in-libya/

Margie| 8.23.11 @ 1:54PM

Hey Jeffrey Lord:

Thanks for saying what I have been saying here for a few years now.
'Bout time someone else sounds the alarm against the Paul-bots.
Let us hope now that there will be more than just an army of one or two (it's been growing, finally!) here to go to war with them here and elsewhere.
And that includes warring with the authors here who are of the same (Paul-bot minds).

And it is indeed war!

aware| 8.23.11 @ 3:46PM

You are just a shill for the State. And the status quo.

Margie| 8.23.11 @ 10:20PM

There's my friend, aware! I've missed you. As I remember we have some good fellowship in Christ here and there, and I will not forget that. I know you a little bit form those times to know you have a love for God.

No, I'm really not a shill for the state. I just really truly love my country, like most Americans do, and like you do.

I just despise hucksters and crazy people who have an agenda that that isn't for our good. And I believe some of it is for evil.

If you knew me really~ you would know that I despise middle of the road~ in everything.

I know and understand what Ron Paul is all about~ he's a Leftist in conservative Republican clothing.
And fiscal responsibility alone does not a conservative make. This is the baloney cry from the Lefty Paul-bots and the way they've tried taking over the GOP.

The most rabid Paul-bot of them all, that I know of here~ Clint/Tim* even came out and posted it a couple of days ago that that's what they're doing~ and like the scumbag Communists~ their ends justify their means~ they ridicule, mock, harass, stalk and try and utterly destroy the characters of anyone who confronts them~ especially if you're really on to them.

Now, why is it that you seem to defend these types of Leftists~ and despise your true friends the conservatives, aware?

Because that's what you're doing.

SAM| 8.23.11 @ 10:59PM

Margie,
How is Ron Paul a leftist or communist? His entire career in politics is to reduce the power of government. If he was leftist he would be for higher taxes and bigger government.
Seriously why do you say that.

SAM| 8.23.11 @ 10:59PM

Margie,
How is Ron Paul a leftist or communist? His entire career in politics is to reduce the power of government. If he was leftist he would be for higher taxes and bigger government.
Seriously why do you say that.

aware| 8.24.11 @ 6:16AM

Margie, while I haven't decided for whom or even if I will vote, it is easy to see that the rabidness seems to be with the anti Paul camp. With the venom in this article and comments you would think Paul some how has a hand in the wretched condition we find ourselves in.

But the "Paul-bots" and libertarians weren't the ones who held the presidency for 8 years nor congress for 12 years. That would be the neo cons. The result was more "enemies", more debt, more spending, and more Leviathan Vampire Squid government.

Just like all the big talk out of Republicans before last November about "repeal" and "defund". Yet after they won, hardly a whimper except to get rolled on the debt ceiling into giving the commie another 2.6 trillion. Typical.

You had better start figuring out that "fiscal" is the only game in town. You seem to ignore the deadly poison right here while chasing after boogeymen in far off places. Money is totally controlled by the State through the central bank and the amount of wealth allowed in private hands is totally controlled by the State through progressive income tax. Just ask yourself this: does it look like this control is going to turn out good?

By the time you get to vote in Nov. '12 the answer will be painfully apparent. I still maintain it is too late now to avoid an epic collapse event.

Slacker| 8.23.11 @ 4:00PM

For a poster who regularly quotes scripture, you have a lot of fire in your belly. Good luck with your war.

Gerald Joseph| 8.23.11 @ 1:58PM

I cannot help but wonder if Lord's article was originally intended for "The Onion":

George Washington invaded Canada? Say what?

Canada wasn't even a country till 50+ years after Washington's death.

As far as Ben Stein's totally unhinged unfounded wild accusation's of anti-semitism one can only hope this was based on Stein being under the influence of some psychotropic medication as it's completely divorced from reality.

Sean Scallon| 8.23.11 @ 2:03PM

Well somebody wanted to write "In Search of Anti-Semitism II" today. It's too bad the American Spectator agreed to publish it. The National Review hasn't been the same since the original one was published.

Apparently Mr. Lord's former boss wouldn't agree with him about Rep. Paul since he endorsed Rep. Paul several times over his career, appeared with him in photos and had Rep. Paul as his Texas delegation chairman during the 1976 GOP National Convention. I'll take the actual man's actions and words any day over an establishment flunkie who wishes to speak for him.

I will say that since vile drivel like this is depth those opposed to Ron Paul are going to sink to to smear him in the eyes of voters, then it should be made clear that Rep. Paul's campaign in the larger picture is an inevitable conflict over what it really means to be a "conservative".

This conflict no longer be papered over and this can no longer be worded out in some press statement or a book nor can it supressed by those within the establishment. It is going to happen, as all civic conflicts happen, because too many people have too many different and irreconcilable difference over the meaning of this term "conservative" and too many people like Mr. Lord wish to be PC enforcers over what is to be debated, who gets to be what so forth and are too busy trying to protect political losers and policy failures just because they happen to run in the same social circles.

Well then, let the battle commence

I will say this

Margie| 8.23.11 @ 2:06PM

The battle's been under way for some time. Some are late to the fray.
Better late than never, I always say!

Red Phillips| 8.23.11 @ 4:45PM

Margie, perhaps you should Google Sean Scallon before you embarrass yourself further. He is not late to the fray. He has been commenting on this divide since I suspect long before you knew it existed.

Margie| 8.23.11 @ 10:26PM

Embarrassing myself? How?
Oh, never mind Red. You seem to not be able to see straight. What is it with you Paul-bots? You read what you want to read, hear what you want to hear, and create your own conclusions which have nothing in resemblance to reality of other's posts.

I do not know this man you refer to, and am not on his side, obviously.
Red, I pray God opens your eyes.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:44PM

Paul was no isolationist against Commies. But he LOOOOOOVES Jihadists.

George S| 8.23.11 @ 2:08PM

Legalize drugs and the problem stops. Fine. Can terrorism be stopped the same way?

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 2:13PM

Yes, you give them a libertarian lawyer, full citizen rights, and a vacation in the Bahamas.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 2:17PM

Thank you George..you have so eloquently reminded me that these fools needed to be treated as such and humor is the best defense to raving lunatics. There is no sense in having a rational discussion with these robots in fact I would rather argue with DRED..he may be a dogmatic liberal but at least is his consistent and he makes no bones about who he is or pretends to be something he is not.

DRed| 8.23.11 @ 4:25PM

haha. I'm not sure what was more unexpected today-the earthquake or the backhanded compliment from you, Simon.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 4:29PM

No, I actually meant it. More than you will ever know.

Brian Gosper| 8.23.11 @ 2:15PM

So let me understand something:
To be a "conservative" means you have to be for endless interventions and preemptive, illegal actions in other countries that not only cause needed deaths of our honorable military but drive us deeper into the debt rat hole? And then accuse those who do not support such action interventions "anti-Semitic" so you can beat them into silence?
Hmm, that sounds more like the Progressive playbook to me...
Perhaps the anti-Paulites are accidentally looking in the mirror when throwing this nonsense...

