The American Spectator

Mike Hawk| 9.7.11 @ 6:27AM

Rube PAul is no intellectual. He is an old nut case. He is not conservative and is no Tea Party candidate. His followers are a coterie of rabid kooks and crackpots.

Jack in Wi.| 9.7.11 @ 8:01AM

Jeffrey Lord continues his infantile attacks on Ron Paul. He was so destroyed in the comment section of his first rant that they had to wash all the comments away. I subscribed to and financially supported National Review for 42 years. I had dinner with Mr. Buckley twice. I will say right now the day he turned his publication over to the Neoconservatives was a sad day for the Conservative movemnet. I am sure Mr. Lord's attack dog Santorum will do what he is in this campaign to do. That is attack the man who is the real champion of the ideas that have made America great, Ron Paul. I as a pro-lifer am disgusted with Santorum's constant shilling for war and attacks on Iran. When the chips were down Santorum backed the rabid pro-abortion hack Arlen Spector.
Of course Arlen also was a rabid supporter of our endless war policy in the Middle East. For Mr. Santorum war trumps life anyday.

Mr Lord: I am sure Ron Paul will crush Santorum in any future debate just like he did in the last debate. He is a follower of the real conservative movement. That is people like Robert Taft, who was against NATO and the Korean War [ for among other reasons because it wasn't declared. ] Dwight Eisenhower who was elected to end the Korean War and who did just that when elected. Of course Nixon was elected because he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War. It just took him forever to do it. Ronald Reagan got in trouble everytime he listened to the Neoconservatives. He got out of Lebanon and never went back. In his memoirs he specifically states that the Middle East is a thousands of year old mess and it is best to for America to stay away from it. He also almost got himself impeached when the Neoconseratives got him involved in the idiotic Iran Contra affair. Of course both Bush's were badly hurt by their noeconservative aides.

I can say a lot more but the American Spectator should get Dr. Woods to further respond to Mr. Lord.I have noticed such great men and reponsible writers as Dr. Chris Manion and Justin Raimondo in these comment pages. Why can't you get one of them to respond to Mr. Lord and his endless non sense?

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 8:31AM

Jeffrey Lord's last article, which was discussed on Talk Radio by Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, has obviously made the Paul-bots VERY nervous.

They have has a bright light shined on them, and like the cockroaches they are, the Paul-bots are scurrying back and forth trying to hide.

Lord was "destroyed", Jack? Perhaps in your Bundist dreams. But in reality, Lord's article struck a nerve, which is why folks like yourself and Nr. Woods are busy doing damage control.

Ted| 9.7.11 @ 8:43AM

Interesting. I note that Jack in Wisconsin doesn't deal with the substance of Mr. Lord's argument. Dr. Right, methinks you are correct. The Paulbots are nervous.

And I got $100 on Rick Santorum, any debate, any time, anywhere. I don't think he'll get the nomination, but it would be great for the country if he did that and won.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 9:33AM

Ted:

The most amusing part of this idiot Wood's video (the one the article references) is that he opens the video by stating "Who REALLY cares what some journalist at the 'American Spectator' thinks?!?!"...

...and then he proceeds into a 16-minute dialogue that he states is intended to refute, point-by-point, the very same article!

Sounds like he cares VERY MUCH what a journalist at the Spectator thinks about Ron Paul and his questionable positions and associations.

Oh, yes...The Paul-Bots are nervous.

VERY nervous.

Jack in Wi.| 9.7.11 @ 9:35AM

More comments on Reagan and the neocons. Reagan wanted a complete end to nuclear weapons and was a for peace with the Soviets and Chinese. He negotiated large arms reduction treaties with the Soviets and visted China. The neocons thought the cold war would go on forever and were against everything Reagan did in regards to these areas.

Dwight Eisenhower told the Israeli's to get the hell behind their borders and to stay there. G. H. W. Bush tried to get a real peace in the Middle East and stood up to the Lobby for awhile. For that the neocons moved in mass to Clinton. G. W. Bush made a deal with neocons to give them the Middle East policy, if they would back him in the Florida recount. It destroyed his presidency. He had been elected on a humble foreign policy with no nation building.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 9:50AM

BUZZ!!!!

Wrong again, Jack!!

To say that Reagan wanted a "complete end to nuclear weapons and was a for peace with the Soviets and Chinese" is CHILDISHLY simplistic.

Did Jimmy Carter love nuclear weapons? Did he WANT war with the Soviets or the Chinese?

What about Ford? Nixon? Johnson? Kennedy? Eisenhower? Truman?

In other words, Jack...No kidding!

But Reagan, unlike "Doctor" Ron Paul, understood that we live in a dangerous world, and that our national security is NOT grounded in the best intentions of our allies or (especially) our enemies.

To that end, Reagan, unlike "Doctor" Ron Paul, was not willing to sacrifice security for hollow, paper promises.

At Reyjkyavik in 1986, Gorbachev offered Reagan a complete dismantling of all Soviet ICBMs if Reagan would give up SDI - THAT'S how scared the Soviets were of the missile defense shield - but Reagan said "Nyet."

"Doctor" Ron Paul would have abandoned SDI without ANY concessions from the Soviets, and they'd still be around today.

Learn your history, Jack, especially about Reagan, before you start spouting inanities about him.

And one other thing, Jack...WHY is it that you Paul-bots must bring Israel into EVERY single discussion??

Your anti-Semitism is showing, Jack. Ron Paul's, too.

And that's why you're nervous.

Jack in Wi.| 9.7.11 @ 10:29AM

Getting desperate again with the anti semite name calling aren't we? You are losing the argument everyday. The neocons are finished and most Jews want nothing to do with their foreign policy. They have always been a tiny portion of the Jewish community. Most Jews have long opposed our wars in Iraq and Afanistan. Most Jews I know, while Zionists, are disgusted with the present policies of the crackpots who run Israel today. I think most American Jews want some kind of reasonable settlement to the Israel Palistine dispute. I know that the vast majority of Jews will vote for Obama and not Perry. Ron Paul has many Jews as his intellectual icons including Murry Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises. So shove your antisemitism charges where the sun don't shine.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 10:33AM

You're projecting, Jack.

I'm not desperate at all. I know who Ron Paul is, and I know who his minions are, and what they represent.

To say that Ron Paul has "many Jews as his intellectual icons" is like saying "I have friends who are Jewish." It's meaningless.

The harsh, anti-Israel stance of the Libertarian fringe movement (that would be you, and folks like you) is rooted in anti-Semitism.

We see through you, Jack.

SpiralArchitect| 9.7.11 @ 5:04PM

Jack, you are out classed (to the fullest extent of the word) when you enguage Dr Right.

God| 9.7.11 @ 5:18PM

Interesting. You're so nervous and desperate about the logic behind the Paul-supporters that you're using all of your effort to defend yourself and your ideas against them, all the while criticizing them for defending their own ideas against yours.

A hypocrite and a moron, Dr. Right. You are a disgusting human being.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 5:29PM

Messianic delusions now, Jack?

Tsk-tsk-tsk...

God| 9.7.11 @ 6:44PM

Continued self-distraction and inability to discuss like a logical and decent human being, Doctor Right?

Atrocious.

Quartermaster| 9.7.11 @ 8:30PM

No Paulbot here, but I do have to say that Lord was destroyed in teh comments section. That's why AmSpec droped the entire thing in the memory hole. In that Jack is precisely correct.

Lord has improved a bit in this screed, but he still has a very looong way to go. He still refuses to deal with interventionism and still smears those disagree with him with teh charge of isolationism.

Tell us, or great and mighty Jeff Lord, what is teh difference between interventionism and self defense. Why do you think they are the same, and how do they differ with the neocon/progressive Wilsonism spreading of Democracy adn nation building.

Bluntly, if the best you can do is invoke Santorum who, as one poster above points out, supported that scum "Snarlin' Arlen" and betrayed the party and conservatives in doing, than you need to go home and stay there.

Islam, like its predecessor Communism, is a serious threat to us. But the neocon idea of interventionism will not get the job done anymore than what the neocons were pushing while they were still Trotskyists.

Keep going Lord, you might evben learn enough to start making sense instead of simply resorting to smearing your opponents instead of dealing with the problem we actually face.

And, Dr. Right, your anti-semitism smear is just that. Such things are not the act of a conservative. Neocon perhaps, as they certainly are part and aprcel of the same type leftist smear bund.

Smirking Weasel| 9.8.11 @ 1:31PM

Ooohhh 'antisemitism'. Why, because you say so?
Well, no, more because its'the last pathetic lie of the blowhard chickenhawk cowards who are willing to waste Americas' money-and its' Hessians'lives-to no useful end without actually putting themselves in any danger-or even dpoing any hard work. Whine on, little man(?), no one gives a damn or values your opinion or judgement on any matter.

vicky bennett| 9.7.11 @ 9:49AM

I hope the PaulBots do not turn this into another third party fiasco like ROSS PEROTS....
Lets stick together after primary.

Stormzeye| 9.7.11 @ 10:30AM

You're right Vicky. A drive-by shooting of the Republican candidate by a third party is the only way Obama can win.

Matthew Quigley| 9.7.11 @ 10:43AM

I suspect an Obama win would suit the Paulzombies just fine. It would also be the death of the United States.

These anti-Semitic throwbacks need to be locked away in a padded cell. I'm honestly not sure which cult is worse: The Marxist cult of Obama, or the suicide cult of Paul?

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 11:02AM

The Paul-bots would be VERY happy to see Obama win next year because it would (in their minds) reaffirm what they already believe to be true - that the USA is a socialist nation run by a cabal of wealthy, globalist bankers (mostly Jews), and their allies in BIG GOVERNMENT (the "neocons"...also Jews) and BIG BUSINESS (also Jews) and BIG MEDIA (Jews again...).

You see, to the Paul-bots, it's not really about winning the election next year and getting rid of Obama. It's about being able to convince themselves that Damnit! THEY WERE RIGHT!!

It's a fairly twisted psychological pathology...

RCV| 9.7.11 @ 11:40AM

You hit the nail on the head. It's all about scoring intellectual points in High School Debate Club, not about the real world.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 2:38PM

I remember when you used to mock me for taking on Clint when he was posting as Tim*.
Once you sort of shouted in mockery: "Ron Paul, Margie! Ron Paul!"
I am glad to see you and others taking on the task of confronting him and his ilk, and I'm also getting a kick out of you and others using the term I coined as well for their ilk~ Pail-bots.

Ron Paul, Dr. Right! Ron Paul!!
LOL.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 5:30PM

Sometimes We Tea Party Patriots Gotta Go Into The Swamp To Club The Snakes.

rephilip56| 9.7.11 @ 4:53PM

Ron Paul is the only person who is not afraid to speak the truth.There is a total push from both the left and the right to create a global government. that means no more USA, no bill of rights etc plain and simple

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 5:30PM

Speak truth to power, bro!

Prophesy!!! Spread the "Word of RON"!!!

SpiralArchitect| 9.7.11 @ 5:02PM

Hardly.

ACORN & the dead will be very influencial, by the numbers, in this comming election.

Jack in Wi.| 9.7.11 @ 1:12PM

The countryclub Rockefeller Republicans attacked and backstabbed Barry Goldwater, every chance they had. They called him insane and many openly supported Johnson. In 1976 and especially 1980, the Rockefeller branch of the party called Reagan, senile, and unrealistic. They ran a crediible third party candiate [ John Anderson ] against him. They will do the same with Ron Paul if he is the nominee. The neocons and their Rockefeller Republican allies would much rather have stooges like Johnson, Carter, or Obama then a real reforming conservative like Ron Paul. The Banksters and Warmongers could not continue on their merry ways with Dr. Paul as President.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 1:54PM

Comparing Reagan to Ron Paul is simply stupid, Jack.

But that's never stopped you before, so why should it now..?

God| 9.7.11 @ 5:20PM

Doctor Right and RCV,

Now you're criticizing your opposition for intellectually outclassing you? Interesting defense.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 5:31PM

Jack,

You couldn't "intellectually" outclass a fifth-grader.

God| 9.7.11 @ 6:44PM

Doctor Right,

You're unintelligent to comprehend the point, and too cowardly to even attempt it.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 9:13AM

Perry’s Achilles heel.

" The Post looked at Perry’s top 50 donors, who collectively gave more than $21 million to Perry, and found that 34 received some benefit from Perry’s administration or the state, including grants, contracts and appointments. The donor list was compiled by the nonprofit Texans For Public Justice.

Twenty-three donors won Perry’s appointment to state boards, often the boards of regents at the University of Texas or Texas A&M.

Roughly one in three of the top Perry donors had business interests that secured grants, tax subsidies or project approvals under his administration, the Post review found. Five donors gained both an appointment and a state boost to their specific company or interests. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Carpe Diem.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 10:44AM

Grasping at straws Clint.
Iowa caucus Perry: 29%
Paul 14%
http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....17_paul_14

And how come you didn't deny anything Jeffrey Lord stated about your idol?

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 11:04AM

DS:

You do realize that asking Clint to refute Mr. Lord's article is like asking a kindergartner to refute Aristotelian philosophy, right?

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 11:15AM

Yep, but it's like watching a monkey trying to pull a shiny nickel out of a wooden box with a tiny hole. Sure his hand goes in, but once he makes a fist he can't get it back out. Like Clint though he tries and tries and tries until he finally gives up and goes back to pulling things out of his ass.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 2:44PM

Guilt By Association Cuts All Kinda Ways.

Simple Answer, Ricky Perry Algore Cheerleader Squad Member,DrunkBoy.

Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 3:12PM

Love your website Clint.
http://www.teapartygroundzero.com/forums
I see under the forums section that the two topics that got the most replies (4 each) was "Introducing yourself" and "Support".

What's wrong, can't even get members of your own Tea Party to talk to you?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 5:34PM

Asked & Answered.

I Got No WebSite, Asshat.

Now, Go To Your Ricky Perry's Algore Cheerleades' Meeting, Pussy.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 6:58PM

I got no website asshat.

First of all it should read.

I do not have a website. And Cheerleaders is spelled incorrectly.

If you got no website, then there are two morons like you roaming our planet and frankly I find that hard to believe.

Don't forget to bash Regan too while your at it. He used to be a Democrat once upon a time. And your boy Ron went from Republican to Libertarian, realized there was no future in that party and switched back to Republican. Guess he can't pick a party either.

Jack in Wi.| 9.7.11 @ 9:19AM

It hasn't made us nervous. It just proves that we are winning. They usually don't bring out Levin and Limbaugh until later. The whole campaign is about Ron Paul and his ideas. 60% of the American people want out of Afganistan now. Most Americans want out of our foreign bases and foreign wars. They want an end to all foreign aid. They know that we are broke and can't support this nonsense anymore. 75% 0f the people want us to audit the FED. Most American's think that the Federal government is out of control. These are all the positions of Ron Paul. All the candidates are moving his way, including Obama. He just announced that all troops will be out of Iraq by the end of the year. You want to bet that the Afgan war will be wound down by the next election. Of course they plan to keep huge numbers of contractors in both places as well as huge guarded embassies, but the handwriting is on the wall. The country can't afford the neocons and their stupidity any more.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 9:36AM

Jack,

You obviously don't know much about psychology.

When something doesn't really bother someone, they tend to ignore it.

When something DOES bother someone, they ruminate on it - endlessly.

Your long-winded posts dedicated to how irrelevant and silly Mr. Lord's article is prove that to you Paul-bots, it was NOT irrelevant.

You're getting VERY nervous.

Jack in Wi.| 9.7.11 @ 9:43AM

I used to listen to Limbaugh for 13 years. I left the ditto heads and Fox News when they went all war and all Israel all the time. The same goes for Levin. Both these chickenhawks talk a good game but don't produce much anymore. They can't deny that the wars have been huge flops and the Ron Paul has been right on all the issues. If Paul wasn't winning the attack dogs would stay in their kennels.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 9:55AM

Israel again, Jack?

Really??

The typical conversation with you Paul-bots goes something like this:

"Neocons, Israel, audit-the-fed, Bush was evil, Ron Paul will save us, warmongers, blowback, Israel, audit-the-fed, We love you Ron, RINO, neocons, GOP sell-outs, Israel, audit-the-fed, warmongers, blowback, Israel, neocons, Bush, Bush, Bush, cabal, conspiracy, Israel, audit-the-fed, neocons, global banking conspiracy, Ron Paul is our God."

What a joke. You guys are worse than the Obama-Zombies. We expect Liberals to be stupid.

Jack in Wi.| 9.7.11 @ 10:17AM

It's all you neoconsevatives care about is Israel period. Dr. Paul wishes Israel and the Arabs nothing but the best. He just wants to cut all forign aid to both of them. It totals at least 15 billion dollars a year. Both groups have vast wealth and can solve their own problems and settle their own differences without our money and interference. We are bankrupt and they are solvent.

The neoconservatives have been wrong on every issue going to back to their first idol Trotsky. They have made a total mess of American foreign policy. It is time they go back to the Democrats and Communists. Thats where they came from.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 10:39AM

Yes, of course...all we "neocons" care about is "Israel".

Riiiiiiight.

Let's see...You mentioned "neocons" twice, "vast wealth" once (that's the banking conspiracy thingie...You know, those evil Jewish bankers), "Israel" once but in the 1st sentence, and then threw in Trotsky (a communist AND a Jew) for good measure.

So in two simple paragraphs, you tied all the loose ends together into one big, fat, Jew-baiting ball, and you also confirmed EVERYTHING I said in my previous post about what a typical conversation with a Paul-bot sounds like!

WELL DONE, JACK!!

Nick| 9.8.11 @ 1:22AM

Jack-boot in Wi.,

"Dr. Paul wishes Israel and the Arabs nothing but the best."

In the same way that Hitler wanted the best for the Jews, der schweinhund fuhrer?

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 10:45AM

Iowa caucus
Perry 29%
Paul 14%

That's your idea of Paul winning? We have differnet dictionaries then.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 10:52AM

DS:

It's a sickness, like the Obama-Zombies.

Some folks just NEED to feel led. They desperately need to tie their lives to some larger-than-life figure that they think will solve all of their problems, both real and imagined.

And the funny thing is that they consider themselves to be individualists!

They're not. They're followers. And they want everyone else to follow them in order to validate their mistakes and reaffirm their lives.

It's kind of pathetic, actually.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 11:19AM

Agreed. It's the same mentality that makes the Jerry Springer show successful. The participants know they are going to be made fun of but they just can't help reaching for their 15 min of fame and are firmly convinced the audience will side with them.

Jack in Wi.| 9.7.11 @ 12:47PM

He will beat Perry in Iowa and New Hampshire as well. The country and party doesn't want another Bush clone. The issues and the momentum is on Paul's side. He has the intellectual vigor on his side. He also has the fired up supporters. The polls agree with Ron Paul on the issues. These wars, big government, and the FED are as popular as terminal cancer. The only way to beat Ron Paul is to out Paul Paul. That is going to be one hell of a job.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 12:57PM

Let me get this straight. Perry is beating Paul in the Iowaa Caucus but you say Paul is going to win Iowa?
Iowa caucus
Perry 29%
Paul 14%

Not sure just how in the hell your logic works on that one. And as for NH, that is liberal land, Romney will most likely take it.

Latest poll I could find for New Hampshire was 8/17
Romney 36%
Perry 18%
Paul 14%

And that was only one week after Perry entered the race.
http://content.usatoday.com/co.....re-poll-/1

Facts are facts and I would love to see where you get yours from.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 1:56PM

Jack, you live in a fantasy-world where black is white, up is down, and in is out.

Paul is LOSING - BIG - in Iowa AND New Hampshire.

Reality, Jack. Try visiting.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 2:16PM

DS: See Charlie Sheen for Clint and Jack's definition of "Winning."

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 2:46PM

And like Charlie my guess is they are in need of some serious counseling. I never knew there were so many Vatican Warlock Assasins running around.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:22PM

Hey, DS---I will be in my Secret Cave in Barbados for 1 week starting November 1 to control the World's Money Supply. I wonder if Jack and Cwint will miss me?

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 5:34PM

OT:

Don't you mean the secret cave that you paid for by extorting it from the blood, sweat, and tears of real American working men like Jack and Clint, in consort with your secret brothers in the Global Zionist Conspiracy??

...Just askin'

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 7:02PM

Secret cave in Barbados? How come I get stuck watching the kids? The latest shipment of blood, sweat, and tears that Doctor Right mentioned should arrive by FED-EX in a few days. Had to ship it by freight as the GZC (Global Zion Conspiracy) had had a banner month and set a record goal.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 5:39PM

Like A Loser, Bottom Of The Barrel, Sorry-Assed Government Excuse For A Shrink,Tool Job Is Gonna Tell People About Winning.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 9.7.11 @ 9:52AM

You are not winning, Paulbots. You are losing. The decision to bring all troops home from Iraq by the end of 2011 was made by PRESIDENT BUSH and Prime Minister Maliki in 2008, and was written into the US-Iraq Agreement signed that year. It's the law. Obama can't renege on it now. And the HF has proven that even if military spending was to be abolished ENTIRELY, total federal spending would've still been growing rapidly every year, and with it, the public debt.

http://www.heritage.org/budget.....ng-problem

The Afghan War is scheduled to end in 2014, as agreed UNANIMOUSLY by ALL NATO members in Lisbon last year.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 10:04AM

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."

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 10:48AM

And how would the military defend the country once "President Ronnie" is done slashing their budgets??

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 1:16PM

"Military Expenditures

The eighteen nations with the largest military budgets in 2010 are shown in the chart above (click to enlarge). The United States, with a budget of $698 billion, spends more on defense than the next seventeen nations combined. The United States military spending is almost six times that of the next biggest spender, China ($119 billion) and more than eleven times that of Russia ($59 billion).

The Department of Defense budget in fiscal year 2010 accounted for 19% of the United States federal budget and 28% of estimated tax revenues. The U.S. accounts for 40% of the world’s yearly defense outlays."

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 1:58PM

Answer the question, dumbass.

Ron Paul wants to slash these budgets.

So...once more...how would the military defend the country once "President Ronnie" is done slashing their budgets??

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 2:42PM

Well lets see. Ron Paul wanted to issue a strongly worded Letter of Marque and Reprisal to capture Osama Bin Laden. Regardless of the fact that although technically permitted under the US constitution, issuing a valid letter of marque is a war crime under both US and international law.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 5:55PM

Bullshit Little Ricky Perry Algore Cheerleader.

" Treaties CANNOT override the Constitution. The power to make treaties was given to the President by the People, in the Constitution. The power to ratify treaties was given to the Senate by the People, in the Constitution. The Constitution can only be changed by the People, acting through 3/4 of the state legislators, or via state delegations to a 2nd Constitutional Convention (the latter of which is, at present, only theoretical, as a 2nd one has never been called,"

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 7:09PM

Who in the hell said anything about a treaty, you mouthbreather. Do you even understand what a letter of Marque and Reprisal is?

Article 1 of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, alongside the power of taxation and the ability to "declare War." However, since the American Civil War, the United States has consistently agreed to be bound by the terms of the 1856 Paris Declaration forbidding the practice, and the ban is today considered part of the customary laws of war. Although technically permitted under the US constitution, issuing a valid letter of marque is a war crime under both US and international law

Was that to difficult to understand? Our Constitution gave us that right to use it, however since the Civil War we have consistently agreed to be bound by the Paris declaration forbidding the practice.

Once again proving that Ron Paul's idea of Foreign policy and Defense are like him. Old, and outdated.

irish19| 9.7.11 @ 7:25PM

"issuing a valid letter of marque is a war crime under both US and international law."
Really. I never knew that. Actually, I kind of liked the idea-for the entertainment value if nothing else.
The idea of some of the military contractors taking on the Somali pirates had me stocking up on pretzels, cheese, sausages, & barley soda (beer for the unenlightened). Illegal, huh? Darn!! What am I going to do with all these supplies?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 2:48PM

Asked & Answered Nazi Cunt.

Still Hidin' In Joisey, Coward?

Hmmmmm Girlie ?

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 3:25PM

"Overt but subtle hostility to women is a common characteristic of repressed homosexuals. This hostility is often expressed by the continual use of vulgar words and expressions that make reference to female genitalia."

- Sexual Psychology, 15th Edition. (Lippincott & Williams, 2007)

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 6:00PM

Uh Oh !

Dr. Reich Is Making Excuses For Being A Queer.

Don't Scare The Horses, Sweetie Pie.

CountryClassKook| 9.7.11 @ 3:28PM

Well, it's nice to the the level of intellect, quality of discourse, and high moral values of the staunchest of Paul supporters. Thanks for that!

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 3:36PM

And of course, always remember those AmSpec rules:

"Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful."

How many years has this low-life been posting here?
No, the rules only apply to Bible believing Christians who tell the truth to lies too much and too often, and ruffle the feathers of the Cult followers.

As for the others, they only have to change their names!

Clint/Tim* "belongs".

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 5:37PM

Don't sweat it, Margie.

Clint is a deeply repressed individual. His use of the "c-word" only expresses a long repressed desire to possess female sexual organs of his own. In other words, he says it with anger because he doesn't have it, and that makes him angry.

It's a vicious cycle.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 5:59PM

No sweat to me. God knows who the frauds are. With Clint/Tim*~ what goes around comes around, as it does for all of us.
:^)

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 6:03PM

Uh Oh !

More Queer Talk From Herman Goring's Girlfriend, Dr.Reich.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 6:17PM

What makes you more nervous, Clint?

The thought of Ron Paul's inevitable loss?

Or trying to walk past a gay bar without going in?

God| 9.7.11 @ 7:01PM

Doctor Right,

You have the debating manner of a 6-year-old. You throw a hissy fit and launch flaccid insults that are hilarious in their failure while arguing over concepts you are too much of a moron to understand.

Whether political ideology or psychology, your intellectual handicap is too severe for you to ever comprehend even the simplest of concepts within.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 10:08PM

Then you must be a 5-year old deity because, intellectually speaking, I've run circles around you...Jack.

zebra| 9.8.11 @ 3:56PM

Serious question Doctor Right: Are you and Clint the same person?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 6:08PM

Uh Oh !
This Must Be Tonight's Meeting Of "Anti-Catholic Bigots R Us " .

Tonight, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Margie Will Discusss : "The Whore Of Babylon".

Then, Dr. Reich Will Discuss : The Use Of Poison Gas On Catholics.

Smirking Weasel| 9.8.11 @ 1:37PM

Easy, moron, they'd actually defend this one country instead of parking in foreign bases around the globe, trying to tell the rest of the world how to live their lives and trashing them for
profit.

William R| 9.7.11 @ 9:49AM

The hideous Jeffrey Lord, Mark Levin and Limbaugh and the rest of the NeoCons.

http://non-intervention.com/99.....-ron-paul/

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 1:15PM

Mr. Lord: I mean this with the greatest of respect and admiration. You are, as Jeeves was referred as in the Jeeves and Wooster stories, "A Veritable Dream Rabbit."

Further, as Bertie would say of Jeeves, one can tell that you eat a lot of fish from the bulging of your skull, particularly in the back, indicating a prodigious brain.

Your stuff is fantastic fun to read. Always.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 11:39AM

Jack in Wi Wi land;

I want to personally thank you for proving the spot on accuracy of Mr. Lord's entire article in such a magnificent way. Sadly, I must find fault with him on one account. The words "mad," the policy of "lunacy," and the policy of "inmates of 'mental homes.'" seem entirely inadequate to describe the depths of willful ignorance embraced by Ron Paul and his followers.

You cling to that mad hope beyond hope Jack. Everyone must believe in something. Ron Paul has been running his nut parade since 1988? Oh well I'm certain this will be the year he is victorious.

Jack in Wi.| 9.7.11 @ 12:50PM

Boar: That is all you neocons have left is name calling and other insults. Whatever intellectual vigor you had died with your hero Leon Trotsky.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 1:16PM

My hero? Trotsky?

No, Jack. My heroes are Vladimir Jabotinsky, George Washington , Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan. Never surrender in the face of scum.

Jack in Wi.| 9.7.11 @ 4:27PM

I can well believe an old fascist and racist like Jabotinsky is hero of years. The same with the old nationalist, racist, warmonger and tyrant Lincoln. Washington didn't believe in entangling alliances a Reagan didn't listen to the neocons or give a rats behind about Israel. I can't think why you like them.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 6:20PM

Are you a Neo-Confederate, Jack?

And your hatred of Jews is palpable.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 3:15PM

Couple of things on that whole name callin thing jack'o.

I find your hypocrisy amazing. You and the other Paul nuts resort to some of the most vile and reprehensible name calling imaginable as part of your natural bodily functions. It is one of the trade marks of your lack of maturity and character. Yet when called names, you retort by accusing others of what you are guilty of.

You will notice that when I say for example, you are an idiot, it is because you have said something only an idiot would say. I have never engaged in profane or vulgar speech or referenced your parents or your sexual preferences.

You forever fail to engage anyone in a mature argument and simply resort to some redundant platitude and what in your mind passes for an insult. Trotsky...really Jack? I hear Obama is a fan, me not so much. That would be as ridiculous as me saying your hero was Washington or Lincoln.

Jack in Wi.| 9.7.11 @ 4:21PM

Boar: You have never written a coherent comment on this page that I have seen. The neocons come from Trotskyite Communism. Irving Kristol, Normon Podhoretz, James Burnham, and Christopher Hitchens all were big Trotskyites. If I was a supporter of Hitler or even if my parents were, would I be allowed in polite society? The answer, of course, is no. Well in my opinion, Trotsky was worse then Hitler. So I don't think his old followers or their spawn should be allowed in polite society either. The neocons have led the country and the conservative movement over the cliff. It is time that we do what Stalin did to Trotsky. Kick them and their spawn out of the movement forever.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 6:03PM

Jack says:

"Boar: You have never written a coherent comment on this page that I have seen."

Funny. That's what they say to everyone but their own ilk.
It's cult language for the cultists.
Notice~ it's always potshots to the mental state of the opposition, especially if they are exactly correct.
LOL.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 7:05PM

LOL, that was hilarious Jack. You accuse me of not ever posting a coherent comment, then claim "The neocons come from trotskyite communism?" Then you launch into some incoherent rambling diatribe, expecting me to understand how some analogy involving Hitler and your mom being thrown out of polite society has relevance to anything said previously then reach the stunning conclusion America's problems could best be solved by mimicking Stalin's actions?

Other than Ron Paul and Stalin who are the leaders you most admire?

zebra| 9.8.11 @ 4:05PM

Do you have memory problems Boar Hunter?:

"Jack in Wi Wi land" -that's just a few posts up written by you.

"Given your Oedipus complex and rightful feelings of rejection by your surrogate father, I think your feelings of self loathing and inadequacy are understandable."-a few posts above that by you

You and jack are both hypocrites. the only difference is a matter of degree

Cosmo| 9.8.11 @ 4:15AM

Reagan was a non-interventionist...He didn't invade any countries or start any wars like Bush did. Throughout our history it has been the Democrats who got us into wars and Republicans who got us out....Until Georgie Bush illegally invaded Iraq...The Republican candidates need to be asked whether they approve of Bush's wars.

Cosmo| 9.8.11 @ 4:19AM

Reagan was a non-intervensionist. He didn't invade any countries or start any wars like Bush did. It's always been Democrats who got us into wars and Republicans who got us out...Until Bushie came along and illegally invaded Iraq.

Alan Brooks| 9.7.11 @ 9:51PM

The hagiography of Reagan has become revolting in and of itself. Why don't we leave it that:

"Reagan was the last great American, Bush was just an afterbirth of Reaganism."
-- Hunter Thompson

Alan Brooks| 9.7.11 @ 10:25PM

BTW,
libertarianism CAN work-- just not for many decades.

canuckistani| 9.8.11 @ 11:12AM

Yes it can but it requires Americans to take a hard look in the mirror about their willingness to unlatch the government teet.

kate| 9.7.11 @ 10:23PM

Tonight's debate

It was Perry or Romney for me and Perry blew it.

When Perry confronted Romney's record on job creation in Mass., Romney responded so well.

Romney pointed out that Perry was working with a republican legislature, judicial system, etc.

Romney's answer was excellent.

Perry should have been a bigger man and given Romney a little hat tip on a good rebuttal. Instead he was hostile.
Ging. tried to give him a clue.
I think he took the hint, but too late.
Perry has a lot of work to do to get my vote.
Don't hurt conservative chances because of a big ego.
Put your country first and don't be petty.

canuckistani| 9.8.11 @ 11:16AM

I was also amused by Newtie's unwillingness to answer a question inside a DEBATE. Scolding a questioner about trying to DEBATE a point of difference amongst candidates was childish, boorish and revealing at the same time.
The questioner should have opened up the topic after Newtie passed on it, he didn't.
Perhaps questioners should come from the professional press as they once did, not newsy clearing houses like Politico. Newtie's same behavior with Faux News should have been slapped down immediately.

Jay| 9.7.11 @ 6:40AM

I thought this was an article about Santorum. It looks like it is just more of crazy uncle Lord going apoplectic over Paul.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 7:45AM

"Apoplectic"?

Hardly. It's called criticism. And the Paul-bots can't handle it.

Jay| 9.7.11 @ 7:51AM

So you agree. This is not really an article about Santorum.

Jay| 9.7.11 @ 7:56AM

It is about using Santorum as a cats paw against Paul. Santorum did this last time and he still can’t beat the margin of error. The same will happen again, but Perry and Romney will be the beneficiaries...but you know that.

Dan Hirsch| 9.7.11 @ 8:54AM

Remember that the authors usually do not write the headline copy.

I read the article as a pleading to Sen. Santorum to go after Rep. Paul on that basis.
Remember when Rush Limbaugh said that Spkr. Boehner should just tell Obama "no" on the joint session campaign speech? And then it worked! Maybe Boehner got some direction from Limbaugh's speech, maybe not. Jeffrey Lord's use of this bully little pulpit to try and coach Sen Santorum is not so strange. Besides, how else can you get such a message to the candidate without giving the message to the candidate...

Why else would we all do all of this, then?

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 9:37AM

Reading for comprehension was obviously not one of your better scores on the SAT...

God| 9.7.11 @ 7:13PM

Doctor Right,

Given an eternity to read, you'd still lack the ability to comprehend. Saying that you're incapable of adequate reading comprehension is similar to making the same claim of a newborn -- not only is it entirely redundant, it's a dramatically inadequate description of your stupidity.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 9:17AM

" Rick Perry supported Lance Armstrong's 3 billion dollar Texas taxpayer funded medical research center. That’s like ObamaCare. That’s not free market.

Rick Perry, secured a 300 million dollar business handout slush fund for him and just the two leaders of the legislature to dole out to whomever he felt like being friendly to. That’s corporate welfare, a recipe for corruption, and as bad as the TARP bailouts that caused the Tea Parties to explode all across America. In fact, Perry gave 20 million dollars to Countrywide Financial​ which later went bankrupt.
He supported a new state business tax. He set up toll road tax collection booths all over Texas highways. The Austin Tea Party and the Austin Toll Party booed him on the steps of the state Capitol for that.

Rick Perry, signed an executive order mandating young Texas schoolgirls to get the HPV vaccine, while his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck. Perry's judgment was so bad the Texas legislature revolted against him and overturned his decision,"

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Carpe Diem.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 10:50AM

Nervous?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 1:22PM

Scared Of The Tea Party, Drunk ?

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 2:00PM

Your are not a typical example of a "Tea Party" member Moe. Not scared of them.

And apparently niether is Rick Perry since last poll they gave him 21% approval

"Perry, not surprisingly given his lead among Tea Party supporters, is the preferred candidate among Republicans who identify "government spending and power" as the set of issues most important to them. Perry is the top choice of 31% of these Republicans, with Romney (17%), Paul (13%), and Bachmann (12%) vying for second place."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149.....ation.aspx

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 2:51PM

You 're Scared Of The Tea Party, Little Ricky Perry Algore Cheerleader Wooo Girl.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 3:22PM

That's the best you can do in reply?

You got me Clint, I just can't keep up with your rapier wit and your superalative grasp of the facts.

balatro

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:24PM

Wow, DS, C(lint) Elegans exercised every ONE of his 302 neurons there, huh? If you look up the C Elegans Wiki page, you will also get a chuckle out of the reproductive data.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 7:16PM

OT,
My guess is he is not one of the 0.05% of the total population.

Sounds about right.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 7:10PM

Most excellent sir! I love this site, now I have a new word for Clint. Clint the balatro.

All hail Clint the Balatro!

Everyone quiet down Clint the balatro is getting ready to preform.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 7:17PM

I thought it fit him, though I doubt he is well paid for it.

kate| 9.7.11 @ 10:34PM

D.S.
Why are you talking to "clint"?
"He" is a group of "well-meaning", entitled, funded, liberal, little, spoiled brats, living off of their parents and the rest of us.
They are playing you.
I am naive and even I can see it.

kate| 9.8.11 @ 12:09AM

HEY
CLINTS * ( *plural-either you all are having some fun or you, as an individual, desperately need a JOB. Call Obama on that one. Either one. He is the expert. ) :)
HOPE YOU ARE HAVING FUN IN YOUR DORM ROOM.
WE WILL NOT RESPOND TO YOU ANYMORE.
*DA. (* = too much of a lady to spell it out for you.)
(RAISED BOYS AND HAVE BOYDAR)
KATE

kate| 9.8.11 @ 12:20AM

CLINT ... (I.E. "CLINTS")
IS TRYING TO TURN OUR PHILOSOPHY CONCERNING DEMOCRACY AND CAPITALISM VS. MARXISM INTO SOME DIATRIBE AGAINST THE TEA PARTY.
LIKE THE TEA PARTY IS NAZI-ISH. HAH.
NORMAL PEOPLE.
HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH THE ORIGINAL PROTESTERS?
PLUMBERS, LAWYERS,DOCTORS,SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.... WE AREN'T MARXIST, CREEPY PEOPLE...RACE IS INSIGNIFICANT.
DEAR CLINT(S)......
TRYING TO MAKE US LOOK BAD WON'T WORK, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHO WE ARE.
(sorry for shouting, but I am fed up)

kate| 9.8.11 @ 12:32AM

Good Lord
Watching c-span because fox wouldn't cover the debate..
Lieberman looks like Mozart at the end of Amadeus.
VP?
Has everyone but me forgotten that John Edwards, aka breck-boy, came a few thousand votes from the
second-in-charge?
Shivers.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 1:20PM

We tea Party Patriots Aren't Hiding In Joisey, Like The Nazi Bigot, Dr.Reich

John| 9.7.11 @ 6:47AM

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 voting for Ron Paul.

CB| 9.7.11 @ 7:34AM

I am a life long conservative
I have voted Republican my entire life
I am president of a small business (25 employees).
I am a husband and father of 5.
I am a Christian.

I am voting for Rick Perry.

John| 9.7.11 @ 8:21AM

CB,

I'm glad you used my format... cuts straight to the point, right?

Good luck to all the Republicans in the field. I'm excited to see the upcoming debates and am praying for a better America for my children. As conservatives, it is critical that we band together and fight the big-government beast that is threatening to completely overtake our way of life.

Best wishes,

John

Ron Paul 2012

Stormzeye| 9.7.11 @ 10:37AM

John,
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama and you know it. "Best wishes" my arse.

irish19| 9.7.11 @ 10:50AM

All depends on whether or not he will support the Republican nominee if it is not Paul.
How about it, John?

Stormzeye| 9.7.11 @ 2:48PM

I can't imagine Paul supporting the Republican nominee. It's too expedient and approach to solving the problem of Obama. He is a romantic. The kind that blow themselves up on busses to show their conviction and the purity of their commitment to an unachievable ideal.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:25PM

He has never backed the Republican Candidate after losing a primary race.

MikeyV| 9.7.11 @ 10:54PM

Right, because elections are all about showing fealty to a political party.

idalily| 9.7.11 @ 2:55PM

John, there is no banding together around Ron Paul. To Paul and his supporters, it's his way or no way. That's not banding together. That's dictatorial nonsense. And Ron Paul is unelectable. Period. Give. It. Up.

John| 9.8.11 @ 4:50AM

Gentlemen,

I'm going to respond in the order that your replies appeared:

1) A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama? I actually think that Ron Paul's blend of rigid conservatism on monetary policy and sincere desire to bring our troops home will enable him to appeal to fiscal conservatives while stealing millions of votes from Obama. It's basically socialism vs. freedom. You can't get any more anti-socialist than Ron Paul!

2) Will I vote for the Republican nominee if it isn't Ron Paul? Of course. Obama is a socialist. Period. We need to move as far away from Obama as possible. While I've concluded that Ron Paul is the most sincere in his desire to do this, I will still support the nominee even if it's not him.

3) To equate Ron Paul to a suicide bomber is poisonous. Watch your tongue, fool. To perpetuate the dangerous rhetoric of the left at a time like this not only says a lot about your judgment, but it brings into question your sincerity for liberty.

I'm not going to give up supporting Ron Paul. I am not in love with Ron Paul, nor do I worship him. In fact, I acknowledge that he's not an ideal politician in the conventional sense. However, his defense of the constitution is all I care about at a time like this. He takes it literally, which forces you to ask yourself... do I care more about liberty, or party politics?

I don't hate anyone here, and I sincerely wish you all well. You guys might be surprised to learn that most Ron Paul supporters aren't the crazies you've painted them to be.

Take care,

John

Ron Paul 2012

NadePaulKuciGravMcKi| 9.7.11 @ 7:06AM

No one wants to have anything to do with the Bush Family.
goodbye Rick Perry the Neocon Puppet, your strings are cut

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 7:42AM

Hey, Einstein...

The Bush clan doesn't like Rick Perry, and Rick Perry doesn't like the Bush clan.

The fact that you didn't know this is indicative of your lack of substantive knowledge on political issues in general.

In other words, you're a complete ignoramus.

In other words, you're a perfect Ron Paul supporter.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 9:21AM

Associated Press-GfK poll: Ron Paul the most favorable GOP candidate

A new national poll of the general population has revealed that top tier candidate Ron Paul is the most favorable choice in the Republican Presidential nomination race.

Ron Paul 37% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = +1
Mitt Romney 39% favorable vs 41% unfavorable = -2
Rick Perry 33% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = -3
Michele Bachmann 35% favorable vs 43% unfavorable = -8

The Tea Party Rebellion Is here.

Rise Up In Rebellion.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 9.7.11 @ 9:53AM

You forgot about Sarah Palin.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 10:15AM

No I didn't Tehran Boy.

Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Sarah Palin isn't running yet.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 10:47AM

"Tehran Boy"..???

That's a new one...

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 1:18PM

Yeah. C(lint) Elegans thinks a guy with a very POLISH Christian name is from Teheran. Very painful to watch the degradation of a mind, Dr Right, even one with only 302 neurons to start.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 1:23PM

Get Bent.

Smirking Weasel| 9.8.11 @ 1:41PM

Until she gives a rant/speech topless, everyone will.

chuck| 9.7.11 @ 7:09AM

After reading the opening quote, I just couldn't help but thinking about Clint.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 7:35AM

You beat me to it!

Ted| 9.7.11 @ 8:45AM

Whew... All the while I was reading the article, I was thinking of Dick Cheney saying heads were going to explode all over Washington due to his memoir....

I see Clint hasn't appeared yet...

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 9:39AM

He's here.

When he needs a break from blaming the Jews for all the world's problems, he trolls this forum for his "Dear Leader".

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 10:18AM

Adamski says you're a Liar.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 10:42AM

That's swell.

Any actual proof you were there?

Hmmmmmmmmm???

Because when I spoke to him on the phone, he was very concerned about the lies you're spreading regarding:

1. Being a member of VFTPP
2. Propagating rumors to the effect that the VFTPP (or any Tea Party organization) has endorsed Ron Paul.

You've been exposed, Clint. Now be a good cockroach and scurry away.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 1:04PM

You're A Sociopathic Serial Liar, Dr.Reich

Adamski says you're a Liar.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 2:00PM

Proof, Clint-wit?

We're waiting. Tick-tock.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 10:21AM

Uh Oh !

The Nazi, Dr.Reich attempts to Play The Anti-Semite Card.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 10:45AM

"Doctor" Ronnie's support in the polls has peaked, so it seems to be working.

And you can bet that Perry and Romney will be making sure that people know about Paul's questionable friends and associations.

It's over, Clint. That's why you're perspiring profusely.

Nervous..?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 1:25PM

You're The Coward,Who's Hiding In Joisey,Nazi Bigot Dr.Reich.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 2:29PM

The fat lady is singing for Ron Paul, Clint-wit...

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 2:56PM

That 's Just Yo Mama, Trash Talkin' Shuck & Jive Joisey Girl.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 3:27PM

Clint,

"Yo mama" jokes are a sure sign of a low IQ!.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 6:11PM

Tell It To Yo Mama, Shuck & Jive Trash Talkin' Joisey Girl

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 1:20PM

Doctor Right---I've lost my schedule for my week in the JewCave in Bermuda, controlling the world's money supply. Do you think Clint has an extra copy for me?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 1:27PM

Your girlfriend Bibi has it.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 2:01PM

O.T.:

Week of November 1st.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 2:15PM

Thanks so much! ;)

RCV| 9.7.11 @ 3:00PM

Occam, can I be the gentile who does the mechanical work for you on the Sabbath the night you're in Bermuda? I'll even gather the blood of Christian children for you to use in your demonic rituals.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 3:28PM

Get your own dang evil Jewish overlord, RCV!

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:27PM

Hey, guys, happy to use the both of you! (Evil Chuckle) RCV, you do know you are my exception to many of my comments, don't you?

RCV| 9.7.11 @ 5:56PM

I'm counting on that Occam, although so of them are so over the top it's hard to see how an exception would fit into them!

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 9:27AM

"The Texas chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus this month said it was putting together a "dossier" of Perry low-lights from his tenure as Texas governor.

For starters, the group criticized his state's Texas Enterprise Fund -- a project that has offered millions of dollars to businesses to lure them to the state or help them grow. It is cited as one of the drivers of job creation in Texas, but the Liberty Caucus described it as a "slush" fund.

The group also criticized Perry for his role in backing the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor, a proposed 4,000-mile network of toll roads and rail meant to accommodate Texas' growing population and expanded trade with Mexico. The project has since been shelved, but not before the governor and other supporters were slammed for contracting with a Spanish company and for backing a plan that would have likely required the state to use eminent domain to seize local property.

"Perry has never met a toll road project he wasn't willing to seize huge amounts of private land for and then give the exclusive management contracts to foreign corporations," the RLC said in a statement, urging the public not to be fooled "by campaign hype."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up In Rebellion.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 10:56AM

Iowa Caucus: Iowa GOP: Perry 29%, Bachmann 18%, Romney 17%, Paul 14%
Monday, September 05, 2011

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 11:43AM

Wow, Ron Paul only polls at 14% ?

You would have to be nuts to support someone that unelectable.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 11:53AM

"PAUL 2012: Nuts for THE NUT!"

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 11:58AM

Hey, according to Clint there is a poll that shows Ron Paul is the favored canidate in Texas. Now if he can only convince the other 49 states to agree, they have a chance.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 1:32PM

Dr.Ron Paul beat Algore's Little Texas Cheerleeader, Ricky.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 2:02PM

When?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 2:59PM

Find Out.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 3:28PM

I know you are, but what am I?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 6:13PM

If Ya Gotta Ask.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 9.7.11 @ 7:18AM

Hehehehe.

It will be very interesting and very funny to see Ron Paul unjustly claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan, the man whose foreign and defense policies he opposed during the 1980s and continues to oppose; the man whom he called "a total failure" as President; the man who was THE VERY REASON why Paul deserted the GOP in 1987 and joined the loser Libertarian Party; the man whom his friends Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell called a war criminal and called to be impeached and removed from office in 1987; the man with whose administration and whose policies he wished to totally disassociate himself, as stated in his farewell letter to Ronald Reagan in 1987.

I'm not making stuff up. You can read that for yourself here:
http://treeofmamre.wordpress.c.....coalition/
http://campaign2012.washington.....redibility

Already back then, Ron Paul was criticizing Reagan's supposed spending on "warfare" (what warfare?), "unconstitutional commitments abroad" (since when does the Constitution dictate any sort of foreign policy or prohibit defense commitments to allied countries? show me a SPECIFIC provision of the Constitution!), and "immeasurable waste in the Defense Department" (even though it was Reagan who cleaned the DOD up and enacted the first ever reforms of the DOD). Paul's farewell letter to Reagan is also notable for the fact that, except one mention of farm subsidies and welfare spending, it never decries any kind of spending other than military spending, just like today, Paul calls for cuts ONLY to military spending and no other kind of spending, even though military spending amounts to less than 19% of the total federal budget.

Ron Paul absolutely opposed Reagan's policies during the 1980s, and it is because of RONALD REAGAN and his policies that he left the GOP. He has no moral right to claim Reagan's mantle.

Paulbots will undoubtely quote Reagan's 1979 endorsement of Ron Paul (which was over 30 years ago and was in 1979, before Reagan really knew Paul). But that's irrelevant, because it indicates nothing about what Paul really thought about, said about, and did with Ronald Reagan.

Ron Paul will undoubtely try to claim Ronald Reagan's mantle later today, in the Reagan Presidential Library. The person who calls him out on this and proves that he's no Ronald Reagan will be the GOP's nominee and the next President of the United States.

Len| 9.7.11 @ 9:13AM

To answer your question ((since when does the Constitution dictate any sort of foreign policy or prohibit defense commitments to allied countries? show me a SPECIFIC provision of the Constitution!)..nah you don't really want an answer, but I'll answer nonetheless, that which is not granted is prohibited. It's not hard, but you, just like the liberals, cry out for specific prohibitions, but then we would have a document that we would never be able to finish reading.

If you knew anything about the US constitution, you would know that the provisions are for what is allowed, not what is prohibited, for example the tenth amendment. The fact that the USC says common defense, and that revenue is only for such, and that in the state conventions, no one argued for our having allies that we would be mutually engaged in wars with, shows the lie of your attempted argument. AND PLEASE, PLEASE, don;t try and be silly and say treaties, for the treaty power is to augment common defense and commerce, not rewrite the USC, as you false constitutionalists try to claim.

Do you actually believe your own lies, or does your soul just gloss over what you spew?

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.7.11 @ 10:42AM

Len,
I would argue with you.....but your post made NO sense...so I will ignore it.

Len| 9.7.11 @ 10:59AM

"I would argue with you"..no you wouldn't, you would make an ad hominem attack as you usually do, and because you don't have any understanding of the USC, except as you want it to be.

Ken, you never, never once have made a reasoned, substantive argument here, your comments are always opinion, and worthless.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 2:14PM

Len, I respectfully ask that you look at my number crunching below. Ken has, and it is assumed in our conversations.

You can feel free to disagree with us, goodness knows, but the numbers are important to think about. As Heinlein said, "wars are fought over population pressures." (ST)

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 1:24PM

The power to dictate and fund foreign policy assumes a great deal of subsidiary powers, Len. In addition, since our country was started because of an alliance with a great power---France---it is hardly likely that the FF would prohibit such alliances if needed in the common defence. Furthermore, one should check how we dealt with the SAME enemy we are facing now in the early 1800s, and how a Founding Father dealt with it, and the commentary of Madison, Monroe, and Adams on same.

In short, "this word 'inconceivable.' I do not think it means what you think it means."---Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

Len| 9.7.11 @ 2:10PM

Wow, Occam, short on the comprehension meter aren't you? Alliances made in common defense of a state or states is authorized under the USC, involving ourselves in the affairs of other nations when we have not been attacked is not.

As for your opinion concerning the "FF they were rather clear that they didn't consider entanglements with other countries to be something our government should do. In fact Jefferson was lambasted for what many perceived to be a desire to help France against England.

Nick| 9.7.11 @ 6:38PM

You are interpreting the U.S. Constitution with far too narrow a lens, Len.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

The Constitution doesn't specifically authorize the Marine Corps, even though they pre-date the Constitution. The Coast Guard and Air Force are not specifically authorized, either.

Does the Constitution need to be amended so that these branches of the military can be authorized?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 1:37PM

Kenny likes Algore's Texas Cheerleader, Ricky Perry.

" Give me a "R"

Give me an "I"

Give me a "N"

Give me an "O"

Whatdaya got "RINO" RICKY !!!!!

WOOOO GIRLS !!!!

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 2:03PM

You got beat up a lot in High school by the cheerleaders didn't you?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 3:08PM

That was Algore's Cheerleeader Ricky Perry gettin' asskicked by the other cheerleaders.

You got your ass kicked with Little Ricky.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 2:04PM

" Give me a "F"

Give me an "R"

Give me a "A"

Give me an "U"

Give me an "D"

What's it spell?

CLINT! CLINT! CLINT! The PHONY Tea-Partier!

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 3:12PM

Dr.Reich Is Scared Of The Tea Party.

Still Hidin' In Joisey, Little Nazi Bigot.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 3:30PM

Clint,

In all honesty, the juvenile, dull-witted, and repetitious nature of your insults is FAR MORE annoying than the actual insults themselves.

Seriously...Ever had an original thought?

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 4:40PM

Dr.
Highly doubt it. Clint would have to pass gas just to clear his head.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 6:14PM

They Don't Call Drunk Swabbie, "Breath Of Ass" For Nothin'.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 7:19PM

So sayeth Balatro!

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 9:29AM

Ronald Reagan,
"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."
The tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Carpe Diem.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 10:58AM

1979 Before Ron Paul turned on Regan. Or did you not read the article?

irish19| 9.7.11 @ 10:58AM

As Lord pointed out, that quote was from 1976.
And today's RCP average (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html) has Paul in 4th place, 3 points behind Palin. As you yourself have pointed out, Palin's not even running yet.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 11:22AM

My apologies. The irish lad was correct. 1976

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 11:53AM

I honestly did not know that nut Ron Paul has been running for president since 1988. I thought it was just the last few cycles.

After 20+ years, you'd think anyone would be smart enough to realize Ron Paul is unelectable,...Oh wait! Im sorry I forgot about Clint.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 11:49AM

Obviously you didn't read the article Clint. You nuts just keep re-posting the same idiotic drivel.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 11:54AM

Sssssssshhhhh!

It's therapy.

Next week, he moves up to coloring books...

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 12:01PM

If you can keep him from eating the crayons.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 12:20PM

Crayola goes out of their way to make sure that Mommies and Daddies know that their crayons are "non-toxic"...

...So Clint should be OK.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 3:19PM

I'd be content just to keep him from eating his poo.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 3:31PM

...Or flinging it at spectators.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 6:17PM

Uh Oh !

Apparently, These Israel Firsters Are Shit Eaters.

We Heard They Had Breath Of Ass.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 7:22PM

That was friggin hilarious Clint. Your like that dog in the movie "Up" your muddled mind does not work all that..."Squirrel!!!"

Which is it Clint, Israel "firsters" (apparently a another new word you created to augment your vocabulary) or Nazi's? The two are kind of ...oh never mind, why do I bother?

William R| 9.7.11 @ 9:52AM

Ronald Reagan's Wisdom on the Middle East: Leave!!

http://orangepunch.ocregister......leave/619/

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.7.11 @ 7:32AM

Jeffrey,
now you have gone and done it. We are all going to have to wear out our scroll-down buttons when Clint starts in with his copy/pastes.
Heh

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 7:38AM

Clint...completes-me!

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 9:30AM

"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

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 3:21PM

"Ron Paul is a friggin nut." - Boar Hunter

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 6:19PM

Uh Oh !

Bone Hunter is talkin' about nuts.

That's More Information Than We Needed.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 7:22PM

Look Clint it's a squirrel!

TURK| 9.7.11 @ 8:05AM

John

Life long R--lifelong conservative! Fool. Cant you read?? How many pages do the learned have to use to get thru your thick skull?? Are the words of Pauls heroes not indicative of his lunacy. Buckley was not a revered Conservative?? Reagan was a "cretin"? His 8 yrs were "dreary, miserable, mind numbing".

It's OK for the Iran crazies to have nukes?????? I dont suppose you have viewed the National Geographic ongoing series of programs showing in color the threat and results of Islamofacist murders of the innocent! Would you reconsider your foolish support of the crazy uncle in the attic if one of the terrorist attacks hit you and yours??

You sir, are a bigger fool than that crazy old man!!

Len| 9.7.11 @ 8:48AM

Tiring, tiring, tiring.

Nothing, nothing gives America the right to dictate to other countries what weapons they possess. The fact is that the US is actually the only country to have killed innocent civilians with A-bombs. It is the US that through the unconstitutional agency of the CIA (read it's clear constitution violating mandate..subversion, sabotage, etc.) that interfered in Iran's sovereign political affairs by leading a coup to overthrow Mossadegh, and since that point we have deservedly been despised by Iranians.

Nations/countries have the right to defense, not offense, and the truth of much of what our military has done, has been on behalf of corporations, or the financial elite, but you have your head up your but, so reality doesn't matter. We sent our navy to force Japan at gunpoint to open their market, we killed over 200, 000 Filipinos to have greater access to the Asian Market (not to mention the Maine was not blown up by the Spanish), we forced a number of Latin American countries to accept currency debasement, we stole Hawaii to benefit a few businessmen, and we keep a military presence in the Middle East, not for defense, but to ensure the flow of oil.

BTW, your beloved Reagan as governor helped gun control laws pass in California, and oversaw the continual growth of government at the federal level.

Dan Hirsch| 9.7.11 @ 9:18AM

Len;

When you see a rattlesnake in your children's sand box, do you say anything? Much less, do anything?

"We sent our navy to force Japan at gunpoint to open their market.." Really? I thought it was to complete our war to convince the Japanese people that they really could not be the overlords of China, Russia, India, Australia, the Phillipines, Micronesia, and oh yes, the United States. Which they were very actively trying to be.

As to the types of weapons countries have and our "right" to affect their possession of them, I say that any country that says it intends to destroy one of our allies, (whether you like that ally or not) is of interest to us and we have a right to act in our interest, and therefore our ally's interest, if it is congruent with our own.

What do you think the Middle East would be like today, if the Jews had all been emigrated to, say, Cuba instead of to their Biblical lands in Israel?

Once again, what the libertarians forget is that, if you don't want to fight 'over there' eventually you will fight 'over here.' And that means we enjoy the collateral damage and destruction of our country, our people, our economy.

Even Joe Biden gets it! Remember when he said that the unions were the last thing standing at the "gate." Now let's be clear, Joe has confused himself as to who the good guys are, who the bad guys are, and what we are all fighting for, but at least he understood you want the bad guys OUTSIDE the gates, not inside them!!!

I appreciate Mr. Lords illumination of the quarter and half truths Rep. Paul is relying on to make his case.

And Ron Paul is NOT like Reagan - the most important thing about Reagan was, and remains, he said what he meant, meant what he said, and he was one man who knew why he thought what he thought.

That doesn't seem to be Rep. Ron Paul. Sorry.

Don't tread on me...

Len| 9.7.11 @ 9:27AM

Really? I thought it was to complete our war to convince the Japanese people that they really could not be the overlords of China, Russia, India, Australia, the Phillipines, Micronesia, and oh yes, the United States. Which they were very actively trying to be.

Don't know your history very well do you?

Look up Admiral Perry, so you can learn a little something. This is one of the problems dealing with ignorant people like you, that you don't even know real US history.

As for being a "Reagan", I don't want a Reagan, who grew government and was no friend of liberty or constitutionalist.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.7.11 @ 10:46AM

Len,
can't you write one declarative sentence?
I still don't know where you left your brain.

Dan Hirsch| 9.7.11 @ 11:14AM

Len, Len, Len;

Do not worry about how much history I know. I know way more than you think.

You still have not said what you do when you find a rattlesnake in the sand box.

Well, what would you do? Simple question should have a simple answer. Or will you give us a 'nuanced' reply.

As to Admiral Perry's forcing open the Japanese market in 1853; the object of the mission was to obtain rights from the Japanese to land coal at Edo as a way station for American steamers sailing the northern great circle to the Far East. Perry's first stay in Japan lasted four days and we shot at no one and at nothing. We gave them gifts, and they gave us gifts. Eight months later, Perry returned with more ships and negotiated a "peace and aid treaty. This increased Japanese exports of silk and gave rise to a fair amount of mercantilism. That's not exactly "Forcing open their markets."

Len, do you think that every thing we do is wrong? Why?

I am ignorant of the your view of history, but not of our US history. You might want to read up a little more.

So, what about the rattlesnake? Hunh?

Len| 9.7.11 @ 2:16PM

Dan you and your ilk are rattlesnakes. I have no use for silly conservatives or silly progressives, you both worship the use of force to turn the world into something it cannot be, but that's human nature.

As for your rather absurd statement concerning Perry, um sure any gullible fool will believe they sent 50 armed ships to just exchange gifts. That when the Japanese asked them to leave the harbor, they refused to because they just felt the need to show their desire to be friends with Japan.

Yes, I know the world is full of bad people, and many of them are right here in the US.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:29PM

Dan,

you are one rattlesnake I wouldn't mind tutoring my kids. Not so sure about Len.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 11:55AM

"Reagan...was no friend of liberty or constitutionalist."

That is beyond idiotic.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 2:45PM

Well. Don't you know, Dr. Right?
It all depends what the definition of Constitutionalist mans!
Just ask Bill Clinton. He has a definition for everything.

Matthew Quigley| 9.7.11 @ 10:55AM

The mullahcracy in Teheran doesn't hate us because of Mossadegh, you putz. They hate us because we aren't mohammedan. They hate Israel because the Israelis have broken the dhimma and reclaimed land that has belonged to the Jews for three thousand years. We don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons NOT because we want to dictate policy, but because Mahmood Yabbadabbadoo wants to NUKE US (and the rest of the planet) TO BRING IN THE HIDDEN TWELFTH IMAM!

Just as Hitler spelled out in Mein Kampf his plans for Germany and the world, the islamists are broadcasting LOUDLY what they intend to do to us and the rest of the planet. They hate Jews because Jews exist! They hate us because WE exist! Read the friggin' koran sometime, you dolt! Read the sunnah and thr hadiths! THAT'S where their hatred stems from, NOT from a fifty-year old coup engineered by MI-5 and the CIA! I swear, you Paultards aren't just deluded, you're dumb as posts!

Dan Hirsch| 9.7.11 @ 12:00PM

Another fine shot, Mr. Quigley, very fine.

PS Do they really think that the Holocaust was just a Zionist publicity stunt?

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 1:22PM

Matthew Quigley;

One of humanities fatal flaws is that we tend to project our same beliefs and views on others. In the case of Islam, you discern the truth and find it frustrating others cannot.

These Ron Paul nut's share the same view concerning world politics as the liberal who lives next door to the dope house. In their never ending attempt to create some unattainable utopian paradise, they forget people are trying to kill them and take their stuff. They cannot come to grips with the fact that screaming about how unfair it is does not change the fact that at the end of the day, someone still wants to kill them and take their stuff.

These same people who say to themselves, "Well their behavior doesn't effect me" are the same pathetic idiots on the news lamenting how their neighbor seemed like such a nice man after the Morlock killed and ate his wife and ran off with his children and plasma TV.

These emotional cripples see thousands of children dressed in green marching through the public square under the eyes of their adoring parents and they cannot grasp what it means when they are told the children are being groomed as human bombs who will martyr themselves to the moon god.

Oh, I know! lets engage a group of people who have lived in the stone age for generations in a battle to change their hearts and minds. After all, if they just disavow their God and fellow country men they would be able to get along with us cause that would be fair.

These Ron Paul idiots swear to defend the mother land till the last man, "if" we are attacked by a foreign army. I say we are already being attacked by the destructive encroachment of Islam. I say look at the world stage. They think these people can safely reside among us? Everywhere they go they kill. Their "Quran" tells them to "kill" or convert non-believers. Tell me, what is their view of multiple wives?, rape? pedophilia? Their holy book is an abomination to any right thinking rational human.

They choose to ignore history and when they see thousands marching in the square "chanting death to America" they say their behavior doesn't affect me. When I see them I say what a nice place to drop a bomb. It might not change their hearts but it would certainly change their minds.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 1:27PM

Adctually, our self interest gives us the right to dictate this, especially if the people attempting to get the weapon are in a state of war with the US. Casus Belli---capture of our embassy in Teheran. Ronnie had bigger fish to fry at the time, but we can take care of the problem now.

Viva The Shah!

Matthew Quigley| 9.7.11 @ 2:34PM

OT and Boar Hunter, excellent points.

Dan, thank you for the compliment.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:30PM

I second the compliment, Matthew.

Nick| 9.7.11 @ 7:01PM

Len,

"[...] that interfered in Iran's sovereign political affairs by leading a coup to overthrow Mossadegh [...]."

That is nothing but commie agitprop. When someone who claims to be more conservative than the rest of us neocons uses the lies and propaganda of the left, they render their arguments, and themselves, meaningless.

It makes you sound like Toddard.

As far as the activities of the C.I.A., which you claim are not authorized by the Constitution, e.g. "subversion, sabotage, etc.," General George Washington loved spycraft. He had a vast network of spies, and used "subversion" and "sabotage" during the War for Independence.

Look up Thomas Knowlton's Rangers, for more on this history.

Intelligence is the first line of national defense.

Bob K.| 9.7.11 @ 8:09AM

Russell Kirk is right: Libertarianism is lunacy.

Reagan supplied the final nudge that resulted in the fall of the Soviet Empire.

Nobody there believed in Communism any more, including the leadership. In 1989 the leaders, under Gorbachev, got together and disbanded it.

Russian men were killing themselves with Vodka and Russian women refused to have more children. Russia led the world in abortions.

Communism, in Russia, is dead. What exists there now is something else entirely and whatever it is it is unfriendly to the West. Our concern now should be with Russian power not ideology.

Ted| 9.7.11 @ 8:48AM

Russia has an unfortunate, but long, history of totalitarianism under many different guises.... I sometimes think that is why they have always drowned their sorrows in the vodka.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 9:40AM

Not much else to do when it's freezing cold and you can't stomach the thought of one more bowl of cabbage soup...

irish19| 9.7.11 @ 11:15AM

Actually, there is; which is why I'm surprised there aren't more Russians.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 11:35AM

Funny that you mention that.

I used to remark, during the days of the Soviet Union, that you could tell life was hard based on how the people aged.

Russian kids were usually beautiful...But by adulthood, owing to poor diets, poor dental and medical care, and non-stop drinking, most of them were bloated, pasty-skinned disasters.

Now, after the fall of Communism, some of the world's most sought-after fashion models come from the former east-block countries.

And don't forget...Stalin killed 30 million Russians, and another 20 million died during WW II.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 1:31PM

Irish19---I had a friend adopt a kid from Kazakhstan, and I, myself, got interested in this when I was picking a country to adopt my kids from. Terrible economy, poisoned environment (Lefties, you know), mothers are alcoholics, men die in their 50s.

Russia is also a secular humanist country. High rates of abortions. Therefore, birthrate below replacement, minus 700,000 Russians per year, rapidly aging populace.

Check out the CIA factbook. Or America Alone.

Thank you for your brilliant comments.

(My friend who adopted a kid? He was shown an AIDS Baby, a MR (Mentally Retarded) baby, and the one he adopted---who couldn't roll over at about 1 year of age. Fortunately, Mikie caught up. No thanks to the Kazakhs. Thanks to his daddy the psychiatrist and his mommy the psychologist.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 1:32PM

Oh, by the way---no sarcasm. THANK YOU for your kindness and comments. You are a goodie, Irish19.

irish19| 9.7.11 @ 3:17PM

Thanks for the compliments. I knew about the drop in the Russian birthrate. The Euros seem to be following the same path. It's an unintended consequence of socialism. The problem is that socialism is, at its heart, a Ponzi scheme requiring a continuing population increase to keep it propped up.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 9:38AM

Ronald Reagan,
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.7.11 @ 10:49AM

Damn,
My scroll button finger is already tiring of Clint copy/pastes.
I will press on with my scroll finger though...into the mouths of the insanity cannons.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 1:33PM

Remember, Ken---"those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." You'll do fine. Not sure about Cwint.

SteveG| 9.7.11 @ 8:16AM

Let me see if I can summarize Mr. Lord in a sentence: all conservatives like liberty and small government, but some (neo) saw Communism as a mortal threat while others (paleo) did not.

The commies are long gone (at least officially). So....who now constitutes the mortal threat requiring the burden of empire? The Islamists? Just askin'..........

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 1:38PM

Yup. The Islamists. Thanks for asking, Steve. Please check demographics and extrapolate what the military age men (20-35) numbers will be for Europe and Yemen/Saudi/Europe itself by 2040 given current extrapolation---notice I used 1 generation.

By 2040, my son will be 36, and I will be 78. I'll be done, but he will be in the thick of it. I recommend the CIA factbook. Note particularly median ages, and consider birthrates per woman---2.1 is replacement. You seem to have a brain. Anyone really interested in this topic should read America Alone, and then check the factbook. I know Ken did, and RCV on the Left also knows the score. It's one of those interesting topics that you just need to look at the numbers for, and think a little. G-d Bless.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 1:47PM

I'm sorry--"non-Muslim Europe" and "Yemen/Saudi/Muslim Europe." Add is some of the other Arab states if you wish, and Turkey.

Turkey---2.15 children per woman. #17 in the world in population. Median Age: Male 28.1 years/female 28.8 years.

Percentage of population breakdown:

0-14 years: 26.6% (male 10,707,793/female 10,226,999)
15-64 years: 67.1% (male 26,741,332/female 26,162,757)
65 years and over: 6.3% (male 2,259,422/female 2,687,245) (2011 est.)

Now, let's look at the most powerful nation in Western Europe.

Germany:

Population:
81,471,834 (July 2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 16

(see the comparison--right on)

Age structure:
0-14 years: 13.3% (male 5,569,390/female 5,282,245)
15-64 years: 66.1% (male 27,227,487/female 26,617,915)
65 years and over: 20.6% (male 7,217,163/female 9,557,634) (2011 est.)

Total fertility rate:
1.41 children born/woman (2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 197

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 2:08PM

Forgot something:
total: 44.9 years
male: 43.7 years
female: 46 years (2011 est.)

So, the mean age is already older. The males of fighting age is equivalent. The number of Children for the Turks is twice that of the Germans. Turkey is becoming more Islamist. The number of elderly in Turkey is 3 times smaller than Germany. What percentage of the men that are of military age in Turkey do you think are under 35 compared to Germany. Given that Germany is aging fast while Turkey is holding its own, extrapolate 30 years from now. Does Germany have the National spirit that Israel has?

I am happy to do this for country after country if you wish. Shall we look at Egypt, which is becoming Islamized?

82,079,636 (July 2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 15

Age structure:
0-14 years: 32.7% (male 13,725,282/female 13,112,157)
15-64 years: 62.8% (male 26,187,921/female 25,353,947)
65 years and over: 4.5% (male 1,669,313/female 2,031,016) (2011 est.)

Median age:
total: 24.3 years
male: 24 years
female: 24.6 years (2011 est.)

4.82 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 192

Total fertility rate:
2.97 children born/woman (2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 65

By the way, Germany's death rate per 1000 population:
10.92 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 39
Now, we know medical care is much better in Germany than Egypt. The death rate, therefore, is due to the natural attrition of greatly greater age.

To summarize: the Islamic countries are much younger with higher birthrates. In thirty years, the number of European non Islamized males in Germany that will be able to pick up a rifle will be at a max (I don't know the Islamic breakdown of the children in Germany now) of 5.5 million, facing almost 11 million Turks and 13 + million Egyptians.

I haven't even looked at Yemen, by the way. If we go forward 30 years and allow military men to be up to age 44-45 for comparison---

Population:
24,133,492 (July 2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 49

Age structure:
0-14 years: 43% (male 5,285,218/female 5,094,736)
15-64 years: 54.4% (male 6,666,600/female 6,459,414)
65 years and over: 2.6% (male 298,175/female 329,349) (2011 est.)

Median age:
total: 18.1 years
male: 18 years
female: 18.2 years (2011 est.)

Population growth rate:
2.647% (2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 21

Birth rate:
33.49 births/1,000 population (2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 35

Death rate:
7.02 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 132

Net migration rate:
0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 73

Yemen has about a quarter of Germany's population, but in 30 years will have the exact same number of military aged men. And a ton of kids following.

Is this beginning to get through, Steve? (No sarcasm meant. This is what I fear.)
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 63.74 years
country comparison to the world: 172
male: 61.7 years
female: 65.87 years (2011 est.)

Total fertility rate:
4.63 children born/woman (2011 est.)
country comparison to the world: 30

W| 9.7.11 @ 7:34PM

Occam
Had a terrific class in Demography (Jewish professor). In every nation we studied the birth rate drops as the economic condition of the people improves. Once children were "economically" useful because they worked the farm and took care of the parents when the parents were old. Now children are very, very expensive. In my area, most people have one or two children, with three the maximum, and four or five the exception.

Unfortunately all the muslim countries are poor, plus they have polygamy, so I don't know if the usual rules of experience apply to muslims.

Dayne Herr| 9.7.11 @ 8:23AM

Conveniently, Mr Lord leaves out this excerpt from Russel Kirk's "dispassionate assessment of libertarians "

"Second, the libertarians generally -both the folk of whom I have just approved, and also the ideological libertarians -try to exert some check upon vainglorious foreign policy. They do not believe that the United States should station garrisons throughout the world; no more do 1; in some respects, the more moderate among them have the u nderstanding of foreign policy that the elder Robert Taft represented."

That means that Statist warmongers like Lord, Levin & Santorum have less to do with Conservatives than libertarians do...

Ryan| 9.7.11 @ 8:26AM

For Ron Paul to win my vote, he has to make the clear case that if we pulled every single soldier out of the Middle East, let Iran go its way, and stopped caring about what and where Al-Qaeda trains, that we would be safe on our own shores - that there sole reason for attacking us ten years ago was simply because we were over there, not because there is a stark difference between our cultures that cannot be resolved.

That is the core of his non-interventionist argument, and I don't buy it.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 1:39PM

Thank you, Ryan. Succinct and precise.

Slacker| 9.7.11 @ 2:18PM

Right or wrong, bankrupt nations get stuck with non interventionist foreign policies. This is our future.

Stormzeye| 9.7.11 @ 2:59PM

In short, Libertarians think the U.S. can and should be defended on the beach. Utter madness!

rufrignkidnme| 9.7.11 @ 8:33AM

So, you realize that in all your articles you have yet to put forth any substantive reasons why liberty isn't the way to go. Thanks, I"ll vote for Ron Paul.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 12:26PM

Gimme' a break.

If we produced a video of Ron Paul beating a child with a lead pipe, you doofus Paul-bots would blame the Jewish conspiracy and vote for him, anyway...

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 1:42PM

Dr.Reich attempts to Play The Anti-Semitic Card,
once again.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 2:06PM

Clint-wit:

There's a reason for stereotypes...

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 2:10PM

Because you ARE an antisemite, unlike Dr Right, Clint. And a liar.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 3:17PM

Uh Oh !

Screwball Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Fanatic Tool Job Plays The Anti-Semitic Card.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 3:33PM

O.T.:

Per Clint, I'm an "Israel-Firster Jew-Loving Nazi Bigot".

I know, it's enough to make your head spin...

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:32PM

Dr Right: Recall Dr Zachary Smith's favorite quote: The Pain, The Pain!

Dan Kinsler| 9.7.11 @ 6:26PM

Doctor Right [sic],

I'm far from a "Paul-bot"; but I'm also not desperate and disingenuous enough to dodge an antagonist's point — to invert reality — by suggesting that Ron Paul would commit a cowardly act of violence against a defenseless person. (And that's the best anti-Paul "argument" you have made so far!)

Tell you what. If you produce anything that incriminates Ron Paul in any meaningful way, then I would join you in defaming myself and my Jewish family — and cheapening the suffering of my ancestors — by accusing my antagonists of anti-Semitism, and generally lowering myself to your level with the default use of similarly self-defeating, state-worshiping subterfuge and ad hominem

Deal?

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 8:42PM

As for me, no deal.

Thank you for proving Dr. Right's point. You are everything you claim not to be. By disingenuously feigning outrage over the point Dr. Right was making through use of an outlandish example, he has proven the outlandish lengths that you and those like you will go to to protect Paul.

You have the gall to invoke the sacred memory of your ancestors because someone had the audacity to disparage Ron Paul supporters? It is you sir who have defamed and lowered yourself, nay shamed yourself and your family by cheapening their suffering.

Dan Kinsler| 9.8.11 @ 1:33AM

Drop the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard, nice and slow.

(Tip: leave the rhetorical Jujitsu to those fascist court historians who actually get paid for their fraudulence.)

Mimi| 9.7.11 @ 8:43AM

Thanks Jeff for the History lesson!

We live in a treacherous dangerous world....sometimes it seems EVIL is around us and seen everywhere....Thank God for our strong military and blessed soldiers yet today who fight and die for our security and safety!
If something is not done soon to save our economy, there will be no means for the continued fight against this EVIL...We stand at a crossroads as a nation and need new leadership!
Ron Paul is frankly TOO OLD! We cannot take the risk of an impaired president....Mostly we can not take the risk at this hour of an appeaser!

Len| 9.7.11 @ 9:00AM

Right, no appeasing..just wage war against every country that refuses to cooperate with our unjust demands. Also, no appeasing at home either, just continue to spy on Americans, violate our rights, throw away the constitutions limits which are supposed to protect us from government, not make us the subjects of a few elites.

Let's have a tyrant like Romney, who however one sugarcoats it forced people to participate in that states healthcare, which is tyranny.

Or Perry who forced young girls to accept vaccinations, again tyranny!

You so called conservatives love your oppressors.

Dan Hirsch| 9.7.11 @ 9:36AM

Len'

Sir, you are using the Obama favorite tactic of the false choice:

Either it's your "Right, no appeasing..just wage war against every country that refuses to cooperate with our unjust demands." or total isolationism. Total war or total, what, surrender?
Those are NOT the only choices available. Historically, it has not been total war or total disengagement. It's very easy to say it has to be all black or all white-but that's not reality. It's never all anything. Saying anything else is either naive or dishonest. Which one do you like?

Besides, there is an unreality to this notion that you can trade with the world and not have any other relation to it. Do you really think that our country's unarmed shipping (whatever flag they fly, it is the ownership of the freight that matters.) could travel the oceans and not be harassed by all sorts of pirates if we had no ability to respond to piracy? Any news from the Horn of Africa lately? I think you can see the pirated vessels anchored off Somalia on Google Maps...

Anyone who doesn't understand that your country must protect its interests with real, tangible force was probably raised an only, home-schooled, child who lived deep in the woods, i.e. never spent a single recess period on the playground playing with other kids....

The world is NOT a nice place, and the other kids are mean, they want what you have, and they will take it if they think they can. Count on it.

Don't tread on me...

Mimi| 9.7.11 @ 9:48AM

They took their EVIL to us, on our shore !!! They MURDERED close to 3000 of us in COLD BLOOD...in one day on the place we lived and worked.
We celebrate that 10 year anniversary this Sunday ...SEPTEMBER 11.
On that day I recieved a phone call from a GRANDSON.....Grandma...we will be the next GREATEST GENERATION ....I want to leave college and SERVE...like Grandpa did! and so it was and still is! Cowards none of them!

Chadds Ford| 9.7.11 @ 11:22PM

Len,

Your kids (assuming you have them) didn't get any of the already required vaccinations, you know, like for polio and TB? Why not one that protects against cancer. Do you have any idea how many Americans already have HPV and that it's the leading cause of cervical cancer in women? I have mixed feelings about his mandate, but I understand that tyranny wasn't his objective.

Jay| 9.7.11 @ 9:26AM

It's rare that an American soldier or sailor dies for our freedom or safety. Thank God for them, I was one myself. Thank God they are willing to die for our safety. But those KIA in Iraq didn't die for your safety. You were perfectly safe from Iraq in 2002.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 11:06AM

Armchair general.

It's easy to say we were safe after the fact. At the time everyone believed Iraq had WMD, and had a history of using them. Ask the Kurds.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 1:31PM

The depths of evil and willful stupidity incapsulated by your thoughtless words defy the imagination.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 9.7.11 @ 8:59AM

Two years from now a nuclear bomb is detonated by some Muslim extremists in (pick your City), Ron Paul is the President, what does he do? Will he say it was our fault? Does he retaliate? Or does he take it like Clinton and Carter did? It makes you wonder? He has a lot of faith in our enemies, that I will never have!! He's right about a lot of stuff, and I really don't disagree with everything he says, but he's wrong about a lot of stuff too, that I do disagree with. So much so, that I'd rather he never become the nominee so I don't have to worry about having to, or not having to vote for him. Anybody but Obama, but please don't let it be Ron Paul!!

Michael Tomlinson| 9.7.11 @ 9:16AM

RINO liberal Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush so you can be sure he'd respond to a Muslim attack on the US like Carter, Clinton or Obama -- talk and do nothing.

RINO Ron Paul is our Vidkun Quisling and apologist for theocratic tyrants, despots and dictators. Freedom for RINO Paul and his followers is merely a word and not an idea or principle of life.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 9:45AM

"On October 10, 2001, Congressman Ron Paul led the effort in Congress to give President Bush the tools he needed to capture, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for September 11th. Dr. Paul introduced on that day H.R. 3076 - The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.

If passed, that legislation would have given President Bush an additional weapon against bin Laden. If Dr. Paul's legislation had passed in 2001, it is likely bin Laden would not have been around until May of 2011."

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 11:07AM

Can you back-up your assertion with any facts?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 1:51PM

Can you disprove it, with any facts ?

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 2:07PM

Can I disprove your negative?

Can you disprove that I am your superior in ALL things??

Hmmmmmm???

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 3:20PM

Can You Prove You're Not Hidin' In Joisey ???

Hmmmmm ?

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 3:34PM

Can you prove that you've ever seen a naked girl in 3 dimensions...

...That wasn't your mommy???

RCV| 9.8.11 @ 4:19PM

...and he only saw his Mommy naked in his dreams!

Michael Tomlinson| 9.7.11 @ 9:19AM

How is RINO Ron Paul's apathy to Iran getting the nuclear bomb different from Barack Obama's approach? How is his calling for trade with Cuba any different from the late Ted Kennedy's or other liberal's position? How does receiving a "money bomb" via Russian TV a Moscow backed enterprise make RINO Ron Paul free of foreign influence -- doesn't this make him the paid agent of a foreign power?

Does RINO Ron Paul actually believe America is becoming a police state? Did RINO Ron Paul actually say he would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Since RINO Ron Paul has taken hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks for his district how does that make him different than the late liberal Sen. Robert Byrd (D)?

Why was RINO Ron Paul so careless as to allow a racist to write in his newsletter as him? Is Ron Paul so out of touch or disinterested in projects he's allegedly involved in that he doesn't pay attention to little details like people spreading racism in his name? Was it Lew Rockwell who wrote the inflammatory and racist bilge in Ron Paul’s name? If it wasn’t Rockwell which racist Paul cult member wrote the filth? How can we trust such a lazy person in the White House?

During his failed 1988 Libertarian candidacy for President did RINO Ron Paul criticize Ronald Reagan as a "failure?"

Since RINO Ron Paul likes to cloak himself in Ronald Reagan why did he call his actions to save American hostages in Grenada "evil?"

"I personally believe that the most evil thing President Reagan did as president was to order the invasion of the tiny island of Grenada. Prior to the great U.S. military victory over Grenadian forces, which consisted of not much more than mowing down three men with fishing spears, the United States populace, because of Vietnam, was sick of war. The great "victory" in Grenada caused the taste for blood and pride in national military superiority to be reignited in the bowels of the American boobsie set..." RINO Ron Paul

"The American people, unfortunately, could not see that both actions were the result of the same flawed policy.... The Grenada invasion was heralded as a great triumph and applauded by the vast majority of American people.... Worst of all, and typical of our tragic foreign policy - in the midst of the Grenada invasion designed to make the world safe for democracy by stopping the spread of communism - President Reagan, behind the scenes, was forcefully lobbying for specific aid to 'Communist-dictators' through additional IMF funding. The invasion of Grenada is hardly the victory the American people were led to believe." RINO Ron Paul

Why did RINO Ron Paul equate Reagan's actions in Grenada to save American hostages to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Why did he gullibly parrot the liberal Democrat line that it was an October surprise?

"One discouraging aspect of Reagan's October Surprise is the huzzahing by which the American public greeted the war in Grenada. It is over-optimistic to believe that the public is opposed to war; as was the case in Vietnam, the American masses are only opposed to a war that the U.S. has difficulty in winning. Give them a quick victory, with small loss of American life, and they love it. As one Pennsylvanian said after the invasion, "I'm glad our President is a man!" Americans seem to have little interest in the immorality or illegality of the invasion, in the principle of non-intervention, or in the fact that the closest modern analogy to the US. assault on Grenada was the much-reviled Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, where the Soviets invaded a country whose Commie ruler was too Commie for the Soviets to handle. No, the average Americano seems to glory in the vicarious macho thrill of war, provided victory is swift, and the resistance of the foreign victim disappears quickly. RINO Ron Paul

Politically isn't it true that RINO Ron Paul consistently opposed President Reagan's muscular and pro-American foreign policy? Going so far as to attack Reagan for responding to terrorist attacks against Americans by Libya.

"The U.S. policy toward Libya further confirms our irrational foreign policy. Under Reagan we have been determined to pick a fight with Khadafi, defying him with naval and air maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra. As we try to emphasize our right to navigate in international waters near Libya, we totally reject the territorial waters of Nicaragua by mining their harbors. The World Court rulings against the U.S. were ignored by the Reagan Administration...." RINO Ron Paul

While Ron Paul postures now as a supporter of Ronald Reagan isn't the truth that he fought against the Reagan agenda? Here is what RINO Paul's former chief of staff wrote demeaning and belittling President Reagan http://www.lewrockwell.com/pol.....epublican/

Why should Republicans vote for a man who has either run against the Republican Party or endorsed non-GOP third party candidates for President? Loyalty is obviously not a priority of RINO Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is outside the mainstream of Republican politics. He is in fact a liberalterian. Some might go so far as to say he is a "stalking horse" for Barack Obama and liberal Democrats.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 9:51AM

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit.
" On Iran, The President should:
3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war.

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."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

TURK| 9.7.11 @ 9:28AM

Len

The Japanese killed in '45 were "innocent civilians" ??? Who was the repub gadfly who was a repeat repeat candidate---Stassen??? Forever it has been Paul Paul Paul and his merry little band. OHH---you bablers for Paul havent answered his trashing of Reagan!!! What say you? Are you privy to his new ad ? Perry sided with another in 88! Daddy Bush was running then-----------NOT Reagan you idiots! I dare the crazy old man to attack Reagan tonight. There in Simi valley! Or will he suck up?

Dick Nome| 9.7.11 @ 9:28AM

You Paulbots are a hoot. Criticize your guy for what he is and you flip out. You denigrate all the opposition and advocate for all the looney positions you are accused of. You validate Jeffery Lord by doing exactly what he says you do. Again, you are a hoot. BTW, Paul is a past-him-prime crackpot. He will retire after the next election.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 9:56AM

Interesting, the mere mention of Dr.Ron Paul got the biggest applause, at last night's Tea Party meeting.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 11:07AM

Proof? Or was this your little clan gathering?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 1:54PM

It wasn't at Your Ricky Perry Algore Cheerleader Meeting, Girlie.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 11:08AM

Yeah, all 12 of the attendees were unanimous in their support of "Doctor" Ronnie...

Besides, you weren't there, so how would you know?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 1:58PM

The Nazi Bigot, Dr. Reich is Scared Of The Tea Party.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 2:09PM

That's the "Pro-Jewish, Pro-Israel Nazi Bigot Dr. Reich", Clint, you freakin' dim-wit...

...and DON'T forget it!

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 3:23PM

That's The Anti-Catholic Bigot Fraud Christian Dr.Reich,Who's Scared Of The Tea Party & Hidin' In Joisey.

I Won't Forget That, Bigot Faux Christian, Dr.Reich.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:33PM

What won't you forget, Clint? And why the hatred of Jersey? Man, you hate it almost as much as Tel Aviv!

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 6:08PM

I wonder if Clint/Tim* actually believe his pope would approve of him??

RCV| 9.8.11 @ 4:18PM

Neither Benedict nor any modern Pope would look upon Clint with anything but revulsion and despair.

Dick Nome| 9.7.11 @ 11:09AM

Ron Paul is still an outlier with a following of kooks.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 11:25AM

The Jim Jones of the Libertarian crowd.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 11:57AM

Please, pass the kool-aid!

GAS| 9.7.11 @ 9:29AM

lordy-lordy, what a tendentious pile of steaming dung. Even just skimming this long string of Association fallacies leaves me wanting to sue for my time.
Jeff-ery, why not just come out with a positive argument for your candidate and political philosophy. Why not just say you would like a return to medieval times where an Emperor and Pope would rule over a feudalistic society?

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.7.11 @ 10:56AM

Gas,
yes you are. Thank you. I just farted and feel much better........ahhhhh.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 2:00PM

Apparently, You Don't Smell Better.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:34PM

Better than you, Clint. Not having to date, you don't bathe much. Advantage of being a self-fertilizing hermaphrodite, C(lint) Elegans.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 7:22PM

I was right, he isn't part of the 0.05%

Bob K.| 9.7.11 @ 11:32AM

Jeff-ery doesn't make those positive arguments here because this is not a magazine article but is instead a blog article and because the search engines that the advertisers use to decide where to advertise on these blogs would not get as many hits to responses by that kind of article than they do with this kind of article.

Ka-peesh?

GAS| 9.7.11 @ 5:56PM

Sure, ya got that angle and... jeff-ery and Santorum are just the other side of the coin from Obama. One side reads fascist and the other side reads fascistas. All hail the holy roman emperor! Give unto Caesar and all that...

Simon Templar| 9.7.11 @ 9:39AM

Mr. Lord,

Thank you for an amazingly brilliant and illuminating article. Factual, sourced, historical, and accurrate!

Bill Evelyn| 9.7.11 @ 9:47AM

Good thing this blabber is boring. Someone may actually have the patience to read it through. My Lord are you so very ... very ... wrong.

Simon Templar| 9.7.11 @ 10:05AM

Please explain. Enlighten us..but please no lies, historical revisionism, deception, or left wing talking points including the name calling.

Oh, that's what I thought....nothing to say.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 11:09AM

Agree with Simon. Also list your area of expertise that would convince us you actually know what you are talking about. How are your credentials better than Mr. Lord's?

CitizenKH| 9.7.11 @ 9:49AM

This article definitely explains why RLC & Ron Paul supported Russian backed Alex Kokesh for congress. He failed miserably in the primary, after barely getting enough signatures on a petition to be included.

William R| 9.7.11 @ 9:55AM

Michael Scheuer CIA's Osama bin Laden unit on what this is all about.

http://non-intervention.com/99.....-ron-paul/

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:35PM

I seem to recall Scheuer...missed.

Simon Templar| 9.7.11 @ 10:00AM

While reading your article, Mr. Lord, two major points seemed to jump off the page at me.

The first is the deception and historical revisionism that seems to be a major pastime for these Libertarians.

The second is their willingness to align themselves with anyone including Americas enemies both domestically and internationally to get what they want.

Who does that sound like? Liberals. Progressives. The Left.

Odd thing is it really is not necessary. They did it anyway which speaks volumes to the essence and character of those identifying with this Big Libertarian movement of the later twentieth century. Lunacy is really being too nice. I would say dangerously deceptive.

When I say unecessary I mean that the idea of a cautious, non-interventionist foreign policy approach is not a strange idea in and of itself. Buckley and many others were advocates at one time for this but realized that there are times and circumstances when a more aggressive and defensive policy approach is required.

Our general appproach should be first to wait, see, proceed with caution, and gather a great deal of knowledge before leaping to war or involvements. We can certainly not be policeman to the world both in practicality or monetarily.

It seems, however, that these Libertarians really want more than that and are being deceptive about their real positions.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.7.11 @ 10:03AM

This is a fascinating TV add by Ron Paul's campaign... especially since we just read the article above.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideC...../id/409872

William R| 9.7.11 @ 10:17AM

Ken, go back to pushing that comic book you wrote.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.7.11 @ 11:04AM

Thanks, William.
I shall, since you requested it.
www.americaalonesaidno.com

Can you afford the book, or has mommie cut off your allowance?
Heh,
Thank goodness amazon.com has released it. It is now the 14th best seller in only three weeks... and I don't have to answer every "thankyou" email.

Have I mentioned that the price is fully refundable?
Please ask mommie for a "loan" for the comic book. She can get her money back. Heh

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 6:12PM

Thank you, Ken. I bought it on Amazon.

hardcard| 9.7.11 @ 10:08AM

ron paul is the 21st century harold stassen, and an all-time loser. paul isn't fit to even mention Ronald Reagan's name. Shut up and take a hike. Thanks Mr. Lord for a fine article.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 10:28AM

Ronald reagan Endorsed Dr.Ron Paul & Dr.Ron Paul was one of only four Republicans to endorse Ronald Reagan against Gerald Ford.

"Like 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."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Dick Nome| 9.7.11 @ 11:11AM

Aside from both being known as Ron, there is no comparison between the two. Interesting how you Paulbots trash conservatives and Reagan and then try to done the Reagan mantle for your old crock kooky candidate.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 11:36AM

Kind of like when Obama is always talking about Reagan..?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 2:02PM

You Wouldn't Know Real Conservatism If It Kicked Ya In Your Ass.

Read The Founding Fathers & The Old Right, Sport.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 2:12PM

Clint-wit,

You're obviously unaware that the vast majority of folks on this board consider you to be a complete moron.

GOOD! 'Cuz schoolin' you is loads of fun!

You're like the energizer bunny! You're the retarded gift that just keeps on giving!!!

YOU-COMPLETE-ME!!!

irish19| 9.7.11 @ 3:25PM

"YOU-COMPLETE-ME!!!"
Umm, that's a rather troubling thought.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 3:36PM

Ya think??

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:36PM

"The Joker" in Batman: The Dark Knight, Irish.

Hey, if ya gotta be a Villian, be the Best.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 6:10PM

OOPs...Villain. Sorry. Damn.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 6:10PM

OOPs...Villain. Sorry. Damn.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 3:27PM

Uh Oh !

You Better Talk To Billy Your Goat About That Kinda Stuff.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.7.11 @ 10:14AM

While Paul requested earmarks and brought hundreds of millions back to his district, he still claims he didn’t really do it, because he “voted against” the spending. Here’s how he defended his earmarking habit when he was challenged during a Fox News interview in 2009:

“I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood. Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that’s the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don’t save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.”

Taxpayers for Common Sense found members of Congress for Fiscal Year 2011 requested over $130 billion in 39,294 earmarks. With most House Republicans abstaining from the process, the majority of those requests came from Congressional Democrats and Ron Paul. House Democrats requested over $51 billion, outpaced by Senate Democrats with just under $55 billion. On the other hand Senate Republicans only asked for $22 billion, with the four House Republicans accounting for a little over $1 billion in earmark requests. Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu had the highest request total for the year at around $4.5 billion.

From 2008-2010, the average Texas congressman brought back $74 million in earmarks, according to an analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics and Taxpayers for Common Sense. In those three years, Paul sponsored/co-sponsored 45 successful earmarks totaling nearly $120 million. That was the sixth-greatest total among U.S. House members from Texas.

Of the five U.S. House members who brought home more total earmarked money than Paul, three were defeated in the November 2010 elections — Democratic U.S. Reps. Chet Edwards, Solomon Ortiz and Ciro Rodriguez.

In a blog post on March 17, to justify his “addiction” to government pork Paul said earmarks weren't the problem, the overall budget was. "If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere," wrote Paul. "To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny."

If we can't start with the small budget items and get them under control, how can we possibly tackle the largest contributors to our federal deficit, such as entitlements? For Paul to say that earmarks are a "red herring" makes his larger arguments against outrageous federal spending ring hollow. Think about it, for every dollar Ron Paul lines his district's pockets with, we all lose a little more of our own money and liberty.

Earmarks have come to embody what's so egregiously wrong with this institution — spending our money in irresponsible ways. Rather than sneaking earmarks into bills wouldn’t be more responsible to actually vote them up or down? That way Ron Paul would have to actually vote for the pork he wants rather than being duplicitous, hypocritical and a typical sleazy politician.

William R| 9.7.11 @ 10:20AM

Tomlinson, you don't even understand what an earmark is you idiot.

No congress critter can earmark one damn thing until money has been appropriated. Ron Paul votes against the appropriations and always loses. But once he's lost he has a duty to get some of his constituents money back they send to Washington via taxes. If not the executive branch will simply spend the money.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 10:32AM

Dr. Ron Paul,
"But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."

Stormzeye| 9.7.11 @ 3:12PM

Though I disagree with all of Paul's foreign policy positions, I have to agree that his position on earmarks is correct. This issue is completely misunderstood by the public because of the corrupt media's failure to report the truth. Earmarks, when honestly used, act as a check on the Executive branch.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 6:11PM

No, what Ron would do is submit earmarks into spending bills he knew would pass, so he could vote against them and still bring home the pork.

Funnier and funnier.

Sean| 9.7.11 @ 10:15AM

Tom Woods destroyed Lord. Lord that must be pretty embarrassing for you.

Dick Nome| 9.7.11 @ 11:12AM

Only in your Paulbot programmed small mind.

Sean| 9.7.11 @ 2:33PM

Who is your candidate? Mitt Romney or Democrat Rick Perry? Lol.

Doctor Right| 9.7.11 @ 11:37AM

Yeah...He sure did.

Jeffrey Lord is running for cover!

He's learned his lesson. He'll NEVER write another article criticizing Ron Paul, will he?

What??

He did?!?!?

...D'OH!!!!

Stupid Jeff Lord...

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 1:34PM

ROFLOL!

sirbourbon| 9.7.11 @ 10:35AM

As Governor of California Ronald Reagan disappointed fiscal conservatives when he signed a bill to raise taxes for Californians. On the other hand Ron Paul has voted against every tax increase bill that has come across his desk.

FOX commentator Mike Huckabee is quoted here regarding RR Governorship vis a vis taxes:
"Ronald Reagan raised taxes a billion dollars in his first year as governor of California."

In the summer of 1967, during Reagan's first year as governor and contrary to his campaign promises, Reagan signed a record tax increase for the state of California — an 18 percent, roughly $1-billion hike. http://www.politifact.com/trut.....h-o-meter/

sirbourbon| 9.7.11 @ 11:22AM

" that Paul's foreign policy views are fundamentally leftist ..."

What a crock of baloney!
Ron Paul does not want to subsidize communism anymore than he wants to subsidize Islamic radicalism via "foreign aid."

Check Senator Santorum's votes on foreign aid bills and compare them to Paul's votes. Paul says there is no constitutional authorization for it. The interventionists invented foeign aid and claimed it to be a tool to fight communism!

"Conservative" neo con godfathers like Wm. F. Buckley ponificated for foreign aid as well as championed building big government at home to fight communism!

Ideology
You are either for individualism or for collectivism. The communists adhere to an opposite philosophical point of view as do individualists. In his book The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008), he elaborates his belief on personal freedom:

Freedom means not only that our economic activity ought to be free and voluntary, but that government should stay out of personal affairs as well. In fact, freedom means that we understand liberty as an indivisible whole. Economic freedom and personal liberty are not divisible.

Whereas modern "liberals" advocate government intervention in the market, modern "conservatives" advocate government intervention in social matters, and communists advocate government intervention in or control of both. Ron Paul, on the other hand, advocates that there be no government intervention in either the economy or personal affairs.

Paul is a constitutionalist in his thinking; believing in the basic rule of law where government exists primarily to protect one’s rights, which are inherent and derived from our Creator. He believes that we are entitled only to that which we are born with — our life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness.

Paul is an ideological anti-statist, anti-collectivist, and henceforth anti-communist,anti-leftist candidate, rare qualities among GOP presidential candidates.

Dick Nome| 9.7.11 @ 11:38AM

Thank you for verifying your kook/ crackpot staus. You are a true Paulbot looney.

sirbourbon| 9.7.11 @ 7:07PM

Your last name Noome rhymes with looney.

John Giles| 9.7.11 @ 11:50AM

"We have to accept Big Government for the duration―for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged…except through the instrument of totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores."
-- Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.

Buckley was transparently willing to trade liberty for security. It is never an acceptable trade except for those with weak spines. Live free or die.

sirbourbon| 9.7.11 @ 7:18PM

Good find on that Buckle-ley quote.

We came to find out that Buckley was just hiding behind a facade of conservatism. He supported big government. He came to embrace pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage, both which violated his Catholic upbringing.
He travelled far from the guy he represented during his Yale days.

Because he did so much good early on in his career he was able to do much damage to the conservative movement later on in his career by diverting people to the BIG government formula.

http://www.amazon.com/William-.....1881919064

John Giles| 9.7.11 @ 12:05PM

Lord's fascination with Santorum as a potential foil for Paul is interesting in the sense that so few Republicans share it. It is time for Santorum to go home and fade from the scene. Why?

1. His Senate loss was not merely pathetic, it was the worst in Pennsylvania history.
2. He is going nowhere in national polls* and has zero chance of winning the IA Caucus or any primary.

*Rasmussen's latest poll still shows him at only 1% - http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....achmann_13

Santorum should be excluded from further debates.

Alternatively, it is fact that among the GOP candidates, Ron Paul is the most consistently competitive against Obama:

Perry 40% – Obama 43%
Bachman 39 – Obama 43%
Romney 38 – Obama 46%
... (Rasmussen Reports, August 24, 2011)

Paul 38% – Obama 39%
(Rasmussen Reports, August 23, 2011)

Paul 45% – Obama 47%
(Gallup, August 22, 2011)

Paul 37% – Obama 41%
(Rasmussen Reports, July 22, 2011)

Paul 45% – Obama 52%
(CNN, May 5, 2011)

Paul 41% – Obama 42%
(Rasmussen Reports, April 14, 2010)

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.7.11 @ 12:27PM

One,
of the greatest heroes in American history... was Jimmy Stewart...
...playing the part of the real hero...who flew the "Spirit of St. Louis" across the Atlantic ocean.

I have been a pilot of single engined planes for over forty years. The VERY FIRST THING I was taught in training was...ALWAYS BE LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO SET IT DOWN!

Yes, Charles Lindberg was a hero! A thousand times more guts than I ever had.
Nevertheless...

He was stupid...
and led millions of Americans into isolationism with his "America First" agenda.

If Hitler...or the Japanese...had been convinced that America would kick their asses... World War II would never have happened.... and the cold war would have never happened.

Duh...

Since 1918...America has been the GORILLA in the world.
You have a computer reading this as a result.
(are you reading this ?)

Obama is going to get a LOT of Americans killed... by wimping out.

ANY "Israel Firsters BITCHERS"...ANY ISRAEL FIRSTER BITCHERS ANYWHERE...are simply "America Firsters" just like Charles Lindburg.

...They will get hundreds of thousands of Americans DEAD with their Bull shet!

You read it here first.

While Obama is wimping out good Americans with a gubmint check.............. the "bad guys" of the world are laughing their asses off.

(buy some more bullets)
www.americaalonesaidno.com

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:37PM

Thank you, Ken.

irish19| 9.7.11 @ 7:45PM

However, IIRC (and if I'm wrong about this, please someone correct me), once the war started, Lindbergh was on board and actually flew missions in the Pacific (against orders). What he learned led to modifications on the P-38 that made it into an even better long-range fighter and escort. Lindbergh learned from his mistakes. 'Nuff said.

Oldefarte| 9.7.11 @ 12:53PM

[From the DC] : '......Trumka goes to the mattresses for Hoffa -- On Monday, a mere 8 months after the left's massive post-Tucson scolding campaign against anybody who so much as uttered the word "fight," America's second most cartoonishly thuggish union leader vowed to "go to war" and "take these sons of bitches out" who dare to disagree with him. Does Cartoon Union Goon #1 back him up? What do you think? TheDC's Matthew Boyle reports: "AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka refused to denounce the vitriolic rhetoric that his fellow union leader, Teamsters President James Hoffa, espoused in a speech on Monday. While warming up a Labor Day crowd in Detroit before a speech by President Obama, Hoffa said unions should fight a 'war' with tea partiers and congressional Republicans. 'President Obama, this is your army,' Hoffa declared. 'We are ready to march. Let's take these sons of bitches out and take America back to where we belong.' On CNN's 'Piers Morgan Tonight,' Trumka said he 'probably wouldn't have chose [sic] the adjectives [Hoffa] used' but that he supports the premise. 'I think Jim Hoffa's speaking for the anger that millions of Americans have,' Trumka said. 'These people [tea partiers and congressional Republicans] are playing political brinksmanship and not allowing us to create jobs and they're not willing to help us get the country moving. Some of them even announced that they want the president to fail.'" The bad people are mean! It's different when the bad people are mean. Then you can do and say whatever you want, and it's not the same as when they do bad stuff (like putting crosshairs on a map), because they made you do it. Call it the New New Civility. It'll last until the end of time, or until the Democrats think they can exploit another act of violence to try to shut up their opponents, whichever comes first......'

Rob A.| 9.7.11 @ 12:54PM

The foreign policy of Paul is that of Robert Taft circa the 1940's. You continue to try and smear Paul by calling his foreign policy leftist, however, the progressive foreign policy of Wilson, FDR, Truman & Johnson look a lot closer to George Bush than Ron Paul.

Neo-Conservatives or fake conservatives, are really disenfranchised liberals who parted with the progressive movement in response to the anti-war hippies coming to power. Since this group has infiltrated the Conservative movement and changed the direction of the Republican Party to match their national greatness progressive heritage.

Ronald Reagan believed in PEACE through strength. Emphasis on Peace. A strong national DEFENSE, emphasis on Defense. Neo-Cons today believe in strength through a strong national OFFENSE. Even when such a policy is contributing to a national bankruptcy, and ultimately making our defense much weaker.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 12:54PM

Ronald Reagan,
"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rob A.| 9.7.11 @ 1:01PM

The largest Database collected worldwide on suicide terrorism was collected by Robert Pape and CPOST (Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism). The book “Cutting the Fuse” was published in 2010 and provides credence to Dr. Paul’s argument, that occupation causes suicide terrorism.

Unfortunately the narrative most people in the USA agree with is that Islamic Fundamentalism is the root cause of Suicide terrorism. And why wouldn’t it be? Ever since 9/11 our government has told us, ‘They hate us for our freedoms’. In order to elevate the debate, and convince the people that this theory about the causes of suicide terrorism is false, Dr. Paul must provide empirical evidence in his response.

Below are key points from the book & Robert Pape’s conclusions, author of “Cutting the Fuse”.

I hope this finds you well.

Q: Do you believe America is to blame for 9/11

A: No, the American People are not to blame, neither are the men and women of the Armed forces. The blame is on the bad foreign policy. The theory since 9/11 has been that Islamic Radicals, Fundamentalists, and their hatred for American values have been the cause of suicide terrorism. Since 9/11 new data collected have proven this hypothesis completely false. The data suggests that the cause of suicide terrorism is Military Occupation (boots on the ground, armored division, air division, etc, and political control by a foreign entity) and not any religion or secular ideology. To prevent another 9/11 you have to prevent Anti-American suicide terrorism.

“In a narrow sense, America is safer today than on 9/11. There has not been another attack on the same scale. U.S. defenses regarding immigration controls, airport security, and the disruption of potentially devastating domestic plots have all improved.

But in a broader sense, America has become perilously unsafe. Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and their allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined. From 1980 to 2003, there were 343 suicide attacks around the world, and at most 10 percent were anti-American inspired. Since 2004, there have been more than 2,000, over 91 percent against U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries. “– Robert Pape

Here are the facts:

■Suicide terrorism is not a random violent event. Rather it is a coordinated military action in an effort to expel foreign occupying military forces
■70% of all deaths due to terrorism are caused by suicide terrorism, even though suicide terrorism only accounts for 3% of all terrorist attacks
■Occupation and not Islamic Fundamentalism causes suicide terrorism
■Religion is important, but not the cause of suicide terrorism, rather is serves as a method of recruitment by terrorist leaders.
■The modern phenomenon of suicide terrorism world-wide began in 1980.
■Over 95% of all suicide attacks since 1980 are in response to foreign occupation
■The more occupation, the more suicide terrorism
■Since 1980 there have been 2200 suicide terrorist attacks worldwide
■From 1980 – 2003 there were a total of 300 Suicide Terrorist attacks worldwide. An average of 3 per year in the 1980’s.
■Of those 300, only 10% were Anti-American in nature
■From 2004-2009 there have been 1800 Suicide attacks worldwide. An average of 300 per year since 2004.
■Of those 1800, 90% have been Anti-American in nature
■From 1980-2003 the world leader in suicide terrorism was the Tamil Tigers (a Hindu Group) and not an Islamic group.
■From 1980-2003 Islamic fundamentalist groups only accounted for 35% of all suicide terrorist attacks worldwide, with the other 65% coming from other secular groups.
■Most suicide terrorist attacks today, occur in 3 nations; Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Before the US invasion of Iraq, Iraqi’s never committed a suicide terrorist attack in its history.
■After the first Iraq war in 1991, America left tens of thousands of heavy combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula as a residual force, which became the chief rallying cry for Osama bin Laden’s terrorism against the United States and its allies.
■Ending occupation stops suicide terrorism without transforming Muslim countries
■Since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack on Israel. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90%.
■Empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism

Con Chef (NB)| 9.7.11 @ 1:07PM

'Since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack on Israel. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90%."

Where's THIS stat from? Hamas or Hezbollah? Or Iran? This is an outright LIE.

Rob A.| 9.7.11 @ 1:12PM

Its a matter of the record, and apart of the CPOST research. Look them up on the web and see for yourself. Or buy the book, Cutting the Fuse by Robert Pape.

http://cpost.uchicago.edu/about.php

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:39PM

So, the thousands of rockets---not terrorist attacks.

The Fence helped bring down the attacks. But the US has been suffering a greater number of attacks since Obama took over.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 6:04PM

UChicago--the same guys who employ Mearshimer and Walt?

Nick| 9.7.11 @ 7:09PM

Occam's Tool,

I was just about to bring up those same two points, the rocket attacks and the security fence!

Great minds think alike!
Shalom.

Rob A.| 9.8.11 @ 8:53PM

Guys, seriously. The Study is about SUICIDE TERRORISM. You know like 9/11. The kind that makes up 3% of all terrorist attacks, yet kills 70% of all terrorism victims. SUICIDE terrorism was chosen by Pape, because of its deadly nature, and its likened by the author to be the Lung Cancer of terrorism. Obviously rocket attacks do not count as suicide terrorism.

Nick| 9.8.11 @ 11:55PM

Rob A.,

It is a distinction without a difference. Terrorism is terrorism, no matter what tactic is used to employ it.

And, I can't speak for Occam's Tool, but, I was referring to the quote about Israel leaving Lebanon and Gaza, in Con Chef (NB)'s reply.

You can't chalk up the reduction in terrorist attacks to only the Israeli forces leaving the area. The fence has had a huge impact. That is why the Gazan Arabs have resorted to rocket attacks.

In that particular quote, you were arguing a cause and effect without acknowledging all the factors involved.

Nick| 9.9.11 @ 12:02AM

p.s. The reason suicide/kamikaze attacks are so successful is because a suicide bomber is the ultimate smart bomb. He has the abilities to evade defenses and reach the biggest target which no other smart weapon even comes close to acquiring.

Rob A.| 9.9.11 @ 10:37AM

No Sir, with all due respect there is a big difference between an insurgent firing a rocket into Israel, and an insurgent be willing to end his own life to take the life of several others. Pape makes this distinction in his book. And in fact its quite convincing. That being said I would highly suggest reading the book. It is the largest database in the world, ever collected on the matter of Suicide Terrorism. The data is quite robust, and Pape arguments are compelling. But if you havent read his work, its hard, here, for me to get anyone to understand the conclusions.

Rob A.| 9.9.11 @ 10:41AM

And furthermore Nick, I only reference Israel in my post. But the book gives several other examples over the past 30 years, around the world. Where once the military intervention ended, suicide terrorism ended. Happened all over, and not just in the middle east. But in Chechnya, with the Tamil Tigers, and every other major suicide terrorism campaign ever recorded.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 2:16PM

Rob A.

You are a "presumably" educated idiot. As near as I can tell you are trying to use statistics to the exclusion of all rational thought and history to discover why America and her ally Israel is to blame for the actions of islamic fanatics.

Let me cut to the chase moron. They do not like you, they want to kill you. Throughout the entire world they regularly kill their neighbors and fellow country men. This will really shock you, they even kill other muslims on a regular basis over the disparity in their Sunni/Shia religious beliefs.

In your effort to prove your point, the only point you prove is that muslims hate everyone and are blowing stuff up everywhere they reside. Their holy book tells them to kill or convert all infidels. They tell you they are waging Jihad on "you" all the time while blowing things up and cutting off heads and you still think it means something to do with some inner religious struggle or just those evil Joooo's.

Are you suggesting that if we pull out all our troops from foreign countries muslims would not hate us? Are we to also stop all immigration of muslims into America? Your policy of ignoring muslims is why we have the issues with them we have today. look at England idiot. What do you think is going to happen here? Do you think they are going to assimilate?

You and the other sudo-intellictuals will still be trying to figure out why American foreign policy is somehow responsible for the actions of suicide bombers and how we can appease them while they are drawing a line on your necks.

Rob A.| 9.7.11 @ 2:46PM

Wow, as you support your claims with zero facts it is quite hard to take your arguments seriously. I dont try to do anything. I am simply repeating one the conclusions of Robert Pape, a worldwide expert on suicide terrorism. Pape presented his findings to many in the Defense Dept at their request, so they obviously found the material credible. But hey what do they know, lets all listen to Boar Hunter, LMAO.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 3:25PM

Pape, thats a good name for him your still an idiot.

Rob A.| 9.7.11 @ 2:50PM

And Yes THE DATA suggests that if America changed its foreign policy, and removed military personel from the ME, that ANTI AMERICAN suicide terrorism would dramatically decline. Robert Pape does not believe that America should completely withdraw, but rather pursue the same policy toward the Middle East that America had in the 1980's. It is called Off-Shore Balancing. More info on this topic can be found in the book Cutting the Fuse. Or might I suggest reading this article by Pape

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a.....ion_stupid

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 3:28PM

How did that "Withdrawal" policy work our for the train riders in Madrid Spain?

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 3:56PM

Ohhh! Now I understand. Thanks for putting me straight with your empty headed sudo-intellual Ron Paul is my hero argument based on some liberal think tank wizards who try and pass off their tripe as wisdom.

I support my claims with "O" facts, really? So I falsely maligned and accused the religion of peace of killing people and blowing stuff up? They really can get along with others? They're not trying to impose their will on American soil?

While we respect the sovereign nature of their land they continue to invade our country and enforce their will. Did you forget they are trying to force us to put up a mosque at ground O? or wasn't that in your stats? Does the name Dearbornistan mean anything to you? You are too stupid to feed yourself. Get out your marker and draw a dotted line on your neck nit wit, cause when you get your way they will cut off your head and leave it buried in the sand. Incidentally, it will be American sand your head stays buried in after they cut off your head. Look at England 1980. Look at England today. Oh right sorry I have no facts.

While you and the rest of the dithering idiots whose position you support wring their hands and complain about American Policy the muslims are quite cheerfully taking over. It has nothing to do with us invading them. It never has and never will. They are fanatics who hate you and want you to die. Convert or be put to the sword. Are you really too stupid to comprehend what that means? Yeah sorry, I guess you are.

God| 9.7.11 @ 5:34PM

Boar Hunter,

You are a typical inbred, mindless, hopelessly idiotic piece of white trash who offers nothing remotely rational to the table. You're doing your own side a terrible disfavor by continuing to live.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 6:11PM

Boar~ You KNOW you're doing God's work when you bring out the "best" in them!

The coward calling him or herself "God" sounds more like His enemy to me.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 9:23PM

I was really not bothered by gaining his disfavor. I am only bothered by my less than gentlemanly response to it and that is only because you read this stuff.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 10:00PM

Dear sir, (BoarHunter),

You are a true gentleman, and your posts prove it. Your righteous anger, is to me, lovely.

So there! :^).
Fret not!

God| 9.7.11 @ 10:21PM

Absolutely disgusting. You made a statement which you immediately regretted thereafter all the while still trying to gain credit among your peers for it?

Stand by your words, lowly coward. The fact that you're incapable of independence and worthwhile action is bad enough. The fact that you're too afraid to stand by your own dominant masters with pride is even worse.

Margie| 9.8.11 @ 1:21AM

Hey punk:

You couldn't even begin to relate to what this decent man meant. You have no shame.
Go crawl back under the rock from Hell you crawled out from under.
If you really believe you will not have to pay for your every word here, you are sorely mistaken.
The God of the Bible despises you.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 9:18PM

Typical? I am far from typical, but you wouldn't know that, your mom probably never shared that part of her life with you.

On your first point, you know nothing of my parental heritage and on your last point, nothing of my current socio-economic status. The middle point concerns your random ejaculation of what you consider an insult and merely proves it is you who knows nothing son.

Given your Oedipus complex and rightful feelings of rejection by your surrogate father, I think your feelings of self loathing and inadequacy are understandable.

God| 9.7.11 @ 10:18PM

See, Boar, this is exactly the sort of thing that I'm talking about. You're such an unbelievable idiot that you don't even realize how much information you can garner from an individual based on a few posts that they make.

From what you've stated, we know that you're a moron, we know that you're a coward, and we know that you're a submissive little dependent shit who sustains himself by sucking on the cocks of his political party's patriarchs.

From your stupidity, we can all see that your socio-economic status is undoubtedly as low, trashy, and repulsive as possible. You are lower than the shit of a higher man's dog. As you are incapable of doing anything other than being a filthy shitstain on society's cloth, it is impossible that you have done anything worthwhile that the free market would make you wealthy for.

But there is more to the story, as the word "worthwhile" is a deliberate qualifier up there. Given your cowardice and your nature that causes you to submit so readily like an injured poodle to the first man to stand over you dominantly, you're likely a product of sick and detestable parental practices that had you hopping on your father's joy-stick at every unbuckling of his belt. The alternative is that you never had a father, and you were raised to be the lowly women that you are by a whore mother who failed to conquer your genetic predispositions and endow you through a stern upbringing with any masculine qualities. The latter is a likely alternative because, had you a father, he must have either raised you to be submissive for his own perverted ends or he would've killed you as well as himself out of shame of what resulted from his discipline. As it's possible that your submissive boyish nature has managed to arouse other males, and assured that you've perfected your abilities to sexually please another man by the time you were 10 years old thanks to the countless nights spent satisfying your father's pederastic needs, you may nonetheless have a notable level of income by selling yourself out to be abused and beaten like the piece of gutter trash you are. Even then, however, the size of your bank account could never change the fact that you are nothing more than a decayed afterbirth that slithered out of your mother's diseased cunt, continuing to rot on and make filthy the ground that you rest on.

All in all, Boar, I don't blame you for your nature. With total idiocy comes total inability, and with total inability comes total dependence, and with total dependence comes total submission. You're a cancer, but a cancer doesn't choose to be -- it just is.

Chadds Ford| 9.7.11 @ 11:53PM

Is this John Cleese?

Boar Hunter| 9.8.11 @ 12:10AM

Ha Ha you just wasted thirty minutes of your useless life.

God| 9.8.11 @ 12:41AM

lol, you tried to join the game but, after realizing you are tremendously outclassed, chose to forfeit entirely.

Pathetic, but enjoyable.

Margie| 9.8.11 @ 1:19AM

To the reprobate that posts using the Name of God:
Wow. What a coward.
Why don't you post using your real name, coward?
What a disgrace!
You are of your father, the Devil.

God| 9.8.11 @ 3:54PM

Oh my gosh, Margie! You sit back and ask the Lord to help you in your evil ways!!!

You coward!!! How dare you ask The Holy One to use his power and might to help you accomplish your sinful ends! Can't you make an effort on your own without making a perverted requested to the almighty?!! You are a coward!!!

And you know why?? Because you are of the devil!!! You are of lucifer!!! Lucifer offers you no strength at all, which is you are both an unbelievable idiot and a coward!!!

You are from hell, Margie. And to hell you will return!

Matthew Quigley| 9.7.11 @ 7:27PM

Explain how retreating or withdrawing before the mission is complete results in victory, and please also explain how displaying weakness will convince a barbaric enemy to NOT attack you anymore?

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 6:03PM

Successful suicide attacks are down since Israel established the fence; it is not due to withdrawal. MZK1, comments?

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 6:07PM

Furthermore, the majority of Islamic attacks are NOT suicide in nature.

Yes, Islam has been gearing up---population pressure. pape has served as advisor on foreign policy to Ron Paul AND Barack Obama. Nuff said.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 6:09PM

Ramadan 2011 Bombathon:

Ramadan Bombathon
2011 Jihad Attacks: 181

Countries: 16

Religions: 5

Dead Bodies: 787

Critically Injured: 1498

.

Pape GROTESQUELY underestimates the problem, and misdiagnoses the solution. If he had done more work in prisons, he would understand.

Rob A.| 9.8.11 @ 9:02PM

Working in the advisory capacity to Obama and Paul can now invalidate empirical evidence? Get real man. Its obvious that Papes advice was not taken at all by Obama, since he has simply doubled down on GWB's failed foreign policy.

And I have answered you question about why SUICIDE terrorism in a previous post. But I will summarize here; 1. its the deadliest form of terrorism. 2. thats why America is in the ME. to prevent another 9.11.

Con Chef (NB)| 9.7.11 @ 1:04PM

Why doesn't Ru Paul just start giving speeches on Stormfront? That's where he & most of his insipid supporters belong anyways.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 2:54PM

You called him Ru Paul!
Ban ye to the dungeon!
LOL.

Red Phillips| 9.7.11 @ 1:06PM

First of all, a correction of fact. Rothbard did not coin the term paleo-conservative. The origin of that term is variously attributed to either Thomas Flemming and/or Paul Gottfried, both non-interventionist and I DARE Lord or anyone else to question the conservative bona fides of either man. (For those who may be unaware of who these men are, plug Gottfried's name into Amazon and check out the Chronicles Magazine wedsite for Fleming.) The term was initially coined as a joke to distinguish them from neo-"conservatives," but it stuck.

Red Phillips| 9.7.11 @ 2:11PM

Oops ... Fleming should have 1 m.

Rob A.| 9.7.11 @ 1:10PM

Finally, when you look at Reagans economic record, with a critical eye, rather than some sick idolation, it is clear that Reagan failed to produce many conservative changes to government. Reagan increased the size of government, never got rid of the dept. of education or energy. Increased the unconstitutional war on drugs and poverty. Ran up massive deficits and spent money like a drunken sailor. How is this part of Reagans record beyond criticism? Conservatives today yearn for smaller government and less spending, in todays environment, Reagans record should be highly criticized.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 2:18PM

Wow your willful ignorance and stupidity knows no bounds.

Rob A.| 9.7.11 @ 2:56PM

Your right, Reagan didnt do any of the things I said in my post. You sure showed me, OH BOY! LMAO!!!!!

Matthew Quigley| 9.7.11 @ 7:32PM

The House spends the money, or don't you know that, O Great Constitutional Scholar? Also, the Democrats had control of the House during the forty years from 1955 until 1995, and thus, they set the spending agenda. Or were you also unaware of THAT as well? So please inform us how the President, who can't spend a red cent without House approval, who always turned in budgets with actual cuts which were declared "DOA" by the Democrats in the House, ran up said deficits and spent like said drunken sailor? I really WOULD like to know.

Educate me, you schmuck.

Rob A.| 9.8.11 @ 9:20PM

Did Reagan not have his veto pen? If he did, he certainly would have used it, if the Republican Senate and Dem House proposed an unbalanced budget right? Or maybe he woulda just signed it.

Rob A.| 9.8.11 @ 9:22PM

Oh and I am just positive you use the same arguments when defending Obama's spending right?

How about GWB?

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 1:11PM

Wow, I've never seen the neo-cons so desperate, they're absolutely terrified! They'll probably have to band together and use private money, and build private armies to continue their occupations and nation building, no longer in the name of the USA. Establishment tools like Lord, and Hannity will be like "hey, where are you going, take me with you, I'm one of you"! The neo-cons will just laugh, and find someone else to use.

Con Chef (NB)| 9.7.11 @ 1:21PM

From now on, when I see a Paulite use the word "neocon," I'm just gonna go ahead & assume they mean "Jews." That's what all their tripe sounds like. These folks need to go read their "Turner Diaries" & cook meth. Leave the rest of the big boy problems to realistic people, not isolationist liberal wannabes.

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 1:46PM

I'm just going to assume the neo-cons still think the anti semite angle is still working. These folks need to continue to use their male enhancement aids, along with their chicken hawk demagogue's instructions to help them all compensate. They've had a good run, but the party is almost over and they know it.

Con Chef (NB)| 9.7.11 @ 2:29PM

Yeah. Because y'all's hybrid chidish ideology is just gaining SOOO much traction. Get real.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 2:56PM

Hmm. Jeff sounds just like a Democrat! Go figure.

What's the difference between a Paul-bot and a Democrat?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 3:30PM

A hellofalot more than GOP RINO-CINO's & Democrats.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 6:15PM

Wrong!

Paul-bots have much more in common with Democrats.

Democrats are anti-war~ check.
Democrats are anti-Israel ~ check.
Democrats hate conservatives (pro-Israel ones)~ check.
Democrats hate Christians (Bible believing ones) ~ check.
Democrats want to legalize drugs~ check.

Anyone else??

RCV| 9.8.11 @ 4:15PM

Most Democrats are strong supporters of Israel, even the most liberal among them (Boxer, Waxman, Schumer, et al). Most Democrats oppose drug legalization - even in California, the initiative to legalize Marijuana lost convincingly.

Libertarians are entities unto themselves, and like left-Anarchists, they are very hard to place on any conventional political spectrum.

Matthew Quigley| 9.7.11 @ 7:41PM

"Chicken Hawk"? Desert Storm vet, as well as recalled for OEF and OIF. Air Force combat aircrew. Been shot at and missed.

What branch were YOU in? I notice you Ronulans like to talk a big game, as well as insult anyone who is a REAL Constitutional Conservative as being a "neocon," but when the rubber hits the road, you're all talk and damn little action. You also change the topic really fast...I DO stand by Israel, and for good reason: They have a free society and have been targeted for destruction by the same bastards who want to destroy us. I've fought that enemy, and it's a REAL enemy, who kills REAL Americans...not because "we're over there," but because we EXIST and are NOT willing to submit to them and their prehistoric moon god! So explain to me again why you can't actually address the issue...is it because, oh, THE REST OF US ARE RIGHT, AND YOU ARE ANTI-SEMITIC APPEASERS OF ISLAM?!

"Chicken Hawk"? Not on my Global War on Terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraqi Campaign medals! Like I said, what branch were YOU in?

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 9:26PM

Just as I suspected. Oh and thank you very much for your service.

Jonathan| 9.7.11 @ 1:21PM

The most telling thing about this article is that, rather than focus on how in the hell we're supposed to afford another war in Iran (or wherever the boogeyman of the moment is) with no set objectives and an indefinite timetable, while we're functionally bankrupt -- something Jeffrey Lord, Mark Levin and Limbaugh still won't address -- is that instead here's another hit piece where Lord information mines for questionable associations.

One is reminded of how the Tea Party was knocked off-balance and on the defensive when they came forward with thought-provoking, solid ideas. Who are the handlers of these pundits?

Rather than focus on the substance of Paul's message and its validity in this age of American financial destitution, and further indebtedness to China (brought on in part by this endless warring), Lords once again stirs the pot of name calling and finger-pointing. Does he raise some good questions? Yes, to be fair he does. Are they the questions we should be focusing on? Of course not, but they are what people want to hear -- the blame game, and not a focus on the issues.

How very Barry O.

If we continue chasing every shadow, Iranian or otherwise, the United States will wind up in the darkness of forgotten history. There is nothing special or unique about an expansionist police state empire. Ron Paul understands this, and I don't think the other candidates do.

And to fight the stereotypes: Ron Paul is absolutely not perfect. I don't worship the ground he walks on, but he is the only guy I see calling out both the hard left and right for their nonsense and rampant overspending. And they will flay him for it.

Adubs| 9.7.11 @ 1:40PM

Rothbard a Leftist?
Rothbard was an Anarchist
The best part about this Lord guy is that he'll call Paul a jew hater then talk about Rothbard( who came from a jewish family) being one of he's intellectual heros!
Mr. Lord, you are a sad person

Len| 9.7.11 @ 1:56PM

Not just Rothbard, but Mises as well, AND as a jew myself, I always find the anti-semitism attacks amusing for their stupidity.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 2:57PM

Hmm. What's the difference between an anarchist and a Leftist?

RCV| 9.7.11 @ 3:08PM

Most leftists tend to favor central government involvement and regulation to various degrees. Most anarchists deplore all centralized state power.

irish19| 9.7.11 @ 3:51PM

Most self-styled anarchists would last about two minutes if they actually got their wish.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 4:04PM

Sorry to disagree with you, but unfortunately they would remain hidden in their mommies house till the government they claim to hate came and made the bad men go away. Then they would spend the rest of their lives bragging about what never happened.

irish19| 9.7.11 @ 4:14PM

Keep in mind that we're postulating a total absence of government here.

RCV| 9.7.11 @ 4:07PM

no question about that

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 9:53PM

Know what I mean, RCV?

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 6:20PM

OK, RCV~ that's a difference, but the big thing they share is their hatred for anybody being "The Boss" but them!

And that's what makes them enemies of conservatism.
The Founding Fathers were so very wise in giving us the form of government we have had all this time.
Conservatives want to keep it that way!

RCV| 9.8.11 @ 4:12PM

Don't disagree with you Margie - Libertarians would have clearly opposed adoption of our wonderful Constitution for the very reasons you and I have identified: they oppose all centralized control of any kind, even the most beneficial and necessary.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:41PM

Dear Len,

familiarize yourself with the term Kapo. Then look in the mirror to see one.

Stefan Stackhouse| 9.7.11 @ 1:42PM

I was as opposed to Soviet Communism as anyone, and it did indeed need to be resisted. "Conservativism" means nothing at all if it doesn't mean trying to conserve your country from a dire existential threat.

That was then, however. The world has changed, the USSR is safely in the ash bin, and it is time to move on.

It is certainly conservative to advocate the conservation of one's nation by maintain a strong defense. Is it conservative, however, to advocate intervening in the affairs of every dusty backwater halfway around the world whose leadership we don't like - especially if such intervention is bound to result in a bankrupt and utterly ruined nation that is no longer capable of defending itself, or conserving anything at all?

Prudence is not a concept that is alien to conservativism. Some of us might think that it is actually the essence of it.

JimH| 9.7.11 @ 1:57PM

I do not consider myself a libertarian, though I am sympathetic to much of their aims. This is going back quite a way so memory can be faulty. In the early eighties there was a lot of discussion as to whether it was best to try to influence the Republican Party from the inside or to try to develop a viable Libertarian Party. I think the perception of Reagan among many libertarians was that he was the best that was going to come out of the mainstream parties. Many felt that his instincts were good but that he was held back by advisors with other agendas and the political realities of the Republican Party at the time. I have come to appreciate him far more now than I did then. I think there was a good deal of support among libertarians and the libertarian leaning right for SDI as it was recognized as a defensive weapon and a way out from Mutual Assured Destruction which was considered to be a thoroughly immoral policy. To a libertarian the primary, possibly only legitimate function of government was to defend the people. MAD abandoned that. On another point Conservatives were not the only ones to oppose Communism. There was a strong pro defense anti-communist wing in the Democratic Party. It was these that Reagan was able to attract when they felt disenfranchised by the parties move toward unilateral disarmament. In passing I do want to mention that back then I had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with Prof. Rothbard several times. My impression was that of a very intelligent man who was friendly and cordial though passionate in his beliefs. He never struck me as the raving loony portrayed by some.

Carol| 9.7.11 @ 2:16PM

I remember the days when I used to subscribe to the American Spectator -- and used to fall for this stuff hook, line, and sinker -- lol. I was so naive back then, it's embarassing....

aware| 9.7.11 @ 4:12PM

Me too! Subscriber for over 25 years. Now I know the remedy for the rise of the Leviathan State and the destruction of America will be more radical than conformist conservatism which is more concerned with running it. These take downs prove which side mainstream conservatism is on. Ruling Elite and Status Quo.

George| 9.7.11 @ 2:29PM

An alliance with conservatives and libertarians is impossible, says Russell Kirk? Yes he said that.

But at the end of his life he DID engage in the alliance between what were then called the paleo-conservatives and paleo-libertarians! Why don't you, sir, give full disclosure instead of trying to win points by some quotes?

Kirk was against libertarianism as a political philosophy, but was friends with many libertarians, including Lew Rockwell. Conservative Paul Gottfired writes of a friendly meeting with Rothbard and Kirk when Pat Buchanan was running for president against then President Bush. They agreed on all major political points of centralization and war, at that time.

By the way, Rothbard did not coin the term paleo-conservative, and he did NOT consider himself one. Thomas Fleming and Gottfried coined the term.

Would Russell Kirk call Ron Paul's views on foreign policy “lunacy”?

Yes or no?

Dan Mathewson| 9.7.11 @ 2:45PM

Paulican response to any criticism of Ron Paul; "yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap!"

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 2:58PM

Paulican. I like that. Sort of reminds me of a Pelican in a suit named Ron Paul.

Dan Mathewson| 9.7.11 @ 4:53PM

I forget where I saw Paulican used in reference to Paul supportors, but the writer borrowed the name from the paulicians. Linked here: http://www.catholicreference.n.....m?id=35475

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 6:26PM

Scary stuff, Dan. It's what happens when one decides to stray from the true gospel of Jesus Christ!

It is always, though, (as to the 'why' they do it) for an excuse to sin.

Dan| 9.7.11 @ 11:50PM

Judging from your past comments, it is you who knows nothing of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If you disagree with Paul that's fine, but the way you trash the man personally is sickening.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 11:53PM

Dan,

Which Paul are you speaking of, please?
My Apostle Paul, or yours. Ron Paul?
LOL.

dan| 9.8.11 @ 12:19AM

I'm talking about the Ron Paul who provided free medical care to patients who could not afford it. I'm talking about the Ron Paul who counseled pregnant women into choosing life over death (abortion). I'm talking about the man who brought over 4000 precious babies into this world. I'm talking about Ron Paul, the man who lives his Christian faith rather than just paying it lip-service.

Margie| 9.8.11 @ 1:15AM

Well, good for him. While all our righteous deeds are as filthy rags before God, that will not save him.

Ron Paul is a man who pities terrorists and blames America for their murderous behavior.

I have said it before, unless he repents of his warped thinking, I have no problem "trashing" him.

Dan| 9.8.11 @ 3:27PM

"Ron Paul is a man who pities terrorists and blames America for their murderous behavior." Why do you bear false witness, Margie? You know this is a lie. Dr. Paul correctly points out that our foreign policy decisions have what our own CIA calls "blowback". This is what he was referring to. He was not blaming the American people and YOU know that. Would you like a foreign govt setting up a military base in your home state, Margie? I bet you wouldn't, yet you expect all others to bow down and worship anything the U.S. government decides to do without thought for the sovereignty of other nations. Hypocritical.

Dan Mathewson| 9.8.11 @ 5:32PM

yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap.

Down, dammit!

Margie| 9.8.11 @ 6:20PM

I heard him say it myself, and so did all of America. He said it on t.v. "The terrorists are that way because of us!"

And he actually believes it.

I bow to no one except God.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:50PM

"Nothing Profound Comes in Paulican Size, and Nothing so Small can be Serious..." (with apologies to Sandra Boynton and Five for Fighting and the song Penguin's Lament)

God| 9.7.11 @ 5:36PM

Sadly, this sort of thing is the cream of the crop as far as neo-con arguments go.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:59PM

Wars are caused by population pressure. The Europeans are aging and dying off, the Islamists are growing. The Islamists fight in WWII Japanese style. There were only 100 million Japanese. There are 1.6 Billion Islamists, and growing.

They are younger than the West, and have more kids that the West. How will the West survive? Why will 20 year old Islamists allow 60 year old Secular Germans that they despise to retire in peace?

Why will a show of weakness and retreat discourage them? Paul has NEVER addressed that to my satisfaction. His views are simplistic and contrary to common sense and studies of psychopaths. His specialty lies in "birthing babies." Mine lies in keeping people from killing others or jumping off of buildings.

I do not respect Ron Paul. There is a reason he is usually in the overwhelming minority.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 6:00PM

It took two nukes and the firebombing of every major Japanese city except Kyoto (and the 2 nuked cities) to get the Japanese to quit.

CalMark| 9.7.11 @ 7:18PM

Exactly.

The scary thing is, the Japanese were finished, and they knew it. They kept on fighting for the glory of the Emperor, their "god on Earth." For whose glory, incidentally, the Japanese were planning kiddie suicide waves against American soldiers.

Sound familiar? It should. As Occam said, the Jihadists fight like the Japanese.

RCV| 9.8.11 @ 4:09PM

OC, I agree fully. And I'm glad we were able to spare Kyoto - what a lovely city.

CalMark| 9.7.11 @ 2:48PM

Regardless of all the Paul-bot spin, one thing they can't hide from, and the record shows it: Ron Paul is nothing but hot air.

For years, he's been screaming about the Fed, with more than a little justification. Now he's a powerful committee chairman who could run hearings on the Fed, really make them squirm. And so he girds for battle and...er...retires.

All talk, no action: Ron Paul.

aware| 9.7.11 @ 3:28PM

While not a Paul supporter yet, I have to say that Lord is indeed pathetic. A former low level petty bureaucrat doing his best to smear Murray Rothbard with the same " Antisemitism" brush. Rothbard was Jewish, you do know this right? A page right out of Rev. Jackson's book, when you don't have a case and are seriously outclassed in intellect scream racism. It is Rothbard's frontal assault on the State itself that always strikes a statist, like Lord, as "crazy".

So let's see, personal attacks, charges of racism, innuendo, name calling, and emotionalism. And the difference between Lord's "conservatism" and leftism was what again? Now I'm sure you will fall back on the usual refuge of a scoundrel, faux patriotism. We have never, and never will, get limited government with this kind of "conservatism".

Additional proof that what passes for modern conservatism is shallow, vapid, and intellectually bankrupt. After you've succeeded in alienating the growing list Paul supporters how are you going to win in the general election? Moderates?

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:51PM

Well, it's Paul who pals around with StormFronters.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 6:32PM

Just because one is Jewish, doesn't mean they can't be anti-semitic. Don't they call them self-hating Jews and/or Liberal Jews?
And there are many who call themselves Christian who hate Bible believing Christians. These are your lukewarm Liberal Christians, who preach a different gospel.

Both are liars and believers of lies, and must portray the honest conservatives as horrors.

Thankfully, the true God is the Judge, and liars will be damned for eternity.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 9:28PM

Careful Margie, your starting to sound too much like me.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 9:53PM

Well, it's truly good to know I'm not alone.
Though I really already knew that. :^).
I wish more Bible believing Christians would post here.

aware| 9.8.11 @ 6:08AM

Neither you nor Dr Occam refute my charge that the tactics used are exactly what the Left uses. No depth, sophomoric name calling, and Lord trying to make the Specter supporter and obvious loser Santorum into something he will never be, someone who has a clue.

Lord is a statist through and through. And so is most of the GOP field, even though many are trying to sound like they are not.

4 years ago you didn't see any Paul support here but now its about 50/50. This is because his message is resonating in spite of The Powers That Be and their character assassination henchmen(Lord).

There is a showdown coming and the lines are being drawn. Liberty or the Savior State. One is God given and the other is a devious creation of wicked men hell bent for power and wealth, who wish to reorder creation along lines they think superior. One will last forever and the other is careening to bankruptcy and catastrophe that nothing can prevent, not even "elections". One says you are free with inalienable rights and the other says you are helpless and dependent on it. One trusts free men and the other tells you to fear free men.

Now whether you like Paul or not, there is denying he is the only one running that sends the Titans of Groupthink and the Ruling Elite into conniption fits. You can denigrate him but TPTB are truly worried and it shows in articles like this.

Margie| 9.8.11 @ 6:16PM

I have yet to see reasoning on the part of a Paul supporter.

Oldefarte| 9.7.11 @ 3:35PM

It's simply amazing to me that you people here have the time on your hands to expansively disect the history of this situation [although many of you are obviously extremely knowledgable on this subject's history]. In consideration of Jeffrey Lord's excellent editorial, I'd advise that the point is whether or not Paul should be considered for voting purposes for the Republican nomination for president based upon his apparent historical viewpoint [do you want him as your next president?]. Granted the idea of our foreign intervention is questionable based upon recent history/events possibly, with the cost of same tremendously adding to our current defecit/debt in unsustainable amounts. The issue should be is this middle eastern situation in our national interests critically necessary cost/expense wise, and I tend to think NO. The only critical element there is their supply of oil which is vital to our economic/financial survival as a country, but same could be negated through our unleaching the domestic oil drilling capabilities within our own country. The foreign issue of our ally Israel could be possibly solved by totally untetering them by allowing the unlimited use of their military/missle might on their neighboring enemies [and totally backing them through treaty-agreement over same]. A further issue with Paul and his semi-erratic appearing political supporters is whether or not they are loyolly within the Republican Party or are they using same for their own third party type movement in order to gain political traction. This appears to me to be the case/situation. Paul's supporters here [if leget?] are arrogant and obnoxious, and instead of presenting a political viewpoint, seem more intent upon insulting everyone and conversely attempting to somehow influence those not in agreement with them to become Paul followers/supporters also [which is STUPIDLY insane]. Alternatively, I've recently contemplated the possibility of their being instead LIBERAL DEMOCRAT operatives working out of the US Justice Dept [as has been reported upon numerously by the press] and invading/blogging within conservative web sites in order to politically counter-argue Obama's/Democrats' viewpoints. More and more I'm coming to the conclusion that this is true or close to same. The 2010 elections and those of 2012 more importantly will come down to Obama/Democrats against the Republican candidates for president and congress. The crutial point is in which direction does this country go, continuing along the path initiated on 11/4/08 or conversely that of 11/4/10? Do YOU individually want this country to become more liberalized/socialized [which has been occurring for the last 50 years plus, or to alternatively become truely conservative and to begin a completely new path [from many fronts]? That is the only question, not the historical aspects of Paul and his movement versus Reagan/Buckley etc], and your answer will IMHO determine wheteher or not this country survives/prospers as a nation or not. Do you want it to continue this economic/financial downslide into a Cubaish existence via Obamaism, where everone works for the state/government and is politically beholden to same? Therfore, the only question becomes will you vote for Democrats [the liberal-socialists and possibly Paulists] or Republicans [capitalists]? My hope and prayer is that you intelligently choose that latter!!!!!!!

T13`| 9.7.11 @ 3:57PM

I can't say I even care if Paul gets elected or not. I like that he has moved the Republican party further towards being the Republican part at a time when all we have is creatures like Romney, Perry , Santorum etc. etc., who say one thing but have acted in a totally opposite manor. Under the microscope they look like Democrats not Republicans.

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 4:15PM

Are you trying to undo all the hard work everyone here has done, to paint Paul supporters as anti semite democrats?

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 6:35PM

I'll take the guys you call creatures, any day.
when Ron Paul wakes up to reality and quits pitying terrorists and blaming America for their actions, I'll consider something he has to say.

If he ever repents.

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 6:54PM

Every 5'6" guy who drives a Chevy Suburban, has a boy crush on Sean Hannity, never served in the military, and collects war memorabilia, wants to marry you Margie.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 7:22PM

Oh look! It's Mr. Know-it-all!
You're just another two-bit punk that has nothing but the garbage traits of your Cult leader.
There are lots of them in the World today.
You are of the two-year old in the 40-something year old's body variety, perhaps?

Matthew Quigley| 9.7.11 @ 7:48PM

What branch were YOU in, Jeffy?

USAF: Desert Storm, OEF, OIF. I'm 6', drive a pickup and can't stand Sean Hannity. The only "war memorabilia" I have is my own.

Watch your mouth, jerk.

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 8:08PM

I'm a green beret, navy seal, and in the coast guard reserves.

I'm 7'6" drive a Hummer and love Hannity, and I own a sherman tank.

Keep talkin

Matthew Quigley| 9.7.11 @ 8:13PM

I was right. Typical hot-air teenager.

Go back to sleep, Jeffy. The grownups are talking.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 9:41PM

Wouldn't you just love to see the expression on their faces if they ever magically and unexpectedly came in contact with the real live person on the other side of one of their useless tirades?

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 8:26PM

I don't know why you can't stand Sean Hannity, but God bless you, sir.

Matthew Quigley| 9.7.11 @ 8:47PM

Margie,

I can't stand him because he's usually so nice to the libs, Paulbots and other delusional non-conservatives who call his show. I'm more of a Levin fan :-D

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 9:22PM

Ah, well. Different personalities you know. Sean's a good guy. We all yell at our radios sometimes for what WE would say to a guest, but hey, it's their show, right?
LOL.
But seriously, I think Sean takes his cue from Rush. Rush puts Liberals on first. He'll entertain Liberals, and then pull the rug out from under them. Sean's the same way. One thing I've always heard him say, is given enough time, I'll find out exactly who you are. In other words, he puts them on display. His whole thing is~ letting them talk so WE can see what they are. And enough rope to hang themselves if that may be the case, too.

I also REALLY appreciate and love Mark Levin, too. He is absolutely awesome. Being a horribly MEAN person myself, (according to some), I appreciate MEAN-NESS.

That is~ straight shooting truth in your face style.
There's no other way. It's war!!

In all seriousness, Mark is not mean, he is in love with reality, and speaks it.

I will always love Rush the best though.. he's my FAVE. For reasons that I posted recently.. God used him in my life, and he doesn't even know it!

All of these men are magnificent gems.
God bless them.

dan| 9.7.11 @ 11:57PM

Is this the same "Rush" that has been divorced three times and is now married to his fourth "wife" a woman half his age? Is it the same "Rush" that bashed those with drug problems, showing no compassion, all while secretly stuffing his face with synthetic heroin?

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 9:35PM

Not to jump on that band wagon, but I am no Hannity fan either. He allows Obama supporters way too much air time. Mark Levin is my hero. I feel like Hannity and his type are way too accommodating to the other side. Anyone who could be in Alan Coombs presence without doing him serious bodily harm is not my go-to guy.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 11:18PM

"Anyone who could be in Alan Coombs presence without doing him serious bodily harm is not my go-to guy."

LOL. BUT! Sean DID get his own show by so doing, didn't he?? What is the saying abot he who endures?
:^).

I will always love Sean. I used to call him frequently when he came up to broadcast on radio in NYC. He used to call me the Iconoclast, affectionately, of course.
He's a Patriot.
Each has his own favorites, no argument there, sir.
God bless.

john dubose| 9.7.11 @ 4:27PM

Non-intervention is NOT the same thing as the pacifism of the left. This article plays on fear. The fear that if we fail to bomb the **** out of potential bad guys they will surely get us. Ron Paul does not think that simplistic approach is in the best long term interest of the country.

The question is deep and subtle. A hit piece like this does not help with that discussion.

garth| 9.7.11 @ 5:11PM

Well said John,
This article is best described as un-professional. The American Spectator and Lord usually hold themselves to higher standards. I will vote for the "conservative " nominee, but this kind of language, and school yard banter is disappointing coming from, once I once thought, objective seekers of truth.
Mr. Lord has become unhinged, and his objectivity lost.
LETS GO TO WAR JEFFREY SPLIT THIS COUNTRY IN HALF, AND NOT HAVE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. This sounds psychotic because it is.

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:52PM

Sometimes, John, it is that simple. Paul has a great potential to be our Chamberlain. The result of Chamberlain's poor judgment? The destruction of the British Empire and 50 million dead.

CalMark| 9.7.11 @ 7:37PM

...not to mention the postwar enslavement of Eastern Europe as a "reward" to Stalin for condescending to be our ally against the Germans.

The funny/scary thing is that Chamberlain remained highly respected among the British political class, with a quiet but prominent position in the councils of the Churchill government.

john dubose| 9.8.11 @ 12:28PM

Chamberlin was a left wing pacifist not a practical, stand up quitely for our interest conservative/libertarian in the mold of Thomas Jefferson. ( who by the way sent our navy across the Atlantic to look after our interest ). Jefferson would have confronted Hitler early with an adequate military in the background. And perhaps he would have avoided WW2.

Greg| 9.7.11 @ 5:08PM

As neither a "Paul bot" nor an historian, I have greatly enjoyed the two articles I've read by Mr. Lord discussing Ron Paul's conservative lineage.

I think it a moot point as to whether or not Ron Paul is or is not the "purest" reflection of the roots of American conservatism. The question is what do we stand for now. What should we do now?

Debating our role in the world and government's role in our lives is healthy. We should do it often. The historical context of various points of view is helpful, especially concerning threats (or perceived threats) to national security and our liberty. Thank you, Jeffery Lord, for your contribution.

garth| 9.7.11 @ 5:14PM

Greg, I agree with you, but how did Mr. Lord contribute to the discussion of the governments role or the thought processes of going to war? He's turned a dead serious discussion into a 5th grade fight.

God| 9.7.11 @ 5:27PM

Lord's entire tactic, as is often employed by a desperate and failing man, and as is also often a beaten man's only remaining mechanism of attack, is to appeal to his audience and his supporters by manipulating their emotions rather than by offering a rational and intellectually sound argument.

Rather than discussing the issues on a philosophical and intellectual level, Lord's instead chooses to appeal to his audience's bipartisan emotional attachments to arbitrary authority figures. He is taking advantage of his neo-con supporters by way of appealing to their submission to their patriarchs.

Lord's and his followers cannot fight on a battleground where ideas and logic are the only weapons. He employs the tactic of whining and screaming infants, as he has nothing more he can offer.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 6:38PM

"Lord's entire tactic, as is often employed by a desperate and failing man,"

Wow! For someone who usues God's Name to post~ you sure don't see straight!!

Desperate and failing?
LOL!

God| 9.7.11 @ 6:46PM

Meaningless, angry, emotionally-driven reply void of any semblance of rational thought, Margie.

Collect yourself and try again.

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 6:58PM

Give her a break God, Margie dances around with rattle snakes for you, every Sunday morning.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 7:10PM

Oh, I know that's what you think!
Thankfully, you aren't my God!

p.s. Your post was nothing but lies and delusion. But.. we won't go there. LOL!

Red Phillips| 9.7.11 @ 5:32PM

It should be noted that the allegation that Rothbard applauded Khrushchev is MUCH disputed.

"He loved Khrushchev and was objectively pro-communist. This accusation circulated in the 1960s and resurfaced in Bill Buckley's bitter and malevolent obituary of his old nemesis. "Rothbard physically applauded Khrushchev in his limousine as it passed by on the street," wrote Buckley. Nonsense. What was at issue was Rothbard's refusal to join the ridiculous National Review campaign to whip up a protest against Khrushchev's visit to the US (taken, we now know, over the vociferous objections of hard-liners in the Kremlin). Raimondo quotes Rothbard noting that Buckley and Co. are always eager to extend their hand to any other "Bloody Butcher" in the world, including "Winston Churchill, Bloody Butcher of the refugees of Dresden, and countless others." Rothbard refused to join Buckley's call for "a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores" to fight the Cold War, and for that, Buckley never forgave him."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roc.....enemy.html

RCV| 9.7.11 @ 6:00PM

I always liked reading Murray Rothbard, as utterly impractical and unrealistic his ideas might be. But I'll tell you this: equating Winston Churchill with that hack, Nikita Krushchev, is embematic of the utter inability of most Libertarians to understand reality.

RCV| 9.7.11 @ 6:00PM

"emblematic" -- sorry for my miserable spelling and proofreading.

God| 9.7.11 @ 6:50PM

Your spelling isn't the issue, RCV. Your stupidity and inability to comprehend the most basic of arguments (including your own) greatly outshines your inability to spell properly.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 7:11PM

The only think you liars are good at (besides lying), is putting together haughty intellectual sentences to encase the lies.

And that you do superbly!
LOL!

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 7:16PM

Thing not think.

RCV| 9.8.11 @ 4:05PM

God is most assuredly NOT a Libertain.

RCV| 9.8.11 @ 4:06PM

...or a Libertarian. I told you my spelling and proofreading were bad!

Nick| 9.7.11 @ 7:31PM

Mr. Phillips,

"Winston Churchill, Bloody Butcher of the refugees of Dresden, and countless others."

More commie agitprop.

There were good arguments, both for and against the bombing of Dresden.

The British were trying to cut-off the German retreat, from the Soviets, through Dresden. Which was a major railroad hub, as well as a communication hub.

It was the anti-war Useful Idiot, Kurt Vonnegut, who popularized the fiction that the Allies only bombed Dresden to avenge the Blitz, or, to kill as many civilians as they could. This is ridiculous.

Jeffrey Lord| 9.7.11 @ 11:58PM

Red...

Hmmmm. So we hate Winston Churchill, do we? Gee...are you sure your real name isn't Barack Obama...the man who sent back a Churchill bust to the Brits?

I'm disappointed.

anti-state| 9.7.11 @ 5:37PM

Really isn't worthwhile debating the sociopathic, warmongering, economically ignorant statists....

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.7.11 @ 5:49PM

Ron Paul.................
believes you should shoot...only after you are shot. (wounded).
Like it or not, America IS the policeman of the world.
Paulbots just cannot accept that.

I must ask one question; who SHOULD be the policeman of the world?
Iran?
China?
Russia?
Somalia?
North Korea?
Who?
We spend a lot of local dollars for a local police force.
Personally, I aways go armed. My local police force always gets to the "crime-scene" too late.

Nevertheless, their presence "suppresses" crime and gives me the opportunity to go "one on one" with a scumbag. (For 66 years, I have survived the scumbags...one on one)

To every policeman on the beat...thank you.
To every soldier on the beat...thank you.

To every Paul-bot.....thank God you are merely the lunatic fringe.

RCV| 9.7.11 @ 5:57PM

I vote for the US. Australia would be my second choice, unless it's a sunny day with surf up, in which case nobody would show.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 6:23PM

To Kenny: Your Straitjacket Is Ready.

Rob A.| 9.7.11 @ 7:00PM

"Ron Paul.................believes you should shoot...only after you are shot. (wounded)."

This is not true at all, and a gross misrepresentation of Pauls foreign Policy.
Paul believe that America should only shoot, when there is IMMINENT DANGER to the American People, or the American People have declared war through Congress.

Paul does not believe, as Neo-Conservatives do, that you should just use agressive force. To parlay into your example, Paul believes that you shouldnt walk around shooting people.

CalMark| 9.7.11 @ 7:40PM

Uh-huh. Whatever. Incoherence alert!

And the sad thing is, Ron Paul's ideas are infinitely muddier than the incoherent mess his follower makes above trying to explain his hero's irrational, moving-target "foreign policy."

Occam's Tool| 9.7.11 @ 5:54PM

Hey, when we can find our own USA to dump the load off to, I'm all for it.

But there is no one decent to pick up the load.

ron_paolo| 9.7.11 @ 6:06PM

You know, the most telling indication that America's Statesman, Ron Paul, will be the next POTUS occurred when he became the 800-lb gorilla and elephant in the room. In other words the world awes him.
Therefore to humanity-haters, please ramp-up the ad hominem attacks and propagandistic omissions. It's free endorsement and perhaps miraculous

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 6:43PM

The World awes him?
Then I feel sorry for the World.
Just kidding~ I pity them, but if you choose to follow a Blame America Firster to the abyss, don't say you weren't warned.

God| 9.7.11 @ 6:48PM

Margie, you are passionate in your stupidity. In what circumstances are you under the impression that such a perverted mixture has any value?

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 7:15PM

What you call stupid is actually wisdom.. you wouldn't understand.
You are the blind leading the blind straight to Hell. (That IS where the God of the Bible says that liars go, unless they repent).
I hope you do repent, as I said above, I pity those who refuse to, since that path to Hell is so very unnecessary.

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 7:42PM

Margie,
What are part of the country are you from? West Virginia or Kentucky?

Do any of your 9 children have the name Skylar, or Destiny, Shilo, or Cheyenne?

Do you regularly hear voices?

Do you have a mullet, or similar 70s feathered hairstyle?

Just curious.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 8:33PM

Born in upstate NY, grew up in NJ and NY. How about you, punk?
Is it a matter of where you live and hairstyle for you, punk?
Got beautiful long hair, darlin', which I refuse to cut or dye when it goes gray. I'm a proud American who loves my country unlike the two-bit freak that you are.
Now, give us a history of your own self, punk.
Let's hear it.

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 9:09PM

Born in Virginia, lived in Water Town, Long Island, and Cleveland, a self proclaimed Army brat.

You just seemed like uneducated, semi retarded trailer trash, just thought I'd ask, and have some fun at the same time.

Love my country just like the 3 generations of veterans that came up before me.

Don't worry about my history, you obviously need to study some American and world history!

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 9:40PM

We're not that far from Cleveland now, just bought a house.
And just what is trailer trash to you?
Someone who speaks the Words of God as written in the Bible? Is that what makes me and others like me, "semi-retarded?"
Perhaps you would like to throw us to the lions, or label us a heretics, or just what would you like to do with us Bible believing, gun toting, bitter clingers?

Jeff, you just aren't used to hearing God's truth, are you? I'll give you a break, here.

You see, I've been a Bible believing Christian for 36 years. I understand that every single soul is truly lost until they come to God.
And lying is serious to Him. You may not be aware of it, but He really hates lying, and says He is going to throw those who practice falsehood into Hell.

You may think it silly, or retarded, but that's because you aren't used to hearing it, are you? Do you believe in God, Jeff?

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 9:55PM

I pray to God everyday and every night, my faith in God comes before everything. I just don't choose to preach fire and brimstone like some kind kind of nut job, telling people to repent every other sentence. Your giving off a vibe like the mother in the movie Carrie.

When you put together your politics and how you feel threatened by Ron Paul, it reminds me of wood paneling, and velvet paintings of Jesus.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 10:24PM

Wood panelling & velvet painting of Jesus~ LOL!
OK~ that IS funny there, Jeff. I remember those.
No, I don't have even a picture of Him. He lives inside of me.
I'm glad you pray every night.
And I don't actually preach fire & brimstone after every post. You ARE exaggerating just a bit there. It's every OTHER post that I do that. LOL.

Jeff,
I get angry at things, do you? I get angry at falsehood. Ron Paul says some things that are true, but so does the Devil. I'm not saying he's the Devil, of course he isn't but he says some good things and then he destroys it because of how he thinks about other things, namely foreign policy.

I truly think it's sad how he believes. I have heard him and listened to him, and he just is all wrong in how he views America, as an "Aggressor", and his whole non-interventionist mind-set.

You remind me (oh, and BTW~ I'm not threatened by R. Paul), of my old friends from the early 70's who used to believe that dope smoking should be legal, the cops were "pigs", Richard Nixon was a "crook", and the Armed forces were full of "Barbarians", who shouldn't be allowed to fight wars.

Someone who has a plastic purple peace sign hanging from a string in his room, along with incense burners and black lights and Day-Glo posters of Jimi Hendrix hanging on his walls.
But you may be much too young.. I don't know.

Don't get me wrong~ Hendrix was the greatest guitarist that ever lived. But look what happened to him because of the way he thought. Hey, Ron Paul thinks drugs should be legal. I wonder. if Hendrix could have bought his dope legally, would he still be dead? Of course he would.

Nowadays, it'd be Day-Glo posters of Che Guevera and Hillary Clinton. LOL. Well maybe not Hillary, but definitely Ron Paul.

If you're a genuine person of faith, it better be in the real person of Jesus Christ~ the one in the Bible, not the one of your own thoughts.

Are you familiar with that verse where God says that our thoughts aren't His thoughts? Is. 55:8.
THAT is amazing, isn't it? What do you think that means?

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 11:01PM

It means you have a neurological disorder, and you are the poster child of the dangers of demagoguery from the pulpit and the media.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 11:13PM

LOL.
I'll pray for you anyway, Jeff.
God does work in mysterious ways.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 6:52PM

There It Is.

These Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firsters Wanna Use Our American Warriors For Cannon Fodder To Forcefeed Democracy Around The Globe & Police The World.

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 7:03PM

Calm down Clint, these are all enlisted patriots your talking about. They have such strong beliefs and convictions, that they're over there fighting for us right now. You have to give them credit for taking the time to blog, while they're dodging land mines, and rocket attacks.

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 7:30PM

And most of these patriots and soldiers are donating to the Santorum, Perry, Romney, and Bachmann campaigns. After all they would know who has the country's best interests at heart, they're the ones fighting the fight.

Drunken Sailor| 9.7.11 @ 7:32PM

Your projecting Jeff. Many of the commenters on her have served, or are serving, have been in the shit and still don't like Ron Paul. Ron Paul's idea of defense is get attacked first then respond. Pearl Harbor did not teach him a damn thing.

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 7:47PM

Oh, you mean whaen President Roosevelt imposed an oil embargo on Japan.

Mike Hawk| 9.7.11 @ 8:18PM

Do I detect a bit of the Paulbot AntiSemitism here. HMMM.

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 8:47PM

Because we all know Roosevelt was Jewish, right Mike?

Rob A.| 9.7.11 @ 7:27PM

Here is audio-visual near-proof of a crucial difference between Paul '12 and the rEVOLution of '08: This time the libertarian Republican is in it to win it. The production values are upper tier, the choice to attack Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicates a candidate trying to elbow his way past other grassroots-pleasing types, and the Reagan-good, Gore-bad message of bedrock conservative principle is plainly tuned to tickle the ears of mainstream Republicans.

But there's a fascinating gap in the ad's chronology, one that is a good deal more complex than the choice at the commercial's end between "Al Gore's Texas cheerleader, or the one who stood with Reagan." Ron Paul, like many small-l libertarians, was indeed an early and enthusiastic supporter of Ronald Reagan's presidential ambitions...in 1976. By 1988, when Rick Perry was still a Democrat who supported and endorsed the-then Blue Doggish Al Gore, the initial libertarian enthusiasm for "Reagan's message of smaller government and lower taxes" had disintegrated into acute alienation over the Great Communicator's tangible record of growing government, debt, and foreign entanglements.

Rick Perry and his supporters this week are firing back at Paul's Reagan-repudiating record, quoting from his 1987 resignation letter from the Republican Party and other comments from Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party run for president. These gotcha attempts actually bolster Paul's credentials as a limited-government conservative, and highlight an important libertarian critique of Reagan (and by extension, the modern GOP) that has mostly been washed away by decades of Republican nostalgia for The Gipper.

Paul's '87 resignation letter lays out the bill of particulars:

In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan's program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.

Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together?...

Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.

All Republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats....

[B]ig government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.

Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan's foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, and Carter's put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.

There's plenty more in there about inflationary monetary policy, the drug war, arms-for-hostages, insufficient tax reform, failing to abolish the Selective Service and various federal departments, and so on. Conclusion? "There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years."

As the GOP presidential candidates prepare for their quadrennial pilgrimage to the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, the Paul/Perry fight over Reagan's legacy is certain to come up in the debate. It would be an excellent occasion to revive two underappreciated points: That Ronald Reagan in the mid-1970s really was a rhetorical "radical for capitalism" (at least by the heavily debased standards of mainstream American politics), and that his presidential record was considerably less impressive than advertised on restraining the growth of government.

For evidence of the former, look no further than Reason's classic interview with Reagan in July 1975. His ideas about libertarianism were a mixed bag to be sure, but, well, here's how he answered the first question:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals—if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

After years of talking about the virtues of capitalism and freedom versus the drawbacks of socialism and tyranny (plus a less-inspiring stint as California governor), Reagan emerged in post-Watergate America as a kind of renewed link to the limited-government standard-bearing of Barry Goldwater. Ron Paul isn't exaggerating at all when he talks about the enthusiasm with which he endorsed Reagan in 1976; his now-Senator son Rand has described the 1976 GOP convention as "perhaps my best education concerning the rough-and-tumble world of politics." Rand was 13, and the memory still burns:

Perhaps ironically, every Republican likes to claim the mantle of Reagan these days, sometimes out of genuine admiration, other times, pure politics. I'll always remember that much like my father today, Reagan in 1976 was considered by many establishment types to be outside the "mainstream" of the Republican Party, as evidenced by not only Ford's people but later in 1980 when presidential candidate George H.W. Bush would describe Reagan's tax-cutting proposals as "voodoo economics." Today, media pundits like to ask whether there would be a place for Reagan in the "extreme" Tea Party, bashing the supposedly "radical" movement for wanting to do things like abolish the Department of Education—forgetting that Reagan also wanted to abolish it. The left-wing media attacks Tea Party candidates as belonging to an impractical "party of no," forgetting that Reagan also saw the state, unequivocally, in negative terms, declaring that "Government is not a solution to our problems, government is the problem."

Conservatives were naturally disappointed that despite such rhetoric, government and our national debt grew exponentially under Reagan....

Ron Paul's disillusionment with the Reagan Revolution was perfectly in keeping with the mainstream of libertarian thought in the 1980s, as evidenced by the comments you hear today from former Reaganite David Stockman, and by a cursory glance at Reason's own archives.

(Article continues below video.)

As early as September 1980, then-Reason Editor Robert Poole, Jr. criticized Reagan for jumping on the Moral Majority's "anti-sin bandwagon." In November 1980, Doug Bandow warned about a "massive arms buildup" on the immediate horizon. And most pertinent to a discussion about Ron Paul, then-Reason columnist Murray N. Rothbard (who gets a dedication in Paul's latest book) came right out of the chute making "The Case for Pessimism" about Reagan's electoral victory:

The election was a resounding triumph for the Conservative Revolution, which consists of three basic parts: (a) tax cuts and more of a free market; (b) increased militarism and an ultra-hawkish foreign policy, ever seeking confrontation with an atheistic and literally "Satanic" Soviet Union; (c) a theocratic Moral Majority reinstallation of God and the family and a crushing of the infidel. Only part a can be considered in any sense libertarian; parts b and c are quite the opposite....

But may we not at least take comfort from the free-market part of the Conservative Revolution? No, because that part of the revolution has already been thoroughly betrayed, even before the Reagan administration took office.... There will be no free-market revolution, no end to inflation, no balanced budget—just marginal tinkering with the status quo, as usual.

Given that initial blast of libertarian skepticism, it's not hard to see how the 1980s played out like the last snuffing out of optimism for working within the system to limit government.

But what about Ronald Reagan, victorious Cold Warrior? How does the relentless anti-imperialism of Ron Paul square with the Republican narrative that Reagan's libertarian-loathed defense build-up and foreign adventurism hastened the collapse of the 20th century's longest-lasting anti-libertarian empire? Rand Paul, in his book, sketches out an answer:

Conservatives who now compare Reagan's defense build-up during the Cold War—when we faced down a world superpower with massive nuclear capability—to the supposed need for increased defense budgets today to fight a drastically different type of enemy, do a disservice to Reagan, his legacy and common sense.

Will that kind of nuance work at the Reagan Library tonight? Ron Paul's fortunes, and the future of the Republican Party, may depend on it.

-Matt Welch

CalMark| 9.7.11 @ 7:43PM

Zealots always post long, long screeds, expecting us all to be converted in a flash of enlightenment.

But do you seriously expect anyone to read all--or even a fraction--of that?

Rob A.| 9.7.11 @ 7:59PM

No I dont expect CalMark to read anything, only the intelligent people.

CalMark| 9.7.11 @ 9:20PM

Oh, ouch. I am slain, I am slain! Oh, my bleeding heart!

Whoops, sorry. That's YOUR bleeding heart (as in "liberal").

Never mind. Maybe I'm not slain, after all.

brian mannon| 9.7.11 @ 7:30PM

Why speculate about Reagan's views about conservatism and libertarianism. Here he is in 1975 being interviewed by Reason Magazine and describing the difference between conservatism and libertarianism: "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

http://reason.com/archives/197.....singlepage

CalMark| 9.7.11 @ 7:45PM

You are deluded and taking Reagan out of context.

He sure as heck didn't buy into your the kooky libertarian social ideas and foreign policy. But that should be no problem for you, since you're already busy re-defining Reagan to suit your needs.

Rob A.| 9.7.11 @ 7:58PM

he posted a direct quote from Reagan...guess again.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 8:56PM

From 1976?
And Reagan got it. He said concerning the Libertarianism as a party... "not so much!"

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 8:57PM

From 1976?
And Reagan got it. He said concerning the Libertarianism as a party... "not so much!" In that same speech, darlin's.

CalMark| 9.7.11 @ 9:21PM

Libertarians are leftists when it comes to social policy, and neo-isolationists when it comes to foreign policy.

That was Reagan?

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 9:46PM

Deluded is not even the half of it.

Jose| 9.7.11 @ 7:43PM

Time to vote on who is the most obnoxious and stupid person here. I nominate Clint, Margie, Dr. Right, and Jack in Wisconsin.

Boar Hunter| 9.7.11 @ 9:47PM

Im hurt, I demand a recount.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 10:02PM

LOL!!!!
Best laugh of the day..!!

God| 9.7.11 @ 10:32PM

Your comments are too flaccid to be considered obnoxious.

But make no mistake, when it comes to pure stupidity, there is none more exemplary.

Margie| 9.8.11 @ 1:10AM

"God" really believes he will go unpunished, not only for using the Name of God~ but to use it to bear false witness in His Name.
What a fool.

Jose| 9.7.11 @ 10:38PM

You Al Gore askin for recount.

Le Cracquere| 9.7.11 @ 10:30PM

My dark-horse moment ... ... must ... shine ...

Richie| 9.7.11 @ 7:48PM

LOL at all of the childish arguing back and forth. You people are truly pathetic. You are nothing more than instruments being played in the power game. Suckers!

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 10:04PM

It's ok, Richie, we're all cool. Really. :^).
Hey, really. The only real suckers are the ones who re- elect Obama, don't you think?

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 8:01PM

1st Prize: A Night With Jose's Woman.

2nd Prize: A Week With Jose's Woman.

Jose| 9.8.11 @ 4:26PM

Cleent is funny gringo. How is you seester.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 8:11PM

Watch the GOP debate here folks:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/.....mgHca5JfoA

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 8:28PM

Newt is being awesome tonight.

9th ID| 9.7.11 @ 8:32PM

I wish Spectator had a bloviater blocker for known liber-als. Never ceases to amaze me how the Paulista Liber-tarians sound just like their Liber-al cousins -- self-described intellectuals/intelligenzia who are smarter than everyone else. Once the critical thinkers don't fall for their dribble, they always resort to "you're not smart enough". Like their cousins, the Obots, they are also big on cult of personality. Paul Krugman-Chris Matthews Redux...

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 8:44PM

Right you are about them, sir.
Watching the debates here. Did anyone happen to see Ru Paul's claiming he was FOR Ronald Reagan but against him?
LOL!
He sounded just like a .... Democrat!
Blaming Reagan for a huge mess.
What did I say? What did I ask a little while ago?
What's the difference between the Democrats and the Paul-bots?
Just about nothing!!
They SAY one thing, yet they SIDE with the Left.
Ru-Paul just did it.

On another note~ I must say folks, I truly admire Herman Cain.
I am also enjoying Rick Perry, and as always Michele Bachmann is great.
We have some fine individuals on our side.
Minus Ru-Paul.

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 8:51PM

Sure, once Reagan grew the government. Are you saying Ron Paul is more conservative than Reagan?

God| 9.7.11 @ 10:30PM

Ron Paul destroyed the neo-con, uneducated, brain-dead, establishment puppets tonight. It was truly a satisfying thing to witness.

What I like most about you, Margie, is that you're too much of a moron to recognize it when you've lost. As such, your stupidity grants you confidence, as you're unable to see it when you're destroyed over and over again. You're like an absolute dumpster whore for the mind, and you don't even charge. We get to use you, abuse you, and punish you over and over and you continue to beg for more.

Margie, you're alright.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 11:29PM

"We get to use you, abuse you, and punish you over and over and you continue to beg for more.

Margie, you're alright."

You are right. You and your ilk get to use and abuse me.. in this life. But the God of the Bible is just.
It is in His eyes that I put my hope of being "alright."

May you come to your right mind, and sin no more.
As the Scripture says: "For some have no knowledge of God."

"Come to your right mind, and sin no more. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame." 1 Cor. 15:34.

Clint| 9.7.11 @ 8:36PM

Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 9:03PM

Ru Paul just suggested cutting the air conditioning to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to save money.
Let them get heat stroke, right, Ru Paul?

God| 9.7.11 @ 10:26PM

lol, Margie, you sickening whore. That's not what he said at all.

But we don't expect you to be capable of comprehending anything ideological. Your thought process is entirely a matter of "I'm told he's a bad guy. I hate him!". If you can ever find somebody undignified enough to impregnate you for a hefty payment, abort the child immediately. An airborne AIDS mutation that spreads via breath would be a less dire circumstance than one in which you had a child that made it to birth.

W| 9.7.11 @ 10:42PM

I agree with Margie. He said cut the air conditioning, save 20 billion, the troops will come home because there is no air conditioning, and we can the apply 10 billion of the 20 to Fema.
He also said we should not build a border fence because someday we may want to escape the USA presumably by running across the border.

God| 9.7.11 @ 10:55PM

Wait, so two retards saying retarded things is supposed to make the retarded statements right? What the hell is wrong with you guys?

He never said "I would cut the air conditioning". He illuminated a very specific cost associated with our occupation in the middle east in order to further his point that wars are bankrupting our country. He said that *if* they cut the air conditioning in the green zones, the military would no longer want to be occupying such zones and would come home which, for numerous reasons, would be in our country's favor.

W| 9.8.11 @ 11:11AM

I just don't feel right typing the name God, how about if we call you ASSHOLE.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 11:02PM

Wow, W. I just read what "God" said, above.
LOL. I am sure glad he or she isn't the true God!
My oh my.
Hey, "God"~ I think for myself. I do not follow anyone's words, but the Words of the True God~ the One you do not know. His Words are in the Bible.
He gave me His Spirit and that means I have discernment from Him! Wow. That is absolutely awesome.
I pray for you, sir or madame. I pray that you come to know the True God, and His Son, Jesus Christ.

God bless you, W. I always do read your posts here, believe it or not. I like how you try and sincerely reason with people. I see that.
God bless you.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 11:07PM

Futhermore, "God", I'm not a whore. Do you know about the woman in the Bible that Jesus forgave of Adultery? Well, I am not an Adulterer, but Jesus Christ did save me from my sin.
Do you know the kind of mercy He showed upon that woman who He forgave?
He forgave me in the same way, and showered me with His love and forgiveness.
He cast several demons out of Mary Magdalene, too.

In fact, Jesus Christ specializes in whores and the worst of the worst. That's how He gets the most Glory~ we give it to Him.
I can only hope for the same for you!!

W| 9.8.11 @ 11:14AM

Margie,
You can't reason with someone who uses the name God. But you can insult and mock him.

Margie| 9.8.11 @ 6:10PM

Hey W.
Well, sometimes I just sprinkle His Words out there and pray they take root. You never know.

Rich| 9.7.11 @ 10:20PM

Ron Paul's foreign policy desires, as described here, do appear worrisome, but isn't our growing debt as much of a security risk, if not more, than the physical threat of invasion?

As for the neoconservative / war-hawk division of the Republican Party has any of it foreign policies in the Arabic world gained America any additional security? Afghanistan and Iraq still hates us, and will likely fall apart soon as we leave. When we do leave both these countries, it feels like we'll be leaving behind better armed, better trained enemies. What worked for fighting the USSR just doesn't seem like its going to work against the Islamic terrorist threat?

What we should concentrate on rebuilding our economy and securing our borders, while limiting our foreign military adventures to quick strikes at definite threats. The current policy of occupying and rebuilding nations that hate us, and will likely always hate us needs to stop.

Ron Paul right seems to have the most credibility in opposing government growth and spending, which may be our best defense against our current crop of adversaries.

Feel free to correct me if I’ve made factual errors, as I’m not political guru, just felt like someone needed to show that Libertarian’s can speak w/o resulting to insults.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 10:51PM

You're a good soul, Rich.
The truth is, everything is so messed up in our World. Ron Paul says a lot of things that do make good sense. Unfortunately he believes a lot of things that aren't in the best interest of our country.

I will leave it to the truly knowledgeable amongst us, but as far as I know, Afghanistan and Iraq do not actually hate us.

It is indeed such a dilemma, and in need of much prayer.
Ron Paul seems to have a prejudice toward Israel (in my opinion), and an "issue" with blaming America for terrorism. He thinks they attack us because we "occupy" them.

He doesn't seem to believe that they hate us because we are free.

But you see, they DO hate us because we are free. They do not like our freedom. They want us to be like them, Sharia Law. They want to control people, and they want to take us over. and they have killed us.. think 9/11. And they are planning to and trying to do it again.

These terrorists do not need our "understanding" as Ron Paul thinks, but they need to either be converted to Christianity, or at least to our way of life, if they want to live here, or be destroyed.

If they are going to plan on killing us~ they need to be killed. You cannot reason with Satan. Satan is a murderer, and so are those who murder.

God| 9.7.11 @ 10:58PM

"I will leave it to the truly knowledgeable amongst us, but as far as I know, Afghanistan and Iraq do not actually hate us."

LOL! No you won't. You lying whore, you. See what I mean? Blatant lies from someone going around proclaiming Jesus's name. Truly sickening.

You've showed countless times that the LAST thing you're willing to do is leave ANYTHING to the "truly knowledgeable". Your beliefs are rooted in emotion -- knowledge and intelligent analysis are entirely irrelevant to your beliefs. In spite of your stupidity and lack of knowledge, you will continue to form strong beliefs and opinions about the world around you.

Quit lying, Marge, or at least admit that you're a false Christian.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 11:25PM

Get thee behind me, Satan!

God| 9.8.11 @ 12:42AM

May God cast you out, oh ye of false testimony!!!!

Margie| 9.8.11 @ 1:08AM

I trust in the true God to vindicate me~ you trust in Satan himself, and make yourself out to be a Judge of Christians.

You already have your reward.

zebra| 9.8.11 @ 4:15PM

from what i understand, paul says that people are attracted to become terrorists due more to political reasons, rather than religious reasons. I'm sure that terrorists believe that they will go to heaven if they kill themselves in a suicide attack, but what paul says is that they would probably ignore al qaeda and other's religious propaganda if they had no other political issue with the US. that's my understanding and belief, though i'm not like 100% convinced.

i believe paul's primary source is Michael Scheuer, former CIA guy if you wanted more perspective on that.

anyway, just my opinion, god bless

POST American| 9.7.11 @ 10:23PM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

For the CHEM-trails = Alzheimer's victims
among us, IMPORTANT to bear in mind
Reagan himself was a set up.

Even putting aside what's emerged, he was
the second 'conservative Republican' to hold
the high office living in an adulterous second marriage.
-Consecutively speaking in fact,
Gerry Ford being the first.

Ford himself was ushered in right on top
of the 'Nick's On' abdication ---just months after
the MAO sellout summit.

Neither did we hear
the now confessed Arminian Heretic, and
33rd degree Freemason, Billy Graham, or any
other of our Masonic 'Christian' establishment
make an issue of it.

Even at the time, the usually cut throat media
made NO issue of it.

The 'Big Boy's' well knew, in the long run,
this would fatally compromise conservative
moral authority from within. And POST
2 CFR Bushes, who can argue they weren't
right.

"The U.S. better watch it or in a
couple of decades we're going to be
little more than a minstrel show
for RED China---"
-GORE VIDAL
1985
(the height of Reagan 'conservatism')

AGAIN -------------------WHO CAN ARGUE?

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 10:38PM

Hey you:

Chem-trails is something that Alex Jones and his band of paranoids talk about.
There is no proof for same.
And I have listened to some of the very best physicians out there, and Alzheimer's is thought to be a disease cause by inflammation among other things.
Did you know that inflammation cause both heart disease and Cancer?
I have listened to the best of the best.
Yes, this Earth lies polluted under its inhabitants.
Did you know that God said that int he Old Testament?
Here it is: Is. 24:5. Look it up.
If He said that a couple of thousand years ago, what must it be now?
We ingest all kinds of chemicals every time we drink a glass of water.
But it is no conspiracy, sir.
It is because of the fall of Man.
As written in His Word.
He says that the Creation itself groans for its release.

"For the Creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the Creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of Him who subjected it in hope; because the Creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.
We know that the whole Creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the Creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?
But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience." Romans 8:19-25.

Now, no one can call me names for posting this, because these are the very Words of God.

But who can understand them?
Christians can. Everyone who has been born of His Spirit, as it is written in John 3:3.

The fall of Man included the very Creation itself.. Sin destroys everything in its path.

God's Grace saves us from the fate of Hell.
Thanks be to God, wouldn't you say?

God| 9.7.11 @ 10:51PM

God would want you to look at your world intelligently and without submission to a political party or politician, Marge. You're a false Christian, so stop insulting your God by proclaiming his name and reciting the verses of his bible.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 11:23PM

Now, now.
I don't "submit" to a party or politician. Is it intelligent to allow oneself to not vote? Is it intelligent to allow one's vote to go to the Leftist Democrat party by not voting?
Come now, be reasonable.
Are you an Anarchist or something?

You say I'm a false Christian~ but who is it that is using the Name of God to post comments here?
Who is it that is relentlessly attacking Christians who believe in every Word of God?

Are you so blind that you don't see your own hypocrisy?

Jeff| 9.7.11 @ 11:26PM

Lay off, she obviously has problems and you're just exploiting it. HAHA we all had a good laugh, but just quit while you're ahead. I have a sister whose bi polar disorder, and these people go through enough on their own, they don't need you stirring the pot.

Margie| 9.7.11 @ 11:31PM

God bless you, Jeff.
May God have mercy on your soul.

God| 9.8.11 @ 12:56AM

Your compassion could move even the most stone cold soul, Jeff, but you must understand, it is sorely misplaced here. Our retarded and enjoyable friend Margie, like a fish on a hook, lacks the cerebral activity necessary to suffer or to even be aware of her situation, which is why she keeps on tugging.

Margie| 9.8.11 @ 1:06AM

Your sickening words remind me of the accounts of the Martyrs in the historical book Martyrs Mirrors.

You have no idea how much you resemble the Satanists who tortured and murdered Bible believing Christians.

They too called themselves "Gods"~ you should have heard their words~ much like your own~ with horrendous insults and demeaning of character~ from Satan himself.

God| 9.8.11 @ 1:22AM

Unbelievable! Such atrocious, vindictive, Satanic language!!! I rebuke you, demon!! Begone from this place of holy worship!!!

You are the false prophet, the tempress that the Lord used his Holy Bible to warn us all about! Were it not for your total stupidity that immediately makes you a laughingstock, your words would be very damaging to God's will for his other children!

Satan has overtaken your soul and has made you a slave of evil!!! I cast you out, Satan!!!!!!!! The power of Christ compels you, and you will burn in his holy indignation!

zebra| 9.8.11 @ 4:09PM

@ God:

um.... what the ...??

dan| 9.8.11 @ 12:29AM

Actually, weather modification via the use of aerosol spraying is being done. Lab testing has determined the spray is a combination of Aluminum and Barium salts. It should tick you off that they are doing this without explanation or concern for public health.
Atmospheric Aerosol
Properties and
Climate Impacts
U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.3
January 2009

Dan Mathewson| 9.8.11 @ 5:38PM

What, if any. If not, how much?

14freedom4u| 9.7.11 @ 11:22PM

Good job Mr. Lord on your Ron Paul take down. Democrats are counting on you to get Obama re-elected. No one will question your assertion that conservatism was defined by the fight against communism. Just as Buckley did his take down of the John Birch Society who were the real leaders in the conservatives fight against communism, you and Mark Levin may very well succeed in stopping a real return of conservatism in America. BTW, How much money is Obama paying you to get him re-elected?
The bullshit your spreading my very well fly with the un-informed and those who are too young to know you are re-writing history but some of see though your lies. We have seen your neo-con Buckley style takedown of conservatives before that you and Levin are engaged in.

chaivea| 9.8.11 @ 12:03AM

To say that Ron Paul has "many Jews as his intellectual icons" is like saying "I have friends who are Jewish." It's meaningless.

http://www.topbrandsbags.com
monster energy t shirts

KFChickenhawk| 9.8.11 @ 4:08AM

Ron Paul has Jewish friends, too. One managed his campaign and died of complications stemming from HIV (yes, he was gay).

:)

Ken| 9.8.11 @ 12:52AM

How was this a take-down of Ron Paul? Does any of that history stuff matter? My god you are so wordy, I pretty much gave up what point you were driving at. Anyway.. As neither a self-proclaimed Republican or Democrat, or Libertarian for that matter, what I see is a corrupt government that is beholden on both sides (R+D) to lobbies. RP is the only outsider I see. From what I've read, he's always voted with his convictions and always turned down money from special interests. What other candidate can say that? For me, the honest money/currency issue and the issue of political/corporate cronyism are the most important. RP appears to me to genuinely be an advocate for the general population, and I agree with him that deficit spending is a tax on the American people, widening the wealth gap. And it results in death and destruction all over the world due to our empire building, which would not be possible if the Dollar were not the "reserve currency". It is coming to an end one way or another. If RP does not win the primary, I will not vote in the general election at all because I don't think it matters if we get Obama or if we get an establishment Republican.

freetospeak| 9.8.11 @ 1:58AM

After reading comments for about 10 minutes (and only making it about a quarter of the way down the page) I have come to the conclusion that no progress has been made.

Most comments were just insults. How much time was wasted here tonight? America is doomed. We have no leader to rally behind. We have no unity. We have no money. I don't have any hope in the future of our nation.

I'm 21 years old and am new to this political scene to be honest....from what I've seen the last year or so is that our nation (based on people's attitudes toward each other and lack of maturity when discussing/debating/just living amongst each other in everyday life) is on a fast spiral towards complete and utter ruin.
I'm contemplating whether or not we are still the "United" States of America.

I am sickened, saddened, and afraid because there is no more light in this country.

Margie| 9.8.11 @ 6:05PM

Don't use this thread here as a barometer as to how America is doing, please!!

And put your hope in God and not Man, and you will know that there is plenty of hope to be found~ even in America still.

There are more people like yourself out there than you realize. I've been around for more than half a century now and KNOW this for certain.

Americans are still wanting to be free, and most of us are still willing to pay the ultimate price for that freedom.
Don't be discouraged!

KFChickenhawk| 9.8.11 @ 2:02AM

Interventionists rarely use solid logic when defending their morally bankrupt imperialism. Nothing about the cost, human or economic (especially from alleged "conservatives") never enters the equation. Anything regarding the logistics of the operation(s) is ignored because they only operate in the world of kneejerkism. Sustainability is of no concern cuz Jebus will sort it all out.

"OMG, the world is dangerous!

Evil!

Spreading democracy!

Freebery, *babble* *babble*"

It's like a bad slogan out of Team America: World Police.

POST American| 9.8.11 @ 2:52AM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

'NO proof for CHEM-trails'?

Just google the term for videos.

IF that's not enough, bother to look out
your window some morning, or evening,
of late afternoon.

IF that's not enough ---DO the background
on HAARP, weather warfare, the effects of
the cadmium, barium and aluminum oxides
that are raining down steadily, and now inter-
mixed with the Fukishima fallout ---which also
does not 'officially' exist.

---------Keep a goin' kiddies!

---------Alzheimers, birth defects n' sterility

--------------------JUST KEEP A GOIN'

KFChickenhawk| 9.8.11 @ 4:10AM

Are the titles of the articles even relevant, since they're not written by the authors?

Santorum's moment has come and gone. He once claimed that the pro-abortion lobby was his worst enemy, and now he's attacking the man who claims that abortion is the "most important issue of our time" because he doesn't want to bomb foreigners.

Santorum = loser

Mike| 9.8.11 @ 5:43AM

Sounds like he cares VERY MUCH what a journalist at the Spectator thinks about Ron Paul and his questionable positions and associations.
http://www.summer-products.com
http://www.topbrandsbags.com

Jesse| 9.8.11 @ 5:46AM

To say that Ron Paul has "many Jews as his intellectual icons" is like saying "I have friends who are Jewish." It's meaningless.
http://www.discountsunglassesforsale.com
http://www.wholesalehatsshop.com

AC| 9.8.11 @ 7:01AM

What's so dishonest, disingenuous, and, frankly, downright WEIRD about these hyperbolic ejaculations from Lord (Lord Neo? -that's what you should be titled-except, of course radical neos hate monarchical titles and prefer global radical revolution) is that he acts as if his readers are moronic and ignorant and an empty slate who know none of this history. Therefore he can rewrite it to his heart's content! Hence, Alice goes thru the looking glass, and Burnham, James Burnham!, the Trotskyist revolutionary nutbar who was NEVER, in any way, shape or form, a "conservative" has become some sort of standard-bearer for the American Right, and non-interventionist conservatives like Morley were...what? Secret commies, apparently from the dark insinuations in this offering, even more absurd than the last one.

Unfortunately, Jeffrey, everyone who matters in these things has read and knows this history, (like Raimondo's "Reclaiming the American Right" which certainly had Burnham's number) and your silly attempt to rewrite it all like a million Kristols and Podhoretzes before you would make sense, except that....we HAVE AN INTERNET NOW. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's remarkable! You're on it right now, in fact! And with access to millions of times more information than before, the days when smearing the Buchanans of the world with the cheap standbys of antisemitism, smearing the libertarian Jeffersonians and Old Rightists of the world, all while attempting to rewrite the sad sellout career of Buckley, Burnham, and the rest of the ex-Trotskist NR crowd as the TRUE conservatives with their global interventionisms and whackjob nonconservative views on human nature, well,...those days are OVER, Jeffrey. It's kinda sad that you're the last to know. Everyone knows how unprincipled the New Right anticommunists and succeeding neocons have turned out to be when it comes to actually believing in the Constitution and decentralization and limited govt. Paul, on the other hand, unlike the sainted sellout, WFBjr, has remained principled throughout his career.

But good luck with that whole "I'm bettin' on Santorum" pick in 2012 strategy!

Really?| 9.8.11 @ 12:43PM

Lunacy, my friend, is the status quo. Lunacy is the so-called "mainstream" idea of spending trillions we don't have in nation-building and propping up foreign dictators, who we eventually spend more attacking when they don't do our bidding. That is lunacy. Anyone who holds these views cannot honestly consider himself a fiscal conservative.

Steve Orrange| 9.8.11 @ 3:57PM

Overall Reagan was a good president, and brought dignity to the office, but he certainly strayed from the original principals, that first earned Ron Paul's support. While I admire Ronald Reagan, in truth you have to admire the conservative principals of Ron Paul to an even higher degree. Reagan changed over time , while Paul has not . Btw - the childish name calling really lowers the intelligence quotient of AS.

Kenneth Olsen| 9.8.11 @ 10:23PM

Good Lord! So many words yet so little said! Then again, I support Dr. Paul, so I'm probably "mad," prone to "lunacy," and fit for the "mad-house." Still, my unsound mind hears voices asking: Did Reagan grow the government? Did Reagan "appease" islamic militants in Beirut and elsewhere? Is stopping the practice of donating American taxpayer money to foreign entities "leftist?" Did Reagan's enthusiastic pursuit of the drug war dimish the liberty of Americans?
Morley, Rothbard, blah, blah blah. Paul's principled fidelity is to the Constitution, and for whatever reason, alleged conservatives at AmSpec can't seem to stand it.

Rob A.| 9.9.11 @ 10:33AM

Oh how NEO-CONS love to smear Reagans legacy on Foreign Policy. Little dose of reality for you folks below.

Some might find it absurd to say that Ron Paul has a “Reaganesque” foreign policy. The man himself has never made any such claim. But it is far less absurd to note the similarities between the 40th president’s foreign policy and the views of the Texas congressman than it is for Paul’s hawkish critics to continue claiming the exclusive rights to Reagan’s legacy. In fact, Republicans who still refuse to show the slightest hint of regret for the Iraq War or our continued presence in Afghanistan would be fairly alien to the ever-reflective Reagan. And when Republican hawks wax nostalgic for the Gipper’s “bold” and “muscular” foreign policy, most of what they remember is fantasy — as Reagan’s characteristic aversion to committing troops was far closer to Paulian prudence than Bushian recklessness.

Let’s examine Reagan’s actual foreign policy record. Writing for Foreign Policy magazine, journalist Peter Beinart has noted:

Today’s conservatives have conjured a mythic Reagan who never compromised with America’s enemies and never shrank from a fight. But the real Reagan did both those things, often. In fact, they were a big part of his success … Sure, Reagan spent boatloads — some $2.8 trillion all told — on the military. And yes, he funneled money and guns to anti-communist rebels like the Nicaraguan Contras and Afghan mujahedeen, while lecturing Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that wall. But on the ultimate test of hawkdom — the willingness to send U.S. troops into harm’s way — Reagan was no bird of prey. He launched exactly one land war, against Grenada, whose army totaled 600 men. It lasted two days. And his only air war — the 1986 bombing of Libya — was even briefer. Compare that with George H.W. Bush, who launched two midsized ground operations, in Panama (1989) and Somalia (1992), and one large war in the Persian Gulf (1991). Or with Bill Clinton, who launched three air campaigns — in Bosnia (1995), Iraq (1998), and Kosovo (1999) — each of which dwarfed Reagan’s Libya bombing in duration and intensity. Do I even need to mention George W. Bush?

Former American Conservative Union chairman and current National Rifle Association President David Keene has compared Reagan’s reluctance to put troops in harm’s way with other presidents and today’s Republican hawks:

He resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office … After the [1983] assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today’s neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?

“Backing away”? Why, heaven’s no! Real “Reagan conservatives,” as they love to tell us, are committed to any fight, anywhere, for any reason and even for no reason in particular (Sen. John McCain and Libya).

The problem with this narrative is that the actual Reagan wasn’t anything like this.

Reagan admitted that the worst mistake of his entire presidency was his decision to commit troops in Lebanon, and he thought American efforts in that part of the world would always be severely limited by the region’s political and cultural realities. Whereas both Presidents Bush and Obama embrace the Wilsonian notion that America can help transform parts of the Middle East into democracies, Reagan took a decidedly more conservative approach, or as Paul described in 2005: “We should remember Ronald Reagan’s admonition regarding this area of the world. Ronald Reagan reflected on Lebanon in his memoirs, describing the Middle East as a jungle and Middle East politics as irrational. It forced him to rethink his policy in the region.”

Paul recalled Reagan’s reassessment of our involvement in Lebanon in an effort to get America to rethink its current overall involvement in the Middle East. Yet, anytime Paul applies a cost/benefit analysis to our foreign policy or suggests diplomacy is preferable to war, he is roundly denounced by Republican hawks as weak or naïve.

Many of these hawks had the same attitude toward Reagan. Beinart writes:

Nothing compared with the howls of outrage that accompanied Reagan’s dovish turn toward the Soviet Union. In 1986, when Reagan would not cancel his second summit with Gorbachev over Moscow’s imprisonment of an American journalist, [Norman] Podhoretz accused him of having “shamed himself and the country” in his “craven eagerness” to give away the nuclear store … When Reagan signed the INF Treaty, most Republicans vying to succeed him came out in opposition. Grassroots conservative leaders established the Anti-Appeasement Alliance to oppose ratification and ran newspaper advertisements comparing Gorbachev to Hitler and Reagan to Neville Chamberlain.

Fear-mongering about the ever-present “next Hitler”? Suggesting that diplomacy makes one Neville Chamberlain? These are absurd accusations with which Congressman Paul is familiar. Apparently, so was Reagan.

Perhaps Senator Rand Paul put it best in a speech he delivered in June:

If, for example, we imagine a foreign policy that is everything to everyone, that is everywhere all the time that would be one polar extreme … Likewise, if we imagine a foreign policy that is nowhere any of the time and is completely disengaged from the challenges and dangers to our security that really do exist in the world — well, that would be the other polar extreme … But what about a foreign policy of moderation? A foreign policy that argues that — maybe we could be somewhere some of the time?

Senator Paul added: “Reagan’s foreign policy was one in which we were somewhere, some of the time, in which the missions were clear and defined and there was no prolonged military conflict — and this all took place during the Cold War.”

What Rand Paul describes is far closer to what his father believes than what most of today’s Republican hawks believe. It is also closer to Reagan’s actual foreign policy.

Despite these examples, it would still be absurd to claim that Ron Paul’s foreign policy views are identical to Ronald Reagan’s. But it is far more absurd for Paul’s foreign policy critics to continue claiming Reagan’s legacy as their own. That this is a fiction hawks will continue to find useful is undeniable.

So is the fact that it is fiction.

-by Jack Hunter-

Reader X| 9.9.11 @ 7:50PM

Get real. This long winding Ron Paul story was not Santorum's moment.

Santorum's moment was "I'm in the Senate leadership twisting arms to get Medicare Prescription Drugs passed." He was wrong. He was unprincipled. And the story ends there.

I don't care about Ron Paul. You can edit Santorum out and republish what might otherwise be a useful, if overly long, exposition. Just stop trying to hold up the "conservative" mask on this phony Santorum. He's as bad as Romney on the big government healthcare issue.

KenJ0| 9.9.11 @ 11:17PM

I love reading your articles......For the comments by Ron Paul supporters pwning you!
Maybe,just maybe....The philosophy of liberty is BOOM, winnning on the battlefield of ideas.

AdeleInTexas| 9.10.11 @ 10:57PM

Extremely informative, well written and fully documented. This should be required as a primer before the GOP primaries.

Paul| 9.11.11 @ 11:57AM

Your article is a good read and relevent. The history of the old right and US politics is important in understanding modern politics. I disagree on your stance however. Traditional 20th century politics of the right were known as "classical liberalism" in the 18th century. It was the ideas of the founding fathers as well. Because to be conservative in their time was to embrace the rule of kings, tyrants and their taxes. As progressives came to power in the 20th century they took the title of liberal, embracing government at home and government abroad. War is the health of the state after all. Though Barry Goldwater ultimately adopted the idea that we need to sacrifice freedom to hold off an enemy that did not attack us, his presidential loss still signaled the death of the old right. Neo liberals joined forces with neo conservatives, agreeing to support domestic welfare programs as long as the other side supported endless wars. Americans are growning tired of the oligarchy- two sides of the warfare/welfare statist coin. Nothing has changed since FDR. Both Bushes and Reagan brought us more gun laws, debt, tax increases, foreign wars and government agencies than any recent Democrat. People won't stomach it anymore. If another corporate stooge wins the Republican nomination we will see massive gains in the other political parties. The Constitution and Libertarian Party stand to gain as long as Republicans pick another liberal. Ron Paul 2012.

spark300c| 9.11.11 @ 1:52PM

I stock at the trolling here. I am Ron Paul supporter because of the issues and his record. There one else stands for some thing who is running. I do not like Rick Perry because he is much worst. The state of Texas is blaze and Rick cut volunteer firefighting services by 75%. Show me some better than Ron Paul that is running and get behind him but if there isn't than what is the point?

j_in_mesa| 10.1.11 @ 6:14AM

"Lord is obsessed with Ronald Reagan, and again condemns Ron Paul for opposing Reagan’s expansion of government power. The weird cult of personality around the deceased former president reveals that Reagan has become the Right’s Obama: a man whose every action is to be treated as ipso facto brilliant, perhaps even divinely inspired. Critics are mere heretics whose arguments need not actually be refuted; the mere fact that they have disagreed with the Great Leader is enough to condemn them forever." - Woods

David| 10.1.11 @ 4:19PM

Friend, I think we should care less about our particular political orthodoxy, and more about the greater things like understanding what is right and wrong before God. Are we treating our neighbors the way we would like to be treated, are we practicing both mercy and justice? Are we upholding the law of the land (the Constitution) as commanded in Romans 13? We may come to different conclusions about how those things look in the political arena, but they should be the foundation from which we argue. To attempt to determine what is right based on who does or does not fit into the subjectively defined "Conservative Canon" is foolish.