The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Ron Paul Wins RLC Straw Poll

By on 6.18.11 @ 5:09PM

With delegates attending from 38 states, the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans is one of the first major cattle calls for Republican presidential candidates this year and its straw poll is an early test of organizational strength. This year, Ron Paul won with about 40 percent of the vote. Paul lost to Mitt Romney by just one vote last year.

Perhaps the most surprising development was the second place showing by Jon Huntsman, who canceled his speech at the event due to a cold. Supporters of the former Utah governor and ambassador to China hope this signals that Huntsman will do better than expected among the conservative base. Michele Bachmann came in third and Herman Cain fourth. Romney came in fifth. His campaign is skipping straw polls this year, though sources say some of his supporters were trying to get out the vote. Both Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich saw a dip in support from last year, when they essentially tied for third behind Romney and Paul.

“This win is just the latest indicator of how the majority of American opinion is turning in Ron Paul’s direction,” said Jesse Benton, Paul campaign chairman. “Listening to all the other speakers and candidates, you hear them saying the things that Dr. Paul has been saying for years, and they are saying it because they know that’s what Americans are looking for right now.” Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller said, “[Huntsman’s] willingness to take the debt crisis seriously and his foreign policy message really resonated with the younger conservatives who attended.” Both Paul and Huntsman are seen as less interventionist on foreign policy and inclined toward major domestic spending cuts.

Here are the full results:

Paul - 612
Huntsman - 382
Bachman - 191
Cain - 104
Romney - 74
Gingrich - 69
Palin - 41
Santorum - 30
Pawlenty - 18
Johnson - 10
Roemer - 9
McCotter - 2

Texas Gov. Rick Perry spoke to the gathering but was not included on the straw poll ballot. This event has been called the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in years past.

View all comments (104) |

PattyMor| 6.18.11 @ 5:25PM

Ron Paul is correct on the financial industry and the federal reserve. He has a very rabid and enthusiastic following. I'm not surprised that he won the straw poll. But he will not win the Rep. nomination; he has done us a favor by advancing the cause.

RTamlin| 6.18.11 @ 7:46PM

"Rabid" is a good word to describe his followers. The only polls Paul does well in are the ones where his followers can stuff the ballot box. The funny thing here is that both first and second place went to fake Republicans, Paul and Huntsman. The only conclusion is that the RLC has been taken over by non-Conservatives.

GollyGee| 6.18.11 @ 9:39PM

Ron Paul wins the Straw Poll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 3:56AM

"Paul wins straw poll, trails Romney by 30% in NH."

Which one is more valid in determining Paul's chances I wonder? He won a CNN internet poll in 2008, as I recall.

Clint| 6.19.11 @ 10:29AM

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha !

Now, Tool Job is a Romney Apologist.

"The survey found Romney is, at this early stage, easily outpacing other Republican presidential candidates. The clear leader among Granite State voters since 2009, he has the support of 41 percent of likely GOP primary voters, far ahead of his nearest potential competitor, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is at 9 percent and has not decided whether to enter the race.
All the other candidates are in the single digits. But the first-in-the-nation primary remains highly unsettled: 76 percent of likely Republican voters said they are still making up their minds.

“Mitt Romney is the clear favorite, and no real second place has emerged to challenge Romney, as yet,’’ Smith said. “But the big factor is that the great majority of voters are nowhere near deciding who they are voting for. So he doesn’t have it in the bag, but I believe it’s Romney’s to lose right now.’’

Texas Representative Ron Paul has the support of 6 percent of likely GOP voters in New Hampshire, followed by Sarah Palin, who is at 5 percent and has not decided whether to run. Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann, a Tea Party favorite, is at 4 percent, tied with Herman Cain, a former pizza chain CEO.

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, is at 3 percent, tied with Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah, Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, and Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor. Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor, drew less than 1 percent in the poll."

Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.19.11 @ 12:41PM

I'm no Romney supporter (actually, I would never support him for any office), but here are the facts about Romney and polls, based on the most recent polls, not outdated ones from before May 1st:

Nationally, Romney has defeated Obama in one poll by 3 pps and is tied (or closely behind Obama) in others.

In state polls, Romney is ahead of Obama in all of those states which voted for McCain in 2008, and either ahead, tied, or behind by no more than 7 pps (in the case of OH and NC) in enough states to win 289 EC votes, more than enough to win the WH. These states including OH, IN, NC, FL, IA, NH, MI (Romney's native state), PA, NV, and other states. Even in PA, which has not voted for a Republican pres. candidate since 1988, Romney is AHEAD of Obama (albeit by just 1 pp).

Romney is a RINO, but he can win. Paul not only can't win, he wouldn't poll higher than the single digits against even Jimmy Carter.

Clint| 6.19.11 @ 8:46PM

Bullcrap ! Tehran Poster Ziggy.

"CNN Poll: Ron Paul Stands Best Chance Against Obama

Friday, 06 May 2011:
“Ron Paul cannot get elected” President, declared Donald Trump at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Trump, who has never run for office, let alone won an election, may want to reconsider his parroting of this common refrain: A new CNN poll finds that, of all the Republicans being discussed as potential presidential candidates, the longtime Texas congressman has the greatest chance of beating Barack Obama, while The Donald comes in dead last.

In a hypothetical match-up between Paul and Obama, Obama beats Paul by only seven percentage points (52 to 45 percent). Meanwhile, Obama bests former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee by eight points, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney by 11 points, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich by 17 points, former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin by 19 points, and Trump by a whopping 22 points. (The poll, by the way, was taken April 29 – May 1 and completed before Obama’s announcement of Osama bin Laden’s death. It has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.)"