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 2:30PM

We call em as we see em...
Do not try to back peddle, do not try the typical liberal projection, do not try to deny what your pals have said here and all the nonsense about jews hiding around every corner, your disdain for religion, your mocking of social conservatives, and your ridiculous assertions from everthing from Ronald Reagan to our founding fathers and who came to this nation. My lord, if I was Ron Paul, I would immediately request that you cease your association with my campaign. Keep up the good work. You are doing more harm to him than anyone could.

Brian Gosper| 8.23.11 @ 2:39PM

Oh ok, Simon, so sorry for challenging your stupidity. you made my point perfectly...

Pointing out the kook fringe that exists in ANY movement is worth a yawn to me. Ron Paul actually professes many socially Conservative views--he just doesn't want the Federal government legislating it--rather leaveit to the states and the people-as the Constitution requires! See big guv-ment Repubs (like liberals)- such as you- only like the Constitution when it fits THEIR view of how things should be. But like liberals, as soon as that same Constitution you say you revere goes against your view on things, then you cry neo this and neo that, I'm anti-Semitic, on and on and on, blah blah blah.
Against, thanks for making my point better than I could...

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 3:15PM

I liked your "yawn" retort. I wish I had a dime for each time that little smarmy retort was used to dismiss a conservative comment by a liberal troll. It is a classic.

My issue has never been with Ron Paul per se but with you loons here today that have really proven the authors point about Libertarians...at least most of those that are in his movement for election. Your views are now on display for all of us to clearly see. We thought it was just Clint, the fringe, now we see it is much larger than we thought.

Many of us here actually agree with many of the points of view that Ron Paul advocates and share concerns from the secrecy of federal reserve to occupations and involvements with no clear purpose, exit strategies, and national interest. But of course, you did not hear that.

I am not going to restate our objections and responses to your accusations, claims, attacks, and strange paranoid paradigms that we have taken exception with..you can go through and read the thread. What would really be interesting is Ron Paul's reaction to what was vomitted up today by his so-called supporters.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:43PM

Socially Conservative views like legalizing Pot.

Margie| 8.23.11 @ 2:16PM

In other news:

A 5.8 quake just hit in D.C. (See Drudge)~ and our house just swayed back and forth here in western PA!!!

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:43PM

My goodness, Margie, I hope you and Victor are fine, fine, fine! G-d Bless, wonderful people. If you are EVER thinking of a road trip to the Dakotas, do write something here!

Margie| 8.23.11 @ 10:32PM

Oh we're fine, LOL. First we heard the walls cracking. I looked outside and saw no wind. sometimes we get high winds and hear the same sound. Then we felt the floor swaying underneath us as we were sitting on the couch. I looked at my husband and said it must have been a quake.

We're right on the border of Ohio and found out it was as far west as Cleveland, and as far north as Toronto Canada. There's a blog on the WSJ where people were checking in from all over the place~ Syracuse & Albany NY, down to So. Carolina.

We just got home from working on our new house and haven't checked Drudge yet so haven't heard the latest.

Oh, and we will surly let you know if we ever head out your way. Thanks for the invite!

W| 8.24.11 @ 10:13AM

Margie, I thought you were a Jersey girl. Welcome to Pa.

Nick| 8.24.11 @ 2:43PM

Margie,

I felt it, slightly, here, in the northern Detroit area. The light over the kitchen table swayed a little.

This was the first earthquake I've ever felt. Although, I've felt the ground shake more when a train or tank has gone by.
Not that I hope I ever feel a stronger quake! I surely do not.

Hope your move is going well.
God Bless!

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 4:26PM

Whenever we do something in California, it's only a matter of time before you Easterners try to imitate!

Nick| 8.24.11 @ 2:50PM

Ha-ha!
Good one, RCV!

Oldefarte| 8.23.11 @ 2:18PM

After reading Jeffrey's [as usual excellent] editorial, I am now beginning to fully understand the history of this libertarian/Paul movement. I was shocked to view the video of Paul's supporters chasing the modern conservative Fox personality [whose book, 'DELIVER US FROM EVIL' I am now in the process of reading] through the streets, and resembling the mob violence recently seen surrounding Wisconsin's state capitol building in the process. I'm beginning to also understand the mindset of certain Paul supporters that continuously blogging here at TAS, and will futuristically know how to respond in kind to their comments if necessary. I have open-mindedly contemplated Paul's foreign non-interventuralist opinion in recent presidential campaign debates, since on an initial contemplation such arguments make practical sense. However, in the extreme [as described by this editorial] they do not; since there are [and will be] certain rare situations where foreign intervention cannot [nor should not] be avoided, one of which is as follows:

http://youtu.be/zaCdKwFcHnw

Bohemian Tory| 8.23.11 @ 2:25PM

Carlos Sandoval wrote:

"I'll take the author's word that John T. Flynn was an abomination and a wretch."

Don't.

John T. Flynn was a highly respected journalist and author whose contributions were eagerly sought after by William F. Buckley in the founding years of National Review. He fought tirelessly to keep anti-semites and Nazi fellow-travelers away from the non-interventionist organizations he belonged to.

He is really a fascinating person who has had two biographies written about him, one in the last ten years. I've read every book he wrote and there is not the slightest bit of anti-semitism in them. They are easy to find because he was prolific and I encourage people to read them (especially “The Roosevelt Myth”).

Mr. Lord should be ashamed of himself for slandering a man who has been dead for over 50-years to try to attack Ron Paul, whatever Paul's merits may or may not be.

Texas Hillbilly| 8.23.11 @ 2:29PM

I don't give a hoot weather its Ron Paul or Steve Perry, as long as I get my gubmint check.

Seek| 8.23.11 @ 3:33PM

Steve Perry? Huh? Since when did the lead singer for Journey enter the GOP race?

Winston Lyons| 8.23.11 @ 2:38PM

Just excellent. THANK YOU for a cogent explanation of how dangerous Ron Paul's superficially appealing foreign policy notions are.

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 2:46PM

"Once that is understood, this video of Ron Paul supporters literally chasing Hannity through the streets of New Hampshire in 2008 can be seen for the leftist intimidation it was intended to be. "

If you have not seen this..please check it out in the article. Very illuminating.

Enough said. Case closed.

ejp| 8.23.11 @ 3:11PM

Bravo Jeffrey! Ron Paul has always been a guy who can sometimes be right when it comes to fiscal matters, but who in totality is a kook who should be devoutly ignored by all rational conservatives.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.23.11 @ 3:20PM

Heh heh!
The Paulbots keep digging their hole.

"Let's retreat from the earth...Let's retreat from the earth."

FOOLS!

aware| 8.23.11 @ 3:48PM

Another shill for the State.

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 4:26PM

Another wingnut anarchist.

C Bowen| 8.23.11 @ 4:32PM

RCV--were you scared of Saddam like Ken?

