The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Ron Paul Throws Mulshine Under Bus On Hannity

By on 10.25.11 @ 12:23PM

Well.

Interesting.

On October 2, 2011, New Jersey Star-Ledger columnist and Ron Paul supporter Paul Mulshine (or “Moonshine Mulshine” as we know him fondly here) published an interview with Congressman Paul.

There was this interesting question from Mulshine and answer from the Congressman, here reprinted verbatim:

Q: Do you think radio talk show people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin fear that you’re making them obsolete because your views reveal them as the statists they are?

A: I think that if I gain influence it’s an embarrassment to them because they’re not really limited-government people yet they make their livelihood fooling the people into thinking they’re the real leaders of limited government. And when you look at it we find out that they haven’t been. Look at Bush’s eight years. The budget exploded.

Before the issue of substance — no small matter — there was this startling moment on last night’s Hannity when Hannity questioned Congressman Paul on this. Paul’s response?

“Well, I think somebody put those words in my mouth and I didn’t deny it….”

Say what?

In a blink Paul Mulshine was, as they say, thrown under the bus by his candidate.

Startling as that was, the substance of what the Congressman was said to have alleged — incorrectly, he now says — is astonishingly amazing and there is no wonder he quickly backed away from the issue.

Our disagreement with Congressman Paul is the same as Mr. Hannity’s — foreign policy. The notion that if America “came home” the world would somehow leave us alone has never worked for the simplest of reasons. Bullies — whether they come in the form of Islamic extremists, Communists, Nazis or Barbary Pirates — are bullies. As any conservative knows, conservatism holds to the central belief, as expressed here by Russell Kirk, that “human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.” Whether the issue at hand was Cain killing Abel or Hitler invading all of Europe or the 9/11 terrorists, the notion that “he made me do it” — the core of Mr. Paul’s foreign policy beliefs — is certainly not conservative. In the modern age it is in fact the exact philosophy so closely identified with former Senator George McGovern, a decided leftist — as was McGovern’s political hero, FDR Vice President and 1948 Progressive Party candidate Henry Wallace. So there is considerable disagreement there.

But the notion that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Mark Levin are somehow “statists” is laughable. Indeed, Mr. Limbaugh was last heard saying Ron Paul’s ideas for cutting five Cabinet departments as part of a trillion dollar reduction in spending was a good idea. Levin’s bestseller Liberty and Tyranny became a bible of sorts for the Tea Party, literally waved in the air at rallies. Levin a statist? Silly.

But if the point is that there are conservatives who seem not to take their conservatism seriously — that is a legitimate issue. And while we agree with Congressman Paul in his general approach to government spending, we are always hard pressed to hear some of his spending sentiments while reconciling them to the old news that Congressman Paul has been no slouch at taking home the Statist Bacon to his district in Texas.

As seen here, Mr. Paul justifies his own statism by saying he is simply giving back money to the taxpayers of his district. In the form, of course, not of a tax cut and no spending, but spending – i.e., statist pork — earmarks. When grilled by Fox News host Neil Cavuto back in March of 2009 about requesting some $73 million in earmarks, the Congressman’s answer was standard statism. Somebody’s gotta spend all this money so it might as well be me for my folks. That late legendary porkmeister, West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, couldn’t have said it better.

Now, maybe Congressman Paul’s projects like an “intra-coastal waterway, the Texas City channel and Wallisville Lake” projects are worthy things. But worthy or not worthy, they are most assuredly statism at work.

So when the accusation is made that the three most popular anti-statist talk show hosts in the land are somehow “statists” — by a congressman who has been literally spending his time shoveling statist money into his district — one can only shake one’s head. Presumably that’s why Congressman Paul suddenly shifted into denial mode in full view of a national Fox audience.

And if you’re Mr. Moonshine Mulshine — you must surely wonder in astonishment at the Ron Paul bus that just left treadmarks all over your credibility on one of the most popular TV shows in America.

View all comments (235) |

Cam O. Milety| 10.25.11 @ 12:36PM

Paul had words put in his mouth in his own newsletters, too. Funny how that keeps happening to him.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 1:14PM

Apparently, Chamomile Tea Boy Drinks The RINO-CINO Kool Aid.