Reaganite Republican | 6.18.11 @ 5:35PM

Any poll that has Ron Paul on top is from that point forward irrelevant in my book, obviously packed by the PaulBots somehow

He was horrible in the debate Monday, and his foreign policy platform is for the birds

C Bowen| 6.18.11 @ 6:16PM

As it relates to foreign policy, don't you think your handle should be Obama Republican?

Sandy| 6.18.11 @ 7:09PM

This kind of comment is disgusting. It is happening all across the web. If someone doesn't support Ron Paul, they are now being accused of being Liberals or Obama supporters. I have watched long time conservative commenters being accused of being Liberal. I guess by Ron Paul's supporters standards now, if you don't support him you are a liberal. This must must stop, but, then again they are making Paul irrelevant. Watch the backlash that is going to happen because of these zealots. They have already made most leary of the Tea Parties.

Occam's Tool| 6.18.11 @ 7:32PM

I don't support Ron Paul. I was VEEP of TCU's YAF in my day.

On foreign policy, Ron Paul consistently votes with Dennis Kucinich, who only has done one thing right on foreign policy ever, and that is sue the Obama administartion over Libya. Yes, War declaration is a power of the US Congress, not the UN, or NATO, etc. Congress should only be overridden in an emergency, which Libya was definitely NOT.

Sorry, biys, getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. Killing the Iranian mullahs would be a better thing. Letting Mubarak fall was the wrong thing. And both sides are swines in Libya, so it doesn't matter who wins---we could have stayed out of it, as it was not our business.

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 3:52AM

not "biys"---"boys." Sorry.

WilliamR| 6.19.11 @ 7:31PM

Saddam was no threat to the United States. Radical Jewish NeoCons hijacked foreign policy in the Bush administration and the rest is history.

C Bowen| 6.18.11 @ 7:33PM

What is disgusting is to think Ronald Reagan would have supported the treason that was invading Iraq because they violated a UN resolution.

Nick| 6.19.11 @ 12:38AM

C Bowen,

If you would like to see a well reasoned explanation of why Operation Iraqi Freedom was justified, and, therefore, your outrageous calumny against the Bush administration should be retracted; please see this debate I had with Red Phillips, the other day, in this thread:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_558821

Mr. Phillips stopped responding, so, I assume he ran out of arguments.

C Bowen| 6.19.11 @ 7:06AM

Nick;

I clicked the link where you, right off the bat, acknowledge that Saddam broke a UN ceasefire agreement.

You concede treason in the first line--and this is considered a good reason to spend a trillion dollars and make an Iranian ally where there was none?

Nick| 6.19.11 @ 4:43PM

C Bowen,

The definition of the word treason obviously alludes you.

The legal definition is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, Article III, section 3:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (Emphasis mine.)

The Random House Dictionary defines treason this way:

"1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery."

How did Operation Desert Storm or Operation Iraqi Freedom fit any of these definitions?

If you read all of my comments to Mr. Phillips, you will see that the U.S. is a member of the UN by treaty, which is also spelled out in the Constitution.

Perhaps you could attempt to rebut my arguments against Mr. Phillips', instead of trying to dismiss them out of hand as treason, which takes no thought whatsoever.

C Bowen| 6.19.11 @ 8:11PM

You are running to a legalism? LOL--lawyer by chance?

Lets try it this way:

The individuals who decided it was okay to run a psy-op campaign to connect 9/11 with Iraq (I read in 2004 that something like 70% of Republicans thought Iraq was behind 9/11);

The act to launch a propaganda campaign to convince the Party in power's base that Iraq was a threat to national security...

The use of propaganda to tell fictional stories that risked lives, like Jessica Lynch.

The finding of an espionage unit operating with Doug Feith and AIPAC.

The criminal leaking of a Doug Feith memo to the Weekly Standard, referenced by a sitting Vice President, to promote the disinformation that Iraq was connected to 9/11.

The lack of giving the firing squad to the individuals involved in Abu Gharib...

These were are all acts of betrayal against the nation of their birth, against the people who invested their faith in their leaders.

The debt financing of the war.

The fact that an Iranian agent boasted of tricking the United States into the war, who the sitting President invited to a State of the Union.

And not one resignation.

Yeah, this sort of betrayal--some dare call it treason.

Nick| 6.20.11 @ 1:34AM

C Bowen,

So.....you have no rebuttal to my arguments, just silly conspiracy theories. It figures.

"Yeah, this sort of betrayal--some dare call it treason."

Yes, ignorant people.

p.s. No, not a lawyer. I just play one on the internets.

C Bowen| 6.20.11 @ 5:10PM

Doug Feith, Elliot Abrams (convicted felon), Richard Perle, Dave Wurmser...were known security risks and the people who hired them and let them develop false stories to justify a war of aggression committed treason. As known security risks, the people that hired them, the VP office and ultimately the President--committed treason.

If you are over your head and don't know the players, go back to your kid sites.

Nick| 6.20.11 @ 7:15PM

C Bowen,

Now you have turned your just plain ignorance into complete willful ignorance, since I gave you the definition of the word treason and you continue to use it incorrectly.

Go back to grammar school.

C Bowen| 6.20.11 @ 9:18PM

Perhaps you need to actually read the definition of treason that you posted--not that it would help, but hiding behind legalisms won't save you.

The process for intelligence gathering particulary for a Western country, let alone the United States, is regulated by law; circumventing that law is an act of aggression, a betrayal of the government, the in effect establishment of a shadow government--and some dare call it treason.

But not you, Nicole, right?

Nick| 6.20.11 @ 11:31PM

Ooooo....you insulted my manhood.
How old are you? Twelve?

This would explain your ignorance of the word treason, though.

C Bowen| 6.20.11 @ 5:13PM

And just to recap--your arguments is that a violation of UN cease fire is grounds for an act of war against a nation-state, is too ridiculous to consider, but I understand it to be pretty popular with the Traitorcons.

Clint| 6.18.11 @ 9:31PM

CNN Poll: Ron Paul Stands Best Chance Against Obama

Friday, 06 May 2011:
“Ron Paul cannot get elected” President, declared Donald Trump at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Trump, who has never run for office, let alone won an election, may want to reconsider his parroting of this common refrain: A new CNN poll finds that, of all the Republicans being discussed as potential presidential candidates, the longtime Texas congressman has the greatest chance of beating Barack Obama, while The Donald comes in dead last.

In a hypothetical match-up between Paul and Obama, Obama beats Paul by only seven percentage points (52 to 45 percent). Meanwhile, Obama bests former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee by eight points, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney by 11 points, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich by 17 points, former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin by 19 points, and Trump by a whopping 22 points. (The poll, by the way, was taken April 29 – May 1 and completed before Obama’s announcement of Osama bin Laden’s death. It has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.)"

Clint| 6.18.11 @ 9:56PM

"This is not the first time Paul has performed well against Obama in opinion polls. A 2010 Rasmussen poll found that Paul and Obama were virtually tied in a hypothetical election, Obama at 42 percent and Paul at 41 percent. Such repeated results should put paid to the notion that Paul, who has won 11 House races, is unelectable, particularly against the increasingly unpopular Obama."

Red Phillips | 6.18.11 @ 9:38PM

Sandy, Ron Paul is the ONLY* authentic Constitutionalist in the race. In fact, he is the only authentic Constitutionalist elected Republican at the national level. This is not a debatable point. If you disagree then please name me another one. When I say Constitutionalist I mean someone who wants to phase out all programs not specifically authorize by the Constitution.

*I consider Roy Moore an authentic
Constitutionalist, but he isn't a serious candidate yet.

Calling people who don't support Ron Paul liberals is probably not helpful, but it is a FACT that he is the only consistent Constitutionalist. If you don't like this then get the candidate of your choice to adopt Constitutionalism.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.19.11 @ 12:34PM

Ron Paul is NOT a Constitutionalist at all, let alone "an authentic Constitutionalist."

One of the many reasons why is his loony recent comment, uttered during the Monday NH debate, that he thinks that the US should dramatically reduce defense/military spending and plough that money into ENTITLEMENT programs.

His proposal is not just wrong, ridiculous,and dangerous - it's also UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because the Constitution does NOT authorize ANY entitlement programs (they don't even have the right to exist), while it does authorize, and even REQUIRE, the federal government to provide for a strong defense (vide Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution). Indeed, defense is uniquely emphasised by the Constitution: a full 50% of all enumerated Congressional prerogatives (9 of 18) listed in Art. I, Sec. 8, are related to the US military and to war; and other than these 9 prerogatives, the scope of the prerogatives authorized of the Congress is very thin.

Ron Paul is also a defender of the unconstitutional DOMA, which is patently incompatible with the Full Faith and Credit clause. Indeed, its language suggests that it was written PRECISELY to contravene the FFAC clause.

The only consistent defenders of the Constitution who are running are Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain. Sarah Palin is also a consistent Constitutionalist, but she's not running yet.

C Bowen| 6.19.11 @ 8:19PM

Title 9 girl, self professed, Sarah Palin?
Herman Cain of Federal Reserve fame?
Michele Bachmann of farming subsidies fame?

LOL--love to see what translation of the Constitution you are reading.

Clint| 6.19.11 @ 9:24PM

Hey Liar Tehran Blogger Boy Ziggy, Dr.Ron Paul was talking about Transitioning Out Of Entitlements & Opting Out Of Entitlements.

Do Your Homework Liar.
"Ron Paul Calls Social Security and Medicare Unconstitutional, Compares Them to ‘Slavery’

By Ian Millhiser on May 15, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) defended his longstanding view that Medicare, Social Security violate the Constitution. At one point, Paul even claimed that letting Social Security and similar programs to move forward is just like permitting slavery:

"WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.

PAUL: Technically, they are. … There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. … That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting."

Margie| 6.19.11 @ 5:50PM

Sandy,

These kind of comments have been going on here for a looong time. The Paulbots have a very, very comfortable home here.

Welcome aboard the train of insanity. Perhaps you will fare better than I.

Clint| 6.19.11 @ 9:28PM

Uh Oh ! Now, It's Sandy-Victor-Margie-Sybil.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.18.11 @ 5:46PM

Rand hit a home run on Fox the other night, Bachmann drilled the boys here.

Kaphen DePriest| 6.18.11 @ 6:05PM

Perhaps the most surprising development was how badly Ron Paul beat the second place candidate, Jon Huntsman, who canceled his speech at the event when he learned Ron Paul was going to dominate the event.

C Bowen| 6.18.11 @ 6:21PM

On Monday, we'll be treated to Quin and the gang's latest Ruling Class missives on why we should take Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty seriously.

Sandy| 6.18.11 @ 7:17PM

I am now convinced that articles are being posted solely to get traffic. There are few articles that contain the name Ron Paul that don't get an oversupply of hits. Great way to draw people to the site, while promoting a loony.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who takes the straw poll today seriously is deluded. And though everyone knows that articles are written that make it sound like it is such a big accomplishment.

Remove Ron Paul, and Huntsman. Then you have a more accurate reading of the pulse of the people. Paul pays people to vote for him in the straw poll. He is trying to buy the vote. Didn't Obama do that in 2008? Paul and his supporters have gamed the system.

Occam's Tool| 6.18.11 @ 7:22PM

When I see Paul win in Iowa or NH, then we're talking. He always wins polls among the fanatics. But he's not going to do much in the primaries. Never has, never will.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.19.11 @ 12:26PM

Occam,

You seem to be an intelligent guy, so I don't really know why do you waste your time even talking about Ron Paul. (I know why Antle does this - because he's an idiot, plain and simple.) He is not worth your time. He's the Libertarian counterpart of Lyndon LaRouche, a perennial candidate who has zero credibility. He provides comic relief against the background of a too serious campaign. He's like a mouse that wants to roar, but is surprised that it can only squeal.

I'm worried about the truly dangerous RINOs who could actually win - Romney and Huntsman.

C Bowen| 6.18.11 @ 7:32PM

It's true. The majority of registered Republicans who vote in primaries or show up at caucus, do as the tele tells them to do:

Vote more War, More Welfare, More Debt!

C Bowen| 6.18.11 @ 7:50PM

Sandy;

If you have evidence that Paul pays people to show up at these things, please post it ASAP.

This would be major news! Please help the good Republican Party stop this evil!

It would be bigger then Curveball or Iranian agent Chalabi telling the world that Iraq was building unmanned drones to bomb Cleveland--I know LOL

Clint| 6.18.11 @ 9:43PM

Wrong.
"Rumors circulated here that Huntsman campaign had paid for supporters to attend the conference and a spokesman for the candidate, Tim Miller, didn't deny that they had.

"Not commenting on internal strategy," said Miller, "

Occam's Tool| 6.18.11 @ 7:24PM

Pawlenty won multiple terms as Governor in a Liberal State. Paul wins multiple terms as US Rep from a backwards piece of crap district that's an embarrasment to Texas. (In case you're wondering---I LIVED there for four years. I have 1st hand knowledge of Galveston and Texas City---home of the worst man-made and one of the top five natural, disasters in US history.)

C Bowen| 6.18.11 @ 7:30PM

Are you the one who was so scared of Saddam that you thought it a good idea to have every American groped before they got on an airplane?

Occam's Tool| 6.18.11 @ 7:41PM

No. I'm the one who said we shouldn't put any additional security measures on planes at all---that we should have bombed Medina after 9/11, and told the Islamic world that the next terrorist attack on the US OR ITS ALLIES was going to result in Mecca and all other Islamic capitals being nuked, and that we would not tolerate any inconvenience, and that they should fear us, and immediately stop hostilities and weapons programs, or face our wrath.

Do you believe that on 9/12/01 George Bush couldn't have gotten this through?

They should be suffering and inconvenienced---not us. Without pity, remorse, or mercy. At minimal cost in American dollars and lives. Leave them poisoned, deformed, crying, and broken in spirit, soul, and mind. Make their survivors build the Mexican wall for us, without pay, under the lash. Let their future be a boot crashing down on a human face, forever.

Those were/and are MY recommendations.

Instead, we chose interventions to protect their civilians and harass ours.

No, I don't support groping of US civilians, Mr. Bowen. I support the Jabotinsky approach, Only Thus!

C Bowen| 6.18.11 @ 7:47PM

So--let me get this straight.

You wanted to kill them all, eradicate the Muslims, and whoever was left, make them slave labor?

But instead, you were tricked into supporting a war to make a secular state an Iranian ally?

LOL as they say.

Good luck Sandy with these psychopaths.

Occam's Tool| 6.18.11 @ 9:37PM

I don't think democracy building in Iraq is or was useful. It WILL fall apart.

But if you think that we're winning the war on Terror, Mr. Bowen, I have news for you---it has NOT YET BEGUN. Laugh away, but Demographics don't lie---Europe is going to fall. And isolationism will NOT save you.

It took two atom bombs dropping to knock out Japan---a smaller country than the US, with a much smaller industrial base. It took hundreds of thousands boots on the ground AND the pulverization of the majority of its cities to knock Germany and its 80 million out of WWII.

When we go to war with 1.6 Billion Islamics and their supporters (dhimmis)---how much blood will need to be shed to stop them?

The correct way to stop this war is to draw a hard red line.

Incidentally, I did not support a nuclear war---I supported warning that we would go to one if the attacks continued. Pussy-footing around does not stop fanatics. Instead we have tried outreach, or "non-interference" whenever possible, and the attacks are increasing on our allies and us.

See how realistic my "extreme views" are in 2030-2050. Hint: reducing US INTELLIGENT military intervention (aid to Israel, strengthening our military, and hitting the Sharia advocates when appropriate) in favor of a Paulite "non-interventionalist" philosophy will get us nuclear attacked.

Check out how the Romans and Byzantines would have dealt with this in their prime. The Romans destroyed Carthage and salted the land. The Byzantines blinded the Bulgars. The Byzantines lasted almost a millenia. We would be well to emulate them.

Occam's Tool| 6.18.11 @ 9:42PM

In short, when we try to reason with them, they interpret it as weakness. When we beat them up, they respect us. The philosophy is based on the rantings of a child molesting thief. It must be dealt with that way if they offer violence to us until they no longer offer violence to us. Paul will get many Americans murdered by his approach, if implemented.

Red Phillips | 6.18.11 @ 9:50PM

"Paul will get many Americans murdered by his approach, if implemented."

Work that out for me please. If we ended foreign aid, withdrew from the Middle East, got out of NATO and the UN, etc. how would that get Americans murdered. Specifics, not boilerplate, would be appreciated. Thanks.

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 12:30AM

Specifically---we would be fighting in our own territory, not overseas. Many American civilians live in the USA compared to Iran and Iraq.

The terrorists that would no longer be tied up in Iraq would be free to go to Mexico, or Canada. We would have lost the initiative in the attacks.

To be more specific, I would expect that if Obama were re-elected, psychologically it would make the most amount of sense to attack Honolulu. New Zealand has pathetic airport security and non-stops every day to Honolulu, as well as close ties to the Arab world.

Red Phillips | 6.19.11 @ 1:58AM

"we would be fighting in our own territory, not overseas"

Are you seriously suggesting that we would have to fight militarily Muslims in this country if we were not fighting wars over there? This is nonsense. The hyper-interventionist position is visceral. It is not rational? Which Muslim country has the air force, navy, ground forces, etc. to attack us over here? The notion is absurd.

"The terrorists that would no longer be tied up in Iraq would be free to go to Mexico, or Canada."

This is the so-called "fly paper theory." Where is the evidence that terrorist who otherwise would have been carrying out attacks over here instead went in mass to serve as mercenaries in Iraq? It is much more likely that our attack on Iraq created terrorists by increasing Muslim anger with us.

"it would make the most amount of sense to attack Honolulu"

How, prey tell, does our bombing far off Muslim Country X prevent a terrorist attack in Hawaii? This is just silly. Again, the hyper-interventionist position is based on emotion, not reason.

End foreign aid, withdraw from the Middle East, quit taking sides in the Palestine/Israel conflict, and restrict immigration. That will do more to lessen the threat of terrorism on our shores than will bombing any number of far off Muslim countries, and if you would use your head instead of your childhood playground instincts you would realize this.

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 2:32AM

How is international affairs different from childhood playground problems? You obviously have a piss poor reading of history. (For example, how is "ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House! Ha! Ha! Ha!" any different from playground chants---that was an actual quote from an election in the 1800s. The politician with the illegitimate child was, of course, a Democrat.)

And why did the Barbary pirates attack us? We were weak, isolationist, and neutral at that time, with a President who wanted nothing to do with the military.

We are facing the new Nazis. The way to beat them is to destroy their will to fight, not run away.

I will be proved correct. After all, on September 10, 2001, it would have seemed impossible that terrorists could crash planes into the center of American defense, and the twin towers.

As I said before, I'm a barbarian. It does not mean I'm wrong. And I daresay I HAVE much more experience in controlling psychopaths than you do, Red. One of us prevented the Alabama Chain Gang from having one successful suicide during its years of existence in the 1990s. One of us didn't.

You are hopelessly naive and foolish in your judgments, Red.

And, by the way, my analysis of NZ airport security is based on multiple personal observations.

Clint| 6.19.11 @ 10:41AM

Bullshit Argument."And why did the Barbary pirates attack us? We were weak, isolationist, and neutral at that time, with a President who wanted nothing to do with the military."

Rebuttal:
"The Barbary pirates had long attacked British and other European shipping along the North Coast of Africa."

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 3:58AM

"A Falling camel attracts many knives." Explain how your approach would be interpreted as an example of American strength, resolve, and willingness to fight for itself.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.19.11 @ 12:20PM

Complete noninterventionism means that the US will not eliminate threats to it and to other countries that exist until these threats attack America first. Iran, for example, WILL acquire nuclear weapons unless a) extremely harsh sanctions are imposed on it, which is unlikely, or b) the US acts militarily to eliminate or at least slow down the nuclear program.

Clint| 6.19.11 @ 10:03PM

Hardly.

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 14

Concerning the use of military force by the United States against Iran.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 12, 2007

JOINT RESOLUTION

Concerning the use of military force by the United States against Iran.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAN.

(a) Rule of Construction- No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran.

(b) Requirements- Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces, the President shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of military force against Iran."

C Bowen| 6.18.11 @ 9:45PM

You actually wrote how you wanted to threaten nuclear war, but you don't support nuclear war--just a bluff.

What kind of joke are you?

Then you start about war with the Muslims, but yet you supported the war against a secular Arab state that made the Muslims stronger.

Can you try a post where you make sense?

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 12:38AM

I supported taking out Saddam, yes, but I felt that Iran would have been a better choice. Bush chose wrongly for his first move, as Iran was the more powerful state. That being said, we shouldn't have "nation-built"in Iraq, but should have gone straight in and eviscerated Iran, instead.

I'm a barbarian and a realist. I don't believe in being humanitarian towards my enemies who murder my women and children and unarmed civilians and pass candy out after doing so.

My views may seem extreme, now. I assure you they won't after the first nuclear attack on a US city, which is coming when Iran gets its hands on nukes.

You folks really should read more history.

Occam's Tool| 6.18.11 @ 9:43PM

I would rather see them as slaves than get my genitalia groped. I don't know about you, Mr. Bowen.

Red Phillips | 6.18.11 @ 9:46PM

So we should nuke Muslim capitals and Mecca for the actions of stateless terrorists Muslims as a whole don't necessarily have any control over?

Occam, you really are a barbarian.

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 12:35AM

It would make them take control of them. And, further, Red, you are quite naive. You think Saudi, which cuts people's hands off and keeps its women from driving, couldn't control terrorists on the Sunni side if it wanted too?

I am so glad you have such elevated priciples, Red. Ask yourself if Carter had followed my precepts in 1979 if we would have had 9/11.

Red, you may be personally a pleasant fellow, but you are a naive fool whose safety Americans should not be entrusted too, just like Ron Paul.

War is killing, and there is no way to soften it. Our enemies need to bleed much, much more.

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 12:43AM

"principles" Sorry, Red.

And I repeat---you don't have an idea what it will take to win a mass war against Islam, which is inevitably coming---Demographics don't lie.

China will age horribly before it modernizes. Japan is already dead. Western Europe is having its entitlement crises because it doesn't have kids---and will not be able to turn around in time.

India has terrible structural difficulties, although it may end up being one of our best hopes. America's problem is that it is not willing to get its hands dirty. Our armed forces are MUCH too small for the mass warfare we will be getting into in 2030 or before. There's a reason I keep picking 2030. Review your demographics and see why.

I may be a barbarian, and incredibly cruel. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong.

Red Phillips | 6.19.11 @ 1:42AM

For the 100th time, demographics are an immigration problem, not a military problem, both in Europe and here. This is quite simple. Restrict immigration, no demographic problem. How does bombing Iraq stop Muslims in Europe or America from committing acts of terror?

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 2:37AM

No, Red---they are both military AND immigration. Restrict immigration, and you still have the Mexico problem.

And control that border, and you still have the European problem.

And control that, and you still have the ideology problem.

This isn't checkers, Red. It's 3-D chess. Take a look at Caliphate, by Tom Kratman. The author was the instructor at the Army War College on Rule of War. He does not agree with you.

Demonstrating resolve stops aggressors. Being an advocate of "non-interventionalism" doesn't. For example, we "non-intervened" in the problem of the Shah of Iran, under your favorite foreign policy President, Jimmy Carter. How did that work out for 'ya?

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 3:50AM

How did bombing Iraq get Daffy to stop his nuclear research program?

International affairs ARE playground affairs, Red. Have you read the notes on the British Cabinet meetings in WWII in Masters and Commanders? You should.

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 4:01AM

Perhaps it would help you understand more, Red, if you realized that I had a job offer in 2008 to work at Fort Hood AS A PSYCHIATRIST. What is Fort Hood famous for in the annals of Domestic Terrorism?

I take domestic terrorism quite seriously, Red. Moreso than you, I'm sure. Your approach would not have deterred Major Hasan, anymore than the "no guns on base" policy did. Weakness attracts the fist.

Red Phillips | 6.19.11 @ 12:19PM

"Red, if you realized that I had a job offer in 2008 to work at Fort Hood AS A PSYCHIATRIST."

Occam, I WAS a military (Air Force) psychiatrist. What does that have to do with anything?

"Your approach would not have deterred Major Hasan"

Hasan makes my case perfectly. Bombing far off Muslim countries can not possibly stop the Hasans of the world. Our bombing of Muslim countries makes Hasans more likely.

Occam's Tool| 4.8.12 @ 9:47PM

Red: I doubt you were a psychiatrist.

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 3:47AM

To be more precise:

The correct approach to dealing with Islamic terrorism is to tie the future viability of prayer services in, and absence of oddly fused green glass on, Mecca and Medina rests upon the good behavior of Muslims in their various countries.

No terrorist attacks on US Cities or citizens, prayer activities continue. Terrorist activities, prayer activities stop outside of lead suits. If they continue, other holy sites get to experience hot winds of the Sun's energies unleashed perilously close to ground. After the first bombs drop, security activities on US airlines go back to 9/10 levels, with warnings of future reminders if pupil is unduly slow on uptake.

Their lives should be disrupted and fearful because of their terrorist threats and actions, not ours. Their people should bleed for threats and activities, not ours.

That is how proper wars are fought and won. Like WWII.

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 2:38AM

Yup. It will make them stop lying to us and get them actively involved in preventing attacks on us---out of fear. Fear is a great motivator.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.18.11 @ 7:33PM

They speak so slowly, the coastal natives. When you order something in a resturant they inevitably ask you to repeat it more slowly.

linda| 6.18.11 @ 8:45PM

Saw a headline for an article by Carl Cannon...."Ron Paul Wins Straw Poll..Rick Perry Won Hearts".... I'd say that's about right. That's how you win elections not by winning straw polls.

Clint| 6.19.11 @ 10:13AM

Orrrrrrr,
Saw a headline for an article by Andrew Malcolm...."Ron Paul handily won GOP debate according to applause"

Yani| 6.18.11 @ 9:36PM

Ron Paul won the straw poll because he's a straw man.

Badumpbump.

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 3:54AM

Mr. Bowen,

Scipio Africanus would have invaded Iraq on that pretext. It should also be pointed out that Saddam had tried to assassinate a sitting American President. Trying to wipe out POTUS is sufficient casus belli.

C Bowen| 6.19.11 @ 7:10AM

Do you have evidence that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush other than what Iranian and Kuwaitti agents gave to the traitors in the press and various administrations--like the made up stories about Iraqi troops throwing Kuwaiti babies out of their cribs; Winnebegos of death; unmanned drones to attack Cleveland and so on and so on...

Clint| 6.19.11 @ 10:06AM

Sufficient casus belli:
"Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel."

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 8:00AM

From the OIG, Mr. Bowen.

From George Mason University's History News Network:

"How Do We Know that Iraq Tried to Assassinate President George H.W. Bush?
By FBI Study
This is an excerpt from Part II of Section D of the report 'The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases', published by the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, in April, 1997.

Former President George Bush visited Kuwait between April 14 and April 16, 1993, to commemorate the allied victory in the Persian Gulf War. Accompanying Bush were his wife, two of his sons, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, former Chief of Staff John Sununu, and former Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady.

In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate Bush during his visit to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. The Kuwaitis recovered the Landcruiser, which contained between 80 and 90 kilograms of plastic explosives connected to a detonator ( the Bush device or Bush explosive device ). The Kuwaitis also recovered ten cube-shaped plastic explosive devices with detonators (the cube-bombs ) from the Landcruiser. Some of the suspects reportedly confessed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS ) was behind the assassination attempt.

On April 29, 1993, CIA bomb technicians compared the Bush explosive device to two known Iraqi explosive devices found in different Middle-Eastern countries in 1990 and 1991 (the Middle-East devices ) . The technicians reported that the remote control firing mechanism in the Bush device was identical to those in the Middle-East devices. Additionally, the technicians reported that blasting caps from the Bush device appeared to be identical to those found in one of the Middle-East devices. The technicians later concluded that the circuit board from the Bush device also closely resembled circuit boards from the Middle-East devices.

In early-May 1993, the FBI sent personnel to Kuwait to interview the suspects and examine the physical evidence. FBI Special Agents, along with representatives of the Secret Service and State Department, interviewed 16 suspects, some more than once. Two of the suspects, Wali 'Abd Al-Hadi 'Abd Al-Hasan Al-Ghazali ( Al-Ghazali ) and Ra'd 'Abd Al-Amir 'Abbud Al-Asadi ( Al-Asadi ), admitted during the FBI interviews that they had participated in the plot at the direction of the IIS.

Explosives examiner Jordan also traveled to Kuwait in May 1993 to examine the Bush device. Jordan examined the main charge, which was hidden in three panels in the Landcruiser and was capable of being detonated by remote control, a timing device, or a push-pull suicide switch. Jordan compared the Bush device to photographs of the Middle-East devices, as well as other devices, and concluded that the same person or persons manufactured the Bush device and one of the Middle-East devices, and that a connection existed between persons responsible for the Bush device and several other devices, including the other Middle-East device. Jordan reported these conclusions in a May 11, 1993 Laboratory report.

Jordan then returned to Washington, D.C., and delivered samples of the explosives from the Bush device to Whitehurst. Whitehurst analyzed the explosive from the main charge and concluded that the substance was approximately 96% RDX, 3% polyvinyl-isobutyl ether binder, and 1% hydrocarbon oil. As for samples from the cube-bombs, Whitehurst concluded that the explosive was consistent with an explosive containing RDX bound with a cross-linked phenoxy or epoxy binder containing Sudan I dye. Whitehurst reported these findings in his June 7, 1993, dictation.

Shortly thereafter, Jordan returned to the Middle-East to conduct further examinations of the Bush device and the Middle-East devices. Based on these examinations, Jordan reported significant consistencies in the selection of individual components and alterations to manufactured items in all of the devices. Jordan concluded that the similarities represented signature characteristics. He further reported that the same person or persons of close association constructed the remote control fuzing systems and electronic timing mechanisms used in all of these devices. Jordan also reported that a second person or persons of close association were responsible for adding wiring and components to the Bush device and one of the Middle-East devices, enabling those devices to be incorporated in vehicles. Jordan reported these conclusions in his June 18, 1993, Laboratory report, in which he also summarized parts of Whitehurst's June 7, 1993, dictation.

On June 2, 1993, representatives of the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and others in the Department of Justice (DOJ) discussed the results of their investigations with representatives of the Clinton Administration. Three weeks later, the DOJ and CIA reported their conclusions. The DOJ and CIA reported that it was highly likely that the Iraqi Government originated the plot and more than likely that Bush was the target. Additionally, based on past Iraqi methods and other sources of intelligence, the CIA independently reported that there was a strong case that Saddam Hussein directed the plot against Bush.

On June 26, 1993, the United States launched a cruise missile attack against a building housing the IIS in Baghdad in retaliation for the assassination attempt on former President Bush. According to news reports, the attack killed between six and eight persons and injured approximately 12 others. On June 27, 1993, Madeleine Albright, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, addressed an emergency session of the Security Council and provided evidence to support the attack on the IIS facility."

C Bowen| 6.19.11 @ 4:46PM

LOL

Did they print this before or after they burned Waco, shot Mrs. Weaver, and with the CIA, pretended they didn't have a foreign operative a little too close to the OKC bombing?

Nick| 6.19.11 @ 5:41PM

C Bowen,

Did the FBI also bring down the Twin Towers and World Trade 7? Or, was only Mossad involved?

Margie| 6.19.11 @ 7:24PM

So far the only thing I hear is crickets, Nick.

Nick| 6.20.11 @ 2:00PM

Margie,

Yes, and like crickets, they always sing the same song!

WilliamR| 6.19.11 @ 7:36PM

Well according to Brit Hume and Carl Cameron of Fox News Israel knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and did not tell us.

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

Nick| 6.20.11 @ 1:37PM

WilliamR,

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that Israel spies on us!
(Pssst....We spy on Israel, too.)

The British also spy on us, and, we spy on them. Everybody spies on everybody else. If someone like Pollard is discovered, prosecute them.

Take it from someone who knows, get out of the conspiracy theory swamp. You only end up smelling swampy.

C Bowen| 6.19.11 @ 8:24PM

Not that I know of.

The American Spectator, that would the site you are posting on, accused the CIA of running drugs and noted that CIA operative, Andre Strassmeier was involved in the the cell that produced the OKC bombing.

The American Spectator was also a leader in questioning the FBI and Reno on what went on at Waco, and Ruby Ridge (if the former happened under Bush.)

Why don't you run back to your pro-UN treason sites now, ok?

Nick| 6.20.11 @ 1:11PM

C Bowen,

So what? You agree with everything ever written by every writer at AmSpec? This gives you the right to libel everyone at the FBI and CIA?

p.s. I'm not going anywhere.

C Bowen| 6.20.11 @ 5:16PM

Okay--Nick,

Wow us on your thoughts regarding Andre Strassmeier? Feel free to use google and learn about him for the first time.

Also Google Mena Airport, and defend Clinton for us--I'll be right here.

Occam's Tool| 6.19.11 @ 8:02AM

It should be pointed out that next to Jimmy Carter, Bush Sr. was the most anti-Israel President in US history.

Siding with the Arabs, if you're an infidel, doesn't mean they won't try to kill you. Nor does betraying your friends.

Sandy| 6.19.11 @ 11:14AM

Occam's Tool- Your arguments have been superb. I caught a glimpse of Sun Tzu sitting over there in your corner, though not giving away his hand to his enemy, but understanding them thoroughly. I'm sure you know that you are trying to teach pig's to sing when responding to the Paulies.

Ron Paul said, and I quote, "the Islamist threat is made up, just as the Communist threat was in the 50's and 60's. " He also said that "the 9/11 hijackers were just a bunch of thugs with boxcutters. " Combine that with his statements concerning the Ground Zero mosque, that the Muslims, through free speech, and a separation of church and state, have the right to build a mosque wherever they choose. Obviously Paul does not take the threat of the radical Islamists seriously. And, even though he has been proven so seriously wrong on his view that there was no Communist threat, he holds on tight to his warped and irrational views. The current administration is filled with self-identified Communists, who are wreaking destruction on this country. It is fully on display, and I'd be hard pressed to find many that wouldn't agree that they are there, and they mean business. Yet Paul supposedly believes that the Communist threat is all made up, same with the radical Islamists. I'd like to ask whose side this guy is on, but I already know the answer, and it scares the crap out of me. Thankfully this guy will never get the keys to the WH.

Clint| 6.19.11 @ 8:38PM

Uh Oh, Israel Firster RINO-CINO Victor-Margie-Sandy-Sybil, You're Boy Johnnny McCain, Badmouthed One Of Our Tea Party Candidates, Michele Bachmann

"McCain acknowledged that war weariness is a factor in opposition to U.S. involvement in Libya, but he disagreed with Republican candidates like Michele Bachmann who said at last week's GOP debate that the U.S. had "no vital national interest" there. "
"I strongly disagree with her and others," McCain said. "The fact is our interest are our values. And our values are that we don't want people needlessly slaughtered by the thousands if we can prevent such activity."

Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.20.11 @ 3:06AM

I frankly don't care what Fake War Hero John McTraitor says. He's the second worst RINO in the Senate, after Richard Lugar.

Margie| 6.20.11 @ 12:17AM

To Sandy,

Please ignore the Paulbot troll, Clint/Tim*. He's insane. I've been posting here for a couple of years and am one of the very few who confronts him on his insanity, so when another comes along that takes the same stance (one of truth), he accuses them of being me.
He's also obsessed with John McCain, who he refused to vote for because his sickening idol wasn't the nominee.
Thankfully most Americans would not vote for this man, as long as we continue to expose him for what he truly is.
Keep up the good work!

Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.19.11 @ 12:14PM

When did Daddy Bush betray any of America's friends? And how was he "anti-Israel"? He was opposed to Yitzhak Shamir, an unrepentant terrorist who was an obstacle to the peace process, tried to sabotage it, and rejected numerous UNSC Resolutions. And Bush was right to do so. Yitzhak Shamir is just as bad as OBL.

Red Phillips | 6.19.11 @ 12:30PM

Occam, there has never been an anti-Israel President. Such dichotomous if your not 100% "pro-Israel" you must be "anti-Israel" thinking is childish. Wanting more evenhandedness or better yet neutrality does not make someone "anti-Israel."

Clint| 6.19.11 @ 9:53AM

Israeli Spy Ben Ami Kadish, had the same Handler, out of The NYC Consulate, as Jonathan Pollard.

Israeli Company Checkpoint was given the same treatment,as Dubai Ports by C.F.I.U.S., in The Sourcefire Deal.

Illegal Israeli Sales of U.S. Weapons Tech to The Red Chinese, jeopardizing Our Allies Taiwan & Japan.

There's more....

NadePaulKuciGravMcKi| 6.19.11 @ 2:21PM

7 Nation Army couldn't hold Ron Paul back

martin j smith| 6.19.11 @ 3:54PM

Ron Paul will not be chosen--I think most people know why. He and his followers are a true extreme dichotomy of Left and Conservative He is perverse in foreign policy. I cannot vote for even a half Socialist ( even if it is in foreign policy ) too dangerous.

Red Phillips | 6.20.11 @ 2:37PM

Martin, there is nothing "Socialist" about a non-interventionist foreign policy. That is just silly. Non-intervention is the foreign policy most consistent with small government conservatism. It is the small domestic government, but large internationalist military crowd who are being inconsistent.

Margie| 6.19.11 @ 5:54PM

Excellent posts, O.T., as always. You do the Lord's work here.

Jackboot | 6.19.11 @ 6:40PM

As if one could forget, it's always a foregone conclusion that Ron Paul wins any straw poll. The PaulBots are quite good at stuffing the boxes as was said earlier in this thread. I suppose that in their delusional minds, somehow being 1st in this type of 'vote' will convert into the same in real ballot boxes. Paul, Mike Church and the rest of the big "L" libertarians maintain an ideology that was outdated by trans-oceanic travel. In re: Occam's discussion here, he is most certainly correct. I've had the same discussion with other conservative friends, to eradicate the current state of islamic terrorism WILL force us sooner rather than later into a general war. In this war we would be foolish to wage anything LESS THAN TOTAL WAR, and that MUST include the imminent, credible threat of using nuclear weapons. Isolationism would likely ensure the need to go nuclear as the threat would be greatly enhanced by the exit of the US from all extra-territorial attempts to reduce the radical's emergence. This could allow the enemy to have nukes of their own well before our need to engage them occurs (i.e. the US of WMD on American soil). Radical Islam, if one reads modern (and not so modern for that matter) history HONESTLY, would show that it's a cancer, only requiring a host location to amplify into a major threat. Religious, cultural and economic circumstances in the M.E. are ideal breeding grounds for it. The western world too, has morphed into a breeding ground as well, by it's ridiculous concepts of multi-culturalism, 'tolerance' and political correctness. This coupled with liberal immigration policy and a failure to require assimilation has ensured the cancer will grow and amplify here too. The abject failure of the perhaps mythical, 'moderate' Muslim populace to address their brethren, has merely assured this horrific necessity.

weddingdresses | 6.20.11 @ 2:30AM

Ron Paul will not be chosen--I think most people know why. He and his followers are a true extreme dichotomy of Left and Conservative He is perverse in foreign policy. I cannot vote for even a half Socialist ( even if it is in foreign policy ) too dangerous.

JanieGraham| 10.27.11 @ 10:44AM

I have seen a lot of advertisements for Ron Paul and have checked out http://www.ourname4freedom.ws I don't think he will win, but I do like some of the ground work that he is basing his beliefs on. I guess we'll see in about a year!

More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/18/ron-paul-wins-rlc-straw-poll

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|47 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|45 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|24 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|14 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|13 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|21 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|8 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|14 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.