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 5:20PM

I considered him a despicable tyrant who was mentally unbalanced and therefore dangerous, much like Kim Jong Il in North Korea. But he was a far greater danger to his own people than to others in the region, and a useful counterweight to the very dangerous Shiite apoloclyptics in Iran. What I fear going forward is the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hexbollah(in Lebanon) alliance. It is important that Assad be deposed or at least weaned in some way from his Iranian benefactors, or else Jordan will be threatened next. Iran is already stirring up the unstable Shiite elements in Bahrain and elsewhere in the Gulf, and in Saudi Arabia. In my humble opinion, it is hard to overestimate the danger these folks pose, because (as Ahkminijad demonstrates), these are true religious fanatics who believe that the Mahdi is coming soon, and that they speed along his arrival by creating chaos in the region. The use of nuclear weapons is not an extreme step for them. That's my much bigger fear.

Sean Scallon| 8.23.11 @ 7:54PM

And I'm sure the Sunnis who run, the Taliban, Pakistan, Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia would agree with you. Hey, I've got an idea...Let's become allies with all of them to stop this Shiite threat!

C Bowen| 8.23.11 @ 8:09PM

Mentally unbalanced? He seems to have kept his state together, and preserved a Christian minority, better then our Hillary Cheney policy could, right? They seemed hell bent on creating a Iranian dominated state, no? You couldn't figure this out because you were so scared of Saddam?

Or are you not a Christian? I guess that might be a factor in interpretation.

Radioman777| 8.23.11 @ 3:31PM

While he occasionally has a good idea or two, Ron Paul's foreign policy and comments on military matters should be extremely frightening to just about anyone with any sense at all. He seems to forget that, at one time, America lived in isolationist splendor - too bad imperial Japan spoiled all that. Not to mention the bad things the Bolsheviks and Nazis were doing during the 20's and 30's, while we did absolutely nothing to stop them. He seems to forget one thing you can count on : You can hide, but eventually those that seek to do you harm will find you.

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:41PM

Radioman---I have never put that thought together more clearly or succinctly, and I have TRIED! Bravo!

Thom| 8.23.11 @ 4:48PM

Radioman777, don't confuse the 18th century idealism with 20th century + facts......

Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:37PM

Jeff, stunningly brilliant article. But a suggestion for you---next time you take on the Paulbots, I would have plenty of buckets, for the disposal of what Carl Sandburg said that Norman Mailer would refer to as "shit."

frank| 8.23.11 @ 3:50PM

this stoty=

Neocon/neoliberal telling traditional conservatives that they are not conservative,

while his Wilsonian liberal neoliberalism IS ''conservative"?

this is so beyond nonsensical its not worth the first sentence of idiocy this deceptive loon tries to peddle.

hippyconservative| 8.23.11 @ 3:53PM

Great article, very informative too. Its easy to lose track of history that shows where beliefs and policies like Pauls lead.

garth| 8.23.11 @ 4:11PM

How can a "hippy" conservative like this article. This doesn't even begin to make sense. Someone attempt to explain this..please.

garth| 8.23.11 @ 3:56PM

I hope Jeffrey Lord, and anyone reading this post reads Ayn Rand's ""Extremism" or The Art of Smearing" from her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", because Ayn Rand described, to the T what Lord is doing here. His method is wicked. His use of associations, marginalizations, to demonize and smear is only paralled by statists. His objectivity is lost in this article, and it is sad because Jeffrey Lord has written some great articles.
Conservatives should stick to taking down our mutual enemy, because when CRAP like this is written it makes me lose faith in conservatism, because THIS METHOD OF TAKING DOWN PAUL IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH FROM THE METHODS OF THE LEFT!!!
What a disgrace, you should apologize to save face, take a serious look in the mirror, and read Rand. It will frighten you if you still retain an iota of objectivity.!!

Taft Republican - Not Neconed| 8.23.11 @ 3:58PM

ron paul on foreign policy IS traditional conservative-

see world war I, and world war II in which conservatives tried to keep us OUT of the foreign entanglements, as the FOUNDERS instructed us.

What the Neocons from the democratic party are now pushing as 'conservative' not only failed miserably and collapsed the country economically,

but its not remotely related to conservatism, who used to be the sane ones that protected only our OWN country and let others pay for and fight their own conflicts.

This author is pitching absolute total nonsense that can be refuted by anyone with a 7th grade knowledge of US history. The only way to sell this steaming pile of nonsense is to monopolize the media and assemble a army of the ill-informed that you can delude, since they dont know anything.

the 'ignore Paul' movement relies on those who are either getting paid the sell the lies, or who dont know the truth and can be deluded.

thus, its very important to them to at all costs supress and mis-inform, lest their nonsense be forced to stand alongside facts and truth, which would end their scam.

Red Phillips| 8.23.11 @ 3:59PM

I see Dr. Kevin Gutzman has even commented on this post. This post is bringing out the big guns. Perhaps some of you Paul haters would like to lecture Dr. Gutzman that he doesn't know anything about the Constitution. :-)

http://www.amazon.com/Politica.....537&sr=1-1

garth| 8.23.11 @ 4:08PM

EVEN THE USE OF THE WORD PAULBOT IS A FORM OF SMEARING. HAVE SOME INTEGRITY. I was drawn the the Republican party in college because what I recognized as integrity. In my mind Ron Paul and liberatarianism should replace the Democrat (Socialist) party, because Americans reject Socialism. If can get the economics right, ALL ELSE WILL FOLLOW!! The majority of our liberties are economic liberty's. Stop muddying the water of the differences between Liberty and Tyranny, Capitalism and Statism. IT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR WHAT SIDE PAUL IS ON, AND YOU DEMONIZE HIM. You are making it harder for people outside of this process to understand the differences between Liberty and Tyranny.

aipac leftists r now the right| 8.23.11 @ 4:08PM

surpise! Neocons dont like being identified as Neocons!

This is a quote from the Godfather of Neoconservatives, who BROUGHT the current GOP/'neocon' foreign policy to the current Republican party-

"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me," William Kristol has told the New York Times.

The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neoliberalism.

Alluding to his father Irving's definition of a neoconservative as a liberal who has been mugged by reality, Kristol describes a neoliberal as a "neoconservative who has been mugged by reality in Iraq."

Ranking his political preferences, Kristol added, "I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan ... If you read the last few issues of the Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."

You have been used like a two-dollar thrift shop hammer to do the bidding of a fake group of con-artists who used you to accomplish the destruction or traditional american conservatism

But as John Kerry backs partial-birth abortion, quotas, raising taxes, homosexual unions, liberals on the Supreme Court and has a voting record to the left of Teddy Kennedy, how can Kristol prefer him to other conservatives? Answer: War and Israel.

Like Kristol, Kerry wants more U.S. troops sent to Iraq where they can advance the neocons' project for empire. And at a fund-raiser in Juno Beach, Fla., Kerry declared eternal fealty to Israel: "I have a 100 percent record – not a 99, a 100 percent record – of sustaining the special relationship and friendship that we have with Israel."

Kristol's warning that the neocons could break with the Right and go to Kerry is an admission of what many conservatives have long argued. To neocons, Israel comes first, second and third, conservative principles be damned.

Solo| 8.23.11 @ 5:19PM

I hate to burst your balloon but William Kristol is not "The GodFather Of The NeoCons".
That was his father, Irving Kristol.

Who, by the way, had this to say concerning NeoCons and foreign policy:

"AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing. "

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1481/posts

Imagine that! You're being victimized by propagandists and didn't even know it. The chief propagandist among them would be none other than Ron Paul.
Weird, huh?

Ludwig Von Mises| 8.23.11 @ 4:11PM

". . characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of ecomomic forces.
Conservatism cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing." see socialism

george is that you| 8.23.11 @ 4:15PM

isnt this ''author'' the same genius who just wrote lovingly about hoew great christine odonnell is?

a unemployed woman who in her entire life has never had a Job,
and who is so crazy she could not even beat a obama democrat due to her loony past and total lack of ever working, yet she wants to start off in the world of employment as the leader of a entire state?

this guy has no credibility, this is just another neocon neo-conning. The last one of these left office throwing the doors of the treasury open to goldman sachs and telling them to take as many trillions as they needed.

fools like the company of fellow fools and this author is Bush Jr III

Oldefarte| 8.23.11 @ 4:49PM

Yep, but them 'fools' know correct grammatical English [and the art of capitalization], no doubt. Excrement, man, we didn't grow up in no barn, okay?????

follow the trail of deceit| 8.23.11 @ 4:26PM

Jeffrey Lord (this articles' author) is a columnist FOR the "Weekly Standard''.

the owner of the weekly standard is Bill Kristol, whose father was irving kristol and affiliated with communist party USA.

Lords' Boss, Bill Kristol wrote the following=

>>"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me," William Kristol has told the New York Times.

>>The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neoliberalism.

>>Ranking his political preferences, Kristol added, "I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan ...

>>If you read the last few issues of the Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."

THIS ^^ABOVE IS WHO IS TELLING YOU TO STAY AWAY FROM RON PAUL, AND THIS ABOVE ^^ IS WHO HE IS WORKING FOR.

If you agree with this authors Weekly Standard paymasters, who are fans of John Kerry, far-left, and affiliated with communist party USA in their pasts, then you are will be happy with where they are leading you

Oldefarte| 8.23.11 @ 4:51PM

SHAZAM!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 8.23.11 @ 4:51PM

SHAZAM!!!!!!!!

KFChickenhawk| 8.23.11 @ 5:12PM

No one has been wrong more in recent memory than Bill Kristol. If he says something, the exact opposite is true. The only thing he ever got right was McCain's choice of Palin, and that's because McCain was Kristol's man in 2000. Another faux-conservative puppet project that backfired.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.23.11 @ 6:20PM

Gee...Sorry to disappoint, but Jeffrey Lord does not work for The Weekly Standard. He was published there once...an article about a judicial confirmation fight...in 2002. That's it. He does not work for Bill Kristol.

So "Follow the Trail of Deceit"...ahhhh...your entry is either an honest mistake...or we have all just followed the trail to your deceit.

follow the trail of deceit| 8.23.11 @ 10:30PM

you probably should edit your bio then in which you brag about your association and contributions to the Weekly Standard!

Where you lying when you claimed in you bio that you were a contributor, or are you lying now?

Now you get a taste of your own smear of RP as a 'anti-semite' , except in your case the critique of your honesty is at least legit.

Jeffrey Lord| 8.24.11 @ 12:33AM

Follow the trail...

Here's the bio, below, unedited. If you see anything about working for The Weekly Standard, please point it out. If there's a bio out there somewhere that says anything other than that I have been published in The Weekly Standard - which is true, as above, once....than I can assure you I never wrote it. For a simple reason: it's not true.

The bio reads:

"Jeffrey Lord, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is a former aide to Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com."

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 4:27PM

Well, Republicans, good luck with your libertarian wing!

Thom| 8.23.11 @ 4:42PM

RCV, good luck with your Communist wing....

Simon Templar| 8.23.11 @ 5:44PM

I will trade you 1 Truman democrat for 1o Ron Paul libertarians! Deal?

RCV| 8.23.11 @ 7:26PM

Can you imagine Harry Truman dealing with the likes of Ron Paul?

Red Phillips| 8.23.11 @ 4:35PM

Solo posted a link above to a World Affairs article by Robert Kagan. I'm going to respond here because when the replies get this numerous it is difficult to find the comment you are looking for.

It should be understood that Robert Kagan is an arch neocon, but he is surprisingly candid at some points in the article. Here he describes neoconservatism, a description I agree with entirely.

"But when employed fairly neutrally to describe a foreign policy worldview ... neoconservatism usually has a recognizable meaning. It connotes a potent moralism and idealism in world affairs, a belief in America’s exceptional role as a promoter of the principles of liberty and democracy, a belief in the preservation of American primacy and in the exercise of power, including military power, as a tool for defending and advancing moralistic and idealistic causes, as well as a suspicion of international institutions and a tendency toward unilateralism."

Kagan later writes this, and this is the kicker:

"The first thing that could be said about this neoconservative worldview is that there is nothing very conservative about it." (emphasis mine)

There you have it straight from the horse's mouth. As I have said repeatedly above Neoconservatism IS NOT conservative. I rest my case!

Solo| 8.23.11 @ 5:26PM

I hope you enjoyed the essay, Mr Phillips. It's really quite informative, in most respects.

Although...the last time I shared this essay with a Paul supporter, he too, latched onto the same quotes while largely ignoring the main thrust of the piece.

And..I have to take exception to the author's capitulation to modern day talking points and propaganda. He did so, I'm fairly sure, to make common distinctions with contemporary dialogue.
The truth is;
There is no foreign policy component to Neoconservatism.
My proof is the primary source and primary authority on all things neoconservative, Irving Kristol, the "God Father Of The NeoCons".

To wit:

"AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....1481/posts

No joy in PaulBotville tonight, huh?

Red Phillips| 8.23.11 @ 8:07PM

"The oldest, and in some ways most potent, critique has always been that of genuine conservatism, a powerful counter-tradition that goes back at least as far as the debates over the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. The supporters of the new federal Constitution—George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison—insisted that the concentration of energy and power in the federal government was essential if the United States was to become a world power capable both of protecting itself and achieving its destined greatness on the world stage. “Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness!” Hamilton exhorted in the Federalist papers. But Patrick Henry, a leader of the anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, accused Hamilton and his allies, not unfairly, of seeking to “convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire.” This, Henry insisted, was a betrayal of the nation’s true purpose. “When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object.”

That quotation is a favorite chestnut of Patrick Buchanan and that ancient confrontation has recurred in almost every generation since the founding. At the core of this conservative critique has always been the fear that “empire,” however one might define it—in Henry’s day, it meant simply a wide expanse of land under a single, strong central government—is antithetical to, and ultimately destructive of, American democratic and republican virtues. A big, expansive foreign policy requires a big, powerful central government to advance it, and such a government imperils American liberties. It also imperils its democratic soul. As John Quincy Adams memorably put it in 1821, America might become “the dictatress of the world,” but she would “be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”

In one way or another, all the major critiques of expansive, ambitious, idealistic American foreign policy have been shaped by this concern about overweening ambition and the temptations of power. It may not even be right to call this inclination “conservative” but rather, as Bernard Bailyn long ago suggested, a manifestation of American “republicanism”—a deep and abiding suspicion of centralized power and its corrupting effects on the people who wield it. Such fears have been expressed by conservatives, liberals, socialists, realists, and idealists alike over the past two centuries." (emphasis mine)

Again, I rest my case.

I have never denied that the interventionist impulse existed in pre-neocon America. Neoconservatism could in some ways be considered a modern manifestation of the Puritan "shining city on a hill" conceit. What I have said is that it is not conservative, a fact with which Kagan clearly agrees. The author premise is that Paul's non-interventionism is not conservatism and interventionism is. On this point he is spectacularly wrong. Do you not concede this point?

Solo| 8.24.11 @ 8:51AM

@ Red Phillips:

"Again, I rest my case.

I have never denied that the interventionist impulse existed in pre-neocon America. Neoconservatism could in some ways be considered a modern manifestation of the Puritan "shining city on a hill" conceit. What I have said is that it is not conservative, a fact with which Kagan clearly agrees. The author premise is that Paul's non-interventionism is not conservatism and interventionism is. On this point he is spectacularly wrong. Do you not concede this point?"

I think if you carefully re-read the quote you listed as "resting " your case, you will find that it demonstrates my position very well.

As you can see, the role of the United States in world affairs was hardly a unanimous among the Founders (which is the operational premise of the essay).
So....the Paulbots can hardly claim sole ownership of "the founder's" position because there was no consistent "founder's position" on foreigh policy.

Second...as my other references clearly prove: there is no foreign policy component to neoconservatism, so...the charge by Paulbots that those who support the projection of power abroad to defend our interests here at home are practicing 'neoconservatism" is, again, false.

That Paubots take sole ownership of the mantle of 'conservatism" is, given the histories provided both in the Hayden article and in Mr. Lord's piece, is also false.

That Ron Paul and his sycophants accuse the U.S. of being "an Empire" is patently false.

Non-interventionism and interventionism have been practiced by conservatives and non-conservatives alike. That's a fact. Both have been advocated by various of the Founders. That's also a fact.

What is not a fact is that Paul supporters may lay sole claim to the mantle of conservatism based on their foreign policy preferences...as history clearly reveals.

It is also not a fact that, all those who disagree with your foreign policy preferences are "NeoCons" and, therefore, not "conservative".

In summary, Mr Phillips, I would concede that; sometimes it is in our national interests to mind our own business and to stay out of foreign "entanglements". And...sometimes it serves us better to get involved.
It isn't an issue of political philosophy whereby one philosophy or another can be saddled with a particular foreign policy preference...at least as it pertains to "Liberal" as opposed to "Conservative" or "neoconservative".

It's a distinction made manifest in what defines our national interests at the time.
Frankly....someone who advocates that we NEVER involve ourselves in foreign affairs is every bit as dangerous as someone who would advocate that we ALWAYS involve ourselves in foreign affairs.

It's the extremes which are the danger. And Ron Paul is an extremist in this respect and for that reason I can't support him....and either should y0u.

Theresa Wood| 8.23.11 @ 4:38PM

I know that the author (along with most of the media and D.C.) think that us uneducated Americans don't really know what's best for our country, but I think that most of us are getting tired of all the labels and name calling. I also think most of us just want a gov't that really is for the PEOPLE and not for themselves. Who cares what a candidate calls himself? I just want someone that will do whats best for AMERICA. By the way, the little clip with Ben Stein - how did he draw the conclusion that Dr. Paul is anti-Semitic? One minute Dr. Paul is discussing how our occupation of other countries influences terrorism and the next Ben Stein is yelling anti-Semitism!

Matt| 8.23.11 @ 4:40PM

Wow, this guy couldn't be more confused. "Non-interventionist is a stance of the left?" No, I'm sorry but you are incorrect. In the political spectrum the far left is 100% governmental control and the far right is 0% governmental control. Maybe you could use some re-educating yourself. You're obviously very confused on many of these terms your throwing out there (and creating).

Oldefarte| 8.23.11 @ 4:54PM

What, you mean we can't have a military?????

Thom| 8.23.11 @ 4:42PM

Jeffery,
Well done. It is always illustrative to let those that support a position make your point for you….

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.23.11 @ 5:04PM

Heh,
thank you, Paul-bots. You have made your case.

...in your own words. Now everyone KNOWS precisely how stupid you are.

So go smoke your "hemp" while fine men stand on the ramparts to protect your skinny butts.

My jaw is sore from laughing at your contortions of reality. Heh.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 5:12PM

Speaking of Those who "stand on the ramparts to protect your skinny butts"

Ron Paul has more donations from those people than all the other candidates COMBINED.

And many - such as myself, have also served in the past. How many years did you serve?

But don't let those facts get in the way of your ad hominem attacks.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.23.11 @ 5:45PM

USS
I truly detest liars.
Show me those so-called donations and You will have my abject apology.
right.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 5:50PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics.....542&page=1

http://www.politifact.com/texa.....-him-far-/

"Combined, six other Republican presidential candidates listed donations from members of the military totaling about $9,000. Our most-to-least breakdown: Herman Cain, $2,850; Mitt Romney, $2,750; Michele Bachmann, $2,250; Newt Gingrich, $500; and Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum, $250 each.

On the Democratic side, Obama’s campaign received more than $16,000 in donations from members of the military.

After we conducted this rough check, Paul’s campaign spokesman, Gary Howard, said by email that their numbers showed that Paul garnered $34,480 from members of the military; other GOP candidates fielded $13,848 and Obama took in $19,849.

Summing up, Paul’s military-connected contributions for the three months more than double such contributions to all the other Republican presidential candidates—and they also exceed Obama’s.

We rate his statement True."

WilliamR| 8.23.11 @ 5:37PM

Ken, you're just an old buffoon.

Margie| 8.23.11 @ 10:36PM

LOL~ ever notice how the word buffoon seems to be a favorite with the Paul-bots?
That~ and moron.
Paul Moonshine (Mullshine) calls everyone a moron. He's another punk.

KFChickenhawk| 8.23.11 @ 5:09PM

Rick Perry more conservative than Ron Paul?

rofl

He was Al Gore's fluff-boy and accepted stimulus funds.

KFChickenhawk| 8.23.11 @ 5:20PM

Mr. Lord,

That's a pretty long-winded post about a libertarian without a single mention of Mises, Hayek or Murray Rothbard. I don't know if it's the fact that they were all Jewish, or your own lack of understanding of libertarianism that led you to post such an innacurate potrayal...

Everyone has the right to disagree. I have no problem with someone not buying into the libertarian viewpoints, but you can at least associate them with their philosophical brethen instead of the nonsense you posted. You could have brought up Ayn Rand and been closer to the truth. Shame on you, sir.

WilliamR| 8.23.11 @ 5:35PM

Jeffery Lord is the epitome of a Neocon hack. He doesn't even know what conservatism is let alone a conservative foreign policy.

He claims to have worked for Reagan then he should know that in his memoirs Reagan wrote that the United States should be neutral in the Middle East. What??? That sure doesn't sound like Jeffrey Lord or that third rate hack Mark Levin.

Ronald Reagan isolationist.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2.....lationist/

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 5:46PM

Good stuff.

Thom| 8.23.11 @ 6:09PM

This is the same Reagan who got involved in a civil war in Lebanon and between two waring parties in the Gulf? Seems to me playing neutral in the Middle East just got us killed by both sides.

WilliamR| 8.23.11 @ 6:11PM

And after 241 Marines were killed in Lebanon Reagan withdrew the troops and called it the biggest mistake of his Presidency.

Thom| 8.23.11 @ 6:59PM

and our loses in the Gulf?

Thom| 8.23.11 @ 9:30PM

The same man that said Lebanon was the biggest mistake of his Presidency put the Navy at risk patrolling between two warring nations in the mine infested Gulf, Iraq and Iran and for our trouble the USS Stark was deliberately attacked by the Iraqis and cost us a lot of dead and we shot down an Iranian Airliner killing hundreds while being attacked by Iranian speed boats. These events happened in 1987, 1988 thus if Reagan actually learned anything from the mission in Lebanon 1983 given what you think his take on that was it didn’t seem to stick. As I remember Reagan ordered the US Navy to flatten what little the Iranian Navy had after they attacked the Vincennes along with some of their oil platforms and ships used to mine the Gulf. Perhaps what Reagan meant by being “neutral” has a slightly different meaning to Reagan then to you. He was very “neutral” in Panama and Granada too as I remember.

William R| 8.23.11 @ 10:28PM

Thom, he did rescue American students in Grenada in a 24 hr operation, but Panama was Bush Sr.

Reagan's Wisdom on the Middle East.

http://orangepunch.ocregister......leave/619/

LJ | 8.23.11 @ 5:43PM

Mr. Lord, did you spend a lot of time on this article? Seems like it. Pity. The Paul campaign's announcement today has just obliterated your premise. Foiled again.
http://eon.businesswire.com/ne.....3006316/en

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.23.11 @ 5:48PM

I believe I can keep this thread going indefinitely.

Every kook Paul-bot in the universe is converging here...heh...or all 238 of them are posting under different screen names. Heh.

John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 6:05PM

Ken,

In the web world a honey pot is a server designed to fool the hack attackers into thinking there is something of interest and to occupy the machine used to the attack while providing nothing of interest or value.

Perhaps we could write a Paul Pot ;) to keep the Paulistas busy?

WilliamR| 8.23.11 @ 6:30PM

The only kook I see is you Ken. You still trying to hock that comic book you wrote??

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.23.11 @ 7:14PM

William,
yes I am. amazon.com released it a couple of weeks ago and it has gone from page 17 to page 2 on their kindle list.
Obviously I am delighted.
Oh,
and if you buy it off my own website...you get a moneyback guarantee of satisfaction.
www.txbooks.blogspot.com

That ought to be a deal good enough for even a paul-bot.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 7:50PM

Still waiting on that apology.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.23.11 @ 7:57PM

USS,
if those numbers did not come out of your nose..... you have my apology..........BUT, Rick Perry and Sarah were not in the mix yet.
Heck, I didn't give one dime to the also-rans.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 8:19PM

Once again:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics.....542&page=1

http://www.politifact.com/texa.....-him-far-/

"Combined, six other Republican presidential candidates listed donations from members of the military totaling about $9,000. Our most-to-least breakdown: Herman Cain, $2,850; Mitt Romney, $2,750; Michele Bachmann, $2,250; Newt Gingrich, $500; and Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum, $250 each.

On the Democratic side, Obama’s campaign received more than $16,000 in donations from members of the military.

After we conducted this rough check, Paul’s campaign spokesman, Gary Howard, said by email that their numbers showed that Paul garnered $34,480 from members of the military; other GOP candidates fielded $13,848 and Obama took in $19,849.

Summing up, Paul’s military-connected contributions for the three months more than double such contributions to all the other Republican presidential candidates—and they also exceed Obama’s.

We rate his statement True."

John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 8:30PM

USS Constitution,

Is the believable? In a contest expected to cost in the hundreds of millions we are comparing contributions in the tens of thousands? If this is all the members of the military of contributing, I can only assume they are sitting this one out.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 8:51PM

You do realize that donating any money is a pretty tall stretch for anyone in the military?

It's all small money donations.

And that is not counting family members. I guess you've never donated to a candidate before, because you have to give your occupation and this only counts people who are occupied by the military.

But hey, go ahead and tell the people in the military it's meaningless because the numbers aren't high enough for you.

Maybe if they put congress on a military pay scale they would actually get paid somewhat decent.

Still, where is the support for the "mainstream" candidates? Talking nearly 3 times as much as the rest combined.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 8:59PM

"and this only counts people who are occupied by the military."

lol, occupied = employed.

John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 9:42PM

USS Constitution,

A small money donation would be $50 if history is anything to go by. Even at $20 we are only talking about 2000 donors. Something isn't right.

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 10:31PM

Well you can keep on thinking whatever you want. But you obviously know nothing about the military or their pay. That they donate at all is IMO more strange. They make horrible pay - and they still have to pay taxes.

I figured it up when I was in the military, I was making about 20% of minimum wage when out in the field and training etc. Which at the time was about $1.20 an hour. This was back in the mid 90's, minimum wage was $4.25.

I made $1002 before taxes. After taxes that left me with $720 a month. It's down right horrible what they make, and I'm sure it's even WORSE these days considering how much the prices have went up, and there is no way in the world the pay has increased to keep up with it.

People who are married in the military often times have to get food stamps just to make it.

I am btw dead serious that congress should be put on the same pay grade as the military. The way we treat our military is downright disgraceful. Chickenhawk lip service isn't worth anything to someone in the military, especially when you pay them like crap, cut their medical benefits and have the balls to turn around and say "for the troops". I bet they'd get paid well if congress had to share that pay. Personally, I'd say the military people are more deserving than they are.

At any rate, ole Tex here called me a liar and said he would appologize if Ron Paul had more donations than the other candidates combined. He can't even seem to acknowledge the fact, much less admit he is wrong or apologize.

John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 11:51PM

USS Constitution,

I believe that I do know something of the military. While I did not complete ROTC in the '70s - not much call for Navy pilots after Viet Nam, I number among my friends many West Point grads and those who served as officers in Eastern Europe, South America and in the Pacific.

If service was such a bad deal for you in a volunteer service, why did you volunteer?

I stand by my observation that your numbers, while well quoted, do no add up to anything. Perhaps you can claim your bet with Ken, but it seems you are quibbling over pennies at the curb.

USS Constitution.| 8.24.11 @ 8:22AM

You are going to sit here and quote West Point? Are you freaking kidding me? Did you maybe ever look at the differences and notice - geez, i'm making way more money than these guys who do all the physical labor.

I don't normally like to put officers down, because I had some really really good ones. But come on.

The pay is pretty decent for officers. Which is understandable because you must go to college in order to be an officer. But there is like 1 officer for every 20+ enlisted person. The bulk of the military is enlisted.

I volunteer because I wanted to serve. Every male in my family has served, with my youngest brother being the sole exception. I grew up on an army base.

It's not exactly a "bad deal". You get a roof over your head, cheap or free meals, medical, money for college, some people get bonuses. However, you still get paid very little as a result, and you don't have alot of spending money.

So I repeat, that military would give what little money they do have to any politician in itself says alot. And I'm almost positive that none of them would appreciate you downplaying their contributions because of the number totals. Especially considering they are only 1% of the population anyway.

And you've never answered my question - where is the support for the other candidates? I mean $250 total for a supposed "Top Tier" candidate?

I could see your point if it was like close or whatever, but it's not. Ron Paul has gotten 3 times as much as the other candidates COMBINED. That is significant, and if was one of the so called "top tier" candidates, it would be all over the news due to the differences.

zachary mccarthy| 8.23.11 @ 6:23PM

So the major argument here is "Ron Paul is not a conservative, because conservatives like to wage war and police the world. Therefore, even though a scientific study found Paul to be THE MOST CONSERVATIVE member of the House EVER, he is, in fact, A LIBERAL."

Doublespeak works wonders with philistines and Bachmann supporters, but please.... If bowing down to international bankers and creating enemies overseas with bombs and rape is true "conservatism," then spank my ass and call me a liberal. The arguments you make are, at best, laughable. Although I see there are plenty of RINOs in here that eat it up. Screw em'.

Paul 2012.

USA,Israel, friends forever| 8.23.11 @ 8:25PM

The biggest problem with Ron Paul is he is insufficiently supportive of Israel. All real Americans realize that if we're going to make it as a country we have to give until it hurts for that country because they are the only democracy in the middle east. Any talk of ending foreign aid is treason & antisemitic. If we have to borrow from China, Japan, Russia etc. to defend our allies, that is what we do. Also, there should never be any discussion of Israeli policy in this country as it is none of our business. Israeli defense & welfare is our sole concern in the region, period. THAT is real conservatism. Same goes for Europe, South Korea etc. but to a lesser degree of course.

lootie wolfowitz| 8.23.11 @ 10:39PM

lol !

you pretty much hit the nail on the head with your parody.
sadly, your parody is the source of income to these shills who are bleeding the country dry, and dragging us into poverty as a nation while looting our banks,
enlisting 3rd foreign national mercenaries into our military, and sustaining a standing million man army on borrowed money,
against the instructions or washington and jefferson.

If its anti semitic to not wish to be controlled by a foreign countries lobbying element who bribe US politicians with US taxpayer money, and then have the bribed politician reward AIPAC and Israel with even more taxpayer money to do it all over with,
then I agree I am now a Anti-Semite.

Hating jews i do not support, but protecting my country from looting schemers I will, no matter what has to be done or what name I am called.

so, proudly, if not wishing to see my country pillaged and my army sent abroad against my wishes is anti-semitic,
then 'we are all anti-semites now'.

Dave| 8.23.11 @ 6:23PM

I would never vote for a wolf. Paul likes to smile to disarm, or attempt to divert attention from his agenda of harm, divide, and establish elitism.

No thanks. Got that with Obama. Trying to get rid of it.

Slickmeister| 8.23.11 @ 6:24PM

Doc Paul needs his Depend changed. He's a re-tread philosophically...and couldn't manage a pay toilet
in a diarrea ward...Well, probably on par with The Bamster. AMF, Doc Paul !

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 9:11PM

Dr.Ron Paul,
"Anytime any of the other candidates wants to come to Houston at 12 o'clock noon when the temperature is 100 and humidity is 102, I will ride 20 miles with them on a bicycle..."

Rob| 8.23.11 @ 6:34PM

Well done Jeffrey.

RPM| 8.23.11 @ 6:34PM

Not a strict Paulist, but I am a defender of the work of DiLorenzo. Lincoln was a dictator that waged an unnecessary war for political purposes. Slavery, though certainly an evil, had been around for centuries. Lincoln started a "civil war" (actually referred to in my house as The War of Northern Aggression - can you tell I'm a Southerner?) simply as a way to get control. States' Rights!!

USS Constitution.| 8.23.11 @ 7:50PM

Lincoln had the right idea money wise. But not so much for the right reasons.

john| 8.23.11 @ 7:11PM

Robert Taft and Ezra Taft Benson type "old right" foreign policy, not this ex Democrat Henry "Scoop" Jackson mess you call "conservative, conservatives use to not support government intervening into the ecnomy,our private lives or abroad until things like this magazine came along and bastardized the word. Here, educate yourself...

http://www.spingola.com/united.....policy.htm

cj| 8.23.11 @ 7:22PM

hey, you said we should read history on the first page, but i think its you that needs to read history. the conservative party was always for non-interventionist foriegn policies; it is only after eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex did we follow that path.

that and washington invading canada is a poor example. we were already at war and we feared canada would help own us. good game have fun.

RabidAmerican| 8.23.11 @ 8:01PM

Dear Jeffrey Lord,
Nothing like an intellectual to give a bad name to bullsh1t; screenful after screenful of it. But hey, you were on a roll.
Your friend,
RA

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 8:57PM

"Gallup poll: Ron Paul trails President Obama by 2 percent.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul trails President Obama by just 2 percentage points, according to the latest Gallup Poll released Monday.

The Poll shows Mr. Paul trailing Mr. Obama by just two percentage points, 47 to 45 percent."

Clint| 8.23.11 @ 8:57PM

"Gallup poll: Ron Paul trails President Obama by 2 percent.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul trails President Obama by just 2 percentage points, according to the latest Gallup Poll released Monday.

The Poll shows Mr. Paul trailing Mr. Obama by just two percentage points, 47 to 45 percent."

DougT| 8.23.11 @ 9:51PM

One thing I do like about this type of article is that people, pundits and talking heads tend to show their 'real' colors, mauhhh.

PS Stunk from the first paragraph, what a hack.

Steve| 8.23.11 @ 10:01PM

Don't worry Drs Tom Woods & Kevin Gutzman will take this trash of an essay down on the Mike Church Show Wednesday morning 8:30am on Sirius/XM Patriot Channel. Should be fun listening to them tear this apart. http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/w.....ke-church/

Sean| 8.23.11 @ 10:23PM

I hope someone puts it on Youtube.

Jon Riordan| 8.23.11 @ 10:28PM

Sooo, you are wrapping all of us Ron Paul supporters up in some evil, anti-semitic blanket. Aaannd, you really haven't made much of a case against Dr. Paul, other than maybe a challenge to the letters next to his name. Seems to me like this is more of a hit piece on supporters than on the man himself. The reason being? You have no proof of anything negative coming from Dr. Paul himself.

As an aside, it seems that anti-Paulites have been much nastier in their attacks on Paul supporters than the reverse.

In-boxes get flamed by RP supporters because of the constant incorrect data pundits are spraying us with, either that, or the complete lack of credence we are given. It's clearly frustrating many of us. It is also maddening to be called a cockroach who lives in his parents basement, doing nothing but voting repeatedly on the same online polls. I'm an honest, educated, hard working independent male. I vote once on the polls I stumble across. I also used to love Mr. Levin, before he started hating me.

I hope my voice comes across civil, and I hope that any reply to this will mirror my calmness.

Larry in Iowa| 8.23.11 @ 10:48PM

The easiest way to tell the difference between a conservative and a Paulista is that, while most conservatives have a favored candidate among the Republican field, almost all of them would vote for whoever will rid us of the execrable Obama. The Paulistas, on the other hand, routinely threaten to sit out the election if their ONE doesn't get the nomination.

M. Nolan| 8.24.11 @ 1:36AM

Ron Paul, US Army veteran supporter here ~ I can't speak for the rest of the "paulbots" but I will be voting for Obama in '12 if the 'pubs put up another big-government lefty candidate. If the choice is between a liberal and a liberal, I'll vote for the Democrat and let them take the blame every time.
I used to skip elections, but I realized that my vote is more effective actively voting against left wing RINO big-government chicken-hawks, rather than sitting on my hands election day. ;)

lrgon| 8.23.11 @ 10:53PM

When Lord starts out his he begins by being quite generous and ends with Ron Paul being associated with the people fighting the Hollywood propaganda film makers of the 1930's and 40's.

Is it possible that Democrats can be against interventionism and unjust wars? Is it possible that Liberals in the Republican Party like the Rockefellers can be war profiteers who don't care one bit about nothing but making a buck?

Take WWI and Wilson and his alter ego Edward Mandell House who after the war were so disappointed when the US Senate said "forget-about-it" to their global "peace organization, the League of Nations, that they ran away and formed the Council on Foreign Relations to plan for the next war and another try at a world government organization.

Wilson did everything he could to get America in that silly war.Had America kkept out of WWI that war would have stayed as a regional conflict. Wilson was a Liberal Democrat who run on a stay out of European wars platform. But he needed a war, a very horrible war to give his League of Nations a jump start.

Other war lovers
Bankers JP Morgan wanted war since his bank made huge loans to Britain. If Germany won the war Morgan's banking interested stood to lose millions.

Bankers, Liberal Democrats and war profiteers would give the Doughboys a parade and a pension and erect a few bronze statues but the winners were the greedy and the globalists with their visions of grandeur for a new world.

The article could have been run on the NYT and it probably would not have caused me any grief. But for the American Spectator to run it takes this site to an area dominated by the left who are experts at writing unwarranted, unfounded and poorly researched hit pieces.

bottom line| 8.23.11 @ 10:53PM

Bottom Line=

we already tried it your way.. This article is generic, garden-variety Neocon..

We had 8 years during which your Neocon / 'new'-conservative wishes and advice were supreme and totally controlled the country.

At the end, your leader, Bush, left office with unregulated GLOBAL SPECULATORS (not US businesses) looting the entire financial system,

you had dragged us into wars with tribal sheepherders when the real threat to us came from the NEOCON open borders immigration policy that invited the worlds scum to enter and wander about the USA (no invading nation/army attacked us- they all were given visas by our own govt),
The real strength of any nation, its domestic MANUFACTURING BASE had been systematically exported in exchange for PAC bribes to elected officials, often these bribes came indirectly through the Global chamber of commerce multi-nationals from foreign interests-

Everything you recommend was not just tried, it had total control and totally collapsed in a orgy of corrupt treason and trillions in Bush/Obama debt that we still have not begun to recover from.

No one who is not getting a check from a lobbyist, corporate media outlet, or think tank wants any of this anymore, and you are trying to sell the exact same garbage that did so much damage to this country.

you should be ashamed of your treason. your 30 pieces of silver will do you as much good as they did judas in the long run.

I am not a huge Ron Paul fan simply because I do not like a lot of pure ayn rand-ish libertarianism, but to call him a anti-semite is not only unwarranted,
but it shows that the author is a dishonest and manipulative man.

The Founding Father of Hemp| 8.23.11 @ 11:06PM

Wow. Like you guys are like really mean. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, definitely Franklin would have been a lot of fun to get high with. Before I fell in with Ron Paul supporters I didn't know that. I worked hard everyday, like supported my family and lived a pretty normal life. Then I discovered through careful study of the US Constitution and Ron Paul evangelists that it was my manifest destiny to get high all the time. I am a Libertarian now. What I want is legalized drugs and the ability to walk away from my family with no strings attached. Actually after I became Paul supporting hempmeister, I lost my job and my family soon cut my strings. I should have rights to my kids but who wants a Dad who drones on about the new savior Ron Paul while under the influence. I am a hemphead in the finest tradition of George Washington. This is the tradition I am talking about. Does anybody have any potato chips? I have the munchies? Where is Israel? All I know is that is where the lying Jewry hangs out.

frog march em| 8.23.11 @ 11:08PM

the neocon republi-scum and the neolib demon-rats have one viable hope to perpetually stay in power..

which is that both of them are so corrupt, vile, and full of purchased shills who will do anything that a foreign or speculatory interest pays them to do,

that shills for either party can quite easily point out the daily evil deeds and perverted politicians in the other party,
which induces the target population to overlook the same instances in their own corrupt, purchased party,
and follow political operatives like this author who are all to eager to sow discord among the general population and divide them into warring camps, from which they can be easily controlled and led to support one group or crooks who are deemed less-repulsive.

The answer is not republican bribed politicos or democrat bribed politicos. Both have failed.

we have to have people who are outside this monopoly or paid scammers and cannot be bought, as both the neocons and neolibs already failed the test of real-world control.

go look at Bush or Obama, and the disaster they have led us into, and tell me that a neocon or a neolib is going to do anymore than collapse the country into servitude, debt, wars, and conflicts with one another.

A two party monopoly is a monopoly of power. Its time for a RICO act for corrupt political parties and their paid operatives.

gene| 8.23.11 @ 11:18PM

This article is weak. It consists of vague innuendos and irrelevant associations that lead nowhere. Your main point that because Ron Paul opposes neoconservative interventionist foreign policy he is therefore a neo-liberal is pure nonsense. The fact is that Ron Paul is an independent thinker who recognizes the economic and political damage that maintaining a worldwide military presence has created. This country is bankrupt and corrupt. Ron Paul has stood up to the powers that be for his entire political career and he's still there. His popularity is growing and your response is to ignore his successes and slander him with unwarranted labels such as "anti-semite" and "neo-liberal". As a so-called "conservative" publication you should be ashamed to publish this article.

Washingtons foreign policy| 8.23.11 @ 11:21PM

"go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy"

"no entangling alliances"

I guess George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not traditional american conservatives?

Sounds like Paul's foreign policy positions are duplicates of Washington and Jefferson.

Its such a sad day for me to now find out courtesy of this neocon gentleman that Washington and Jefferson were rabid anti-semite, lefty commies.

I guess now that I have been informed that my choice is between this guy and his Bill Kristol - Paul Wolfowitz policies,
or the wishes of Washington and Jefferson who are now revealed by this author to have been far-left democrat socialist obongo, jew hating racists,

I will have to side with Washington and Jefferson as a fellow non-conservative, anti-semite like the founding fathers who created the foreign policy Ron Paul is simply regurgitating.

this author is so beyond any redemption its laughable.

POST American| 8.23.11 @ 11:26PM

--------------------BOTTOM LINE-----------------------

--'90's Show' standard Tavistck DIS-info OP
--ALERT!--

FACT IS trying to brand Paul 'liberal'
isn't going to work any more than branding Bush and Rick
Perry 'CON-servatives' while they're BOTH
sworn Globalists.

AS the hijacking of the country by USURY
d