" RON PAUL “PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA”

SPENDING:

Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Jack in Wi.| 10.25.11 @ 7:09PM

Another nonsense hit piece from Jeffrey Lord. Lush Limbaugh, Sean Hammity, Bill O'Blarney and Lox Snooze are what's wrong with the conservative movement. They have been useless shills for the powers that be. It was their support for Bush and Cheney that almost destroyed the conservative movement and the Republican party. They have led us over a cliff. I listened to Lush for 13 years. I turned him off with his constant shilling for a war with Iraq. I don't see him taking any responsiblity for the disaster that resulted. Hammity is nothing but constant repetition of nonsense. O' Blarney is so full of himself he is about to explode.

Lush with his 4 younger and younger wives is not my favorite example of family values. He is a tremendoes talent who could have been truely great. It is sad how he turned out.

Grzmlyk| 10.27.11 @ 1:46PM

Ah, the Ron Paul bell rings and the rats come out to push the lever.

How Pavlovian.

The Whack Job is Here. And His Name is Clint.

Grzmlyk| 10.27.11 @ 2:13PM

BTW, Jack, did you think that up all by yourself? "Lush Limbaugh?" CLEVER. OMG, I laughed till I stopped. Really.

Nothing makes people take your arguments seriously like coming up with witless nicknames for people you don't like and then delivering ad hominem attacks.

"Hammity." PRICELESS. You are a wit.

The scariest thing about Ron Paul - by far - is his merry band of lunatic, misanthropic, disgruntled, vengeance-seeking followers, cuckoo for coco puffs every last one a ya's.

Yeah, I know: Even as we speak you're getting out your generic voodoo doll that represents everyone who doesn't see Paul as a messiah and poking needles into it. Well, if it makes you guys feel better, go for it.

And, while you're at it, you can put on your jack boots and fantasize about Iran nuking Israel. Those damned Jews! If only Hitler had finished the job, eh?

I do wonder what you'll do when Paul is left in the dust. Gather in Clint's basement at the Island of Misfit Toys and charter a bus to the nearest Star Trek convention, where you'll proselytize Kingons? (Pssst. There ARE no Klingons in the real world.)

Ouch! I feel the needle already! REALLY I do!

The Whack Job is Here. And his Name is Ron Paul Supporter.

None of the above| 10.25.11 @ 12:50PM

Not exactly a convincing argument. Ron Paul did not call Hannity a statist as per Mulshine's interview. And Ron Paul did not deny the implication in Mulshine's question.

And false equivalence with congressional funds is loose at best. Think of a football player with an offensive coordinator, a good teammate knows to perform as best as possible within the confines of the OCs system. Whether the player disagrees with the system is irrelevant, it's imperative that he performs as best possible within the system. When/if the player becomes an OC, then he can implement his own system based on the principles he believes in.

Mario| 10.25.11 @ 3:18PM

Best comment on here

NadePaulKuciGravMcKi| 10.25.11 @ 12:55PM

wars of choice are over ... we are now bankrupt

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 1:14PM

We aren't bankrupt until the bona-fide conservatives say we are, Nade.

This is The American Spectator.
This is magical land.
This is where earmarking funds on budget increases Paul voted AGAINST earns him the "statist" title (despite the fact the funds not earmarked fall into the general fund...never to be seen by Texas taxpayers again).

This is where Hannity, Limbaugh and Levin can defend unlimited budget increases (via anti-capitalist no-bid contracts) for pointless military adventures and earn themselves the imaginary honorific "limited-government".

So I guess Ron Paul should advocate unlimited military spending and gimmicky 999 tax increases and then he can get into the conversation about "conservatives".

Micah | 10.25.11 @ 1:36PM

HA! I wish there was a "So right on" button!

Cam O. Milety| 10.25.11 @ 3:09PM

Why do Ron Paul's supporters have a hard time understanding why he's not taken seriously?

Look at it this way. Cain gets a lot of things right. You want to dismiss him because of the flaws (which are very real flaws) in the 999 plan.

Paul says a lot of things that most people think are deeply flawed.

Google for "Ron Paul" and "crackpot" if you want to see how others perceive Paul. Or "Ron Paul" and "loon". Etc. For Cain to have a similar liability he would need to have a decades long history of coming up with 999 plans.

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 3:22PM

I will Google both of those things, but I would prefer if you stated your personal reasons for labeling Paul a "crackpot" or "loon".

In return, please Google this one thing.

"presidential campaign donations active duty military"

Why do you refuse to take the troops seriously, Cam?

Corey| 10.25.11 @ 4:22PM

Maybe we should just remove everyones priveledge of voting and only allowing active military to vote and decide for us... seems to be that you are implying that someone serving in the military is more important than anyone else.

Who cares who the active military will vote for. It should matter to each citizen who they think would be the best stewardship over America..... Me personally? I would never vote for someone who implies that America is to blame for 9/11 ... but you sir are perfectly within your right to vote for Ron Paul.

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 4:48PM

I appreciate the non-mocking tone of your reply Corey, so I will return the favor.

I don't believe that the opinions of the active military are more important than anyone else's, but I was asking that question to Cam ironically since he is more interested in debating "seriousness" (what?) rather than policy. Generally, Paul's critics call names like we are 8 years old and back at the schoolyard since they cannot attack him on policy or record grounds.

After 9/11 and during the lead-up to our illegal war in Iraq, many fiscal conservatives were called "Un-American" and "not patriotic" because we didn't support the PATRIOT ACT and other egregious expansions of state power. Similarly, leading up to the Iraq War, fiscal hawks were throw under the bus again for questioning the evidence and cost of that war. Needless to say, I am bitter that the GOP has hijacked "conservatism" and turned it into Red-Flavored Liberalism which has ONLY rhetoric differences with the Democrats, but not much difference when looking at actions.

So really, I was just being a petty asshole and returning in some small part the favor of having "the troops" used against me as a rhetorical device by someone whom I presume to be a know-nothing neocon.

Mike Bergsma| 10.25.11 @ 5:08PM

so you are opposed to name calling. I see Ron Paul supporters continually using RINO and warmonger. I hope you are opposed to this.

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 5:30PM

I don't really mind name-calling as long as the names called have some basis in reality.

Someone calling themselves a conservative while uncritically supporting the PATRIOT ACT has dutifully earned the RINO label IMO since much of that legislation is anathema to "conservative" principles.

Calling Paul a "kook" and "loon" is fine also, I suppose, if it is pointed out WHY he is being called that. Opinions based on some facts I am fine with, but critics of Paul have those facts in short supply because generally the facts work FOR Paul and not AGAINST...much like this Jeffrey Lord conservative satire.

Jack in Wi.| 10.25.11 @ 7:13PM

All Paul's enemies can do is name call and lie. Ron Paul has been right for 35 years and the people they support have been wrong. Most American's agree with Ron Paul on ending the wars now, bringing the troops home now, ending all foreign aid, auditing the Fed, and slashing the size and scope of the Federal goverment. It is Ron Paul or ruin.

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:32PM

Paul's foreign policy votes are in lockstep with Dennis Kucinich's according to THOMAS, Mal. I have a problem with that.

Please tell me where I am wrong on this by pointing out significant foreign policy vores where Paul and arguably the most Left Wing member of Congress disagree.

Note no ad hominem here. This normally gets verbal abuse from two of your colleagues, but I will do you the honor of asking you a straightforward question and await your response.

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 9:38PM

Do you disagree with Paul's reasoning for the votes, or the fact that he voted the same as Kucinich?

Which specific votes do you have issue with?

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:54PM

Every foreign policy vote he has done with Kucinich. He votes left wing on foreign policy.

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 2:22AM

Occam is just an old zionist who sees everything in the question is it good for Israel? Well I don't care about Israel. I only care about no.1 the USA. To me Israel has been a royal pain for 63 years. It is time it supported itself or went out of business. Time has run out.

Les Nesman| 10.25.11 @ 10:55PM

If Dennis is voting with Paul on foreign policy it means Kucinich is getting it right.

The guilt by association horseshit you keep trying to pull is for pikers, I thought you were a fancy psychiatrist with a MENSA membership. Why don't you show us how clever you are by showing us how we can afford to pay for even more wars in the middle east toppling mad men that maybe one day will develop an atomic bomb. Also I would like to know why North Korea somehow escapes the hit list given the proven technology etc.

FedupExpression| 10.25.11 @ 5:37PM

"Would you say America caused the bailouts? That America caused the economic collapse? That America caused outsourcing of jobs?"

The answer is, "Of course not. Our out-of-control government did. The government isn't America. The land isn't America. You might say the people are America, but there's another important way to see America: as the marvelous set of principles that made our country free, prosperous, and the envy of the world. Certainly the people aren't responsible for government atrocities, except to the extent that we've allowed the government to run amok. And our founding principles are diametrically opposed to any of the woes we have faced (and inflicted) since the early years of our nation. So, PLEASE give America a break and acknowledge the true source of all the damage. And PLEASE pay attention to who among the presidential candidates in 2012 has understood this and warned about it for decades. That would be Ron Paul."

Teshia| 10.25.11 @ 5:45PM

You know, Corey, if you actually knew the truth rather than relied on a twisted half truth to base your opinions of Dr. Paul, you may actually be able to understand just where his supporters are coming from.

"The interventionist policies that have given rise to blowback have been bipartisan in their implementation. For instance, it was Bill Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, who said on 60 Minutes that half a million dead Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions on that country during the 1990s were "worth it." Who could be so utopian, so detached from reality, as to think a remark like that- which was broadcast all over the Arab world, you can be sure- and policies like these would not provoke a response? If Americans lost that many of their family members, friends, and fellow citizens, would they not seek to hunt down the perpetrators and be unsatisfied until they were apprehended? The question answers itself. So why wouldn't we expect people to try to take revenge for these policies? I have never received an answer to this simple and obvious question.

This does not mean Americans are bad people, or that they are to blame for terrorism-- straw-man arguments that supporters of intervention raise in order to cloud the issue and demonize their opponents. It means only that actions cause reactions, and that Americans will need to prepare themselves for these reactions if their government is going to continue to intervene around the world. In the year 2000, I wrote: "The cost in terms of liberties lost and the unnecessary exposure to terrorism are difficult to determine, but in time it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but instead is a threat to our liberties." I stand by every word of that.

To those who say that the attackers are motivated by a hatred of Western liberalism or the moral degeneracy of American culture, Scheuer points out that Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini tried in vain for a decade to instigate an anti-Western jihad on exactly that basis. It went nowhere. Bin Laden's message, on the other hand, has been so attractive to so many people because it is fundamentally defensive. Bin Laden, says Scheuer, has "spurned the Ayatollah's wholesale condemnation of Western society," focusing instead on "specific, bread and butter issues on which there is widespread agreement amount Muslims.

What bin Laden's sympathizers object to, as they have said again and again, is our government's propping up of unpopular regimes in the Middle East, the presence of American troops on the Arabian Peninsula, the American government's support for the activities of governments (like Russia) that are hostile to their Muslim populations, and what they believe to be an American bias toward Israel. This point is not that we need to agree with these arguments, but that we need to be aware of them if we want to understand what is motivating so many people to rally to bin Laden's banner.

At a press conference I held at the National Press Club in May 2007, Scheuer told reporters: "About the only thing that can hold together the very loose coalition that Osama bin Laden has assembled is a common Muslim hatred for the impact of U.S. foreign policy.... They all agree they hate U.S. foreign policy. To the degree we change that policy in the interest of the United States, they become more and more focused on their local problems." That's not what a lot of our talking heads tell us on television every day...

Phillip Giraldi, another conservative and former counterterrorism expert with the CIA, adds that "anybody who knows anything about what's been going on for the last ten years would realize that cause and effect are operating here - that, essentially, al Qaeda has an agenda which very specifically says what its grievances are. And its grievances are basically that 'we're over there.' " The simple fact is that "there [are] consequences for our presence in the Middle East, and if we seriously want to address the terrorism problem we have to be serious about that issue."

The point is a simple one: when our government meddles around the world, it can stir up a hornet's nest and thereby jeopardize the safety of the American people. That's just common sense. But hardly anyone in our government dares to level with the American people about our fiasco of a foreign policy." -Pages 16-19 of The Revolution, A Manifesto by Ron Paul

Teshia| 10.25.11 @ 5:46PM

"James Bamford observes that the leadership of al Qaeda hoped to lure us into a "desert Vietnam," an enormously expensive war that would deplete our resources and help their own recruitment by stirring up the locals against us. And that is just what happened. The war's ultimate cost is being estimated in the trillions. The dollar is collapsing. And more terrorists are being created. According to a study by the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya, Israel, the vast bulk of the foreign fighters in Iraq are people who had never been involved in terrorist activity before but have been radicalized by the U.S. presence in Iraq - the second holiest place in Islam.

The terrorist, in short, have played us like a fiddle. With the unnecessary and unprovoked attack on Iraq, our government gave them just what they wanted.

Americans have the right to defend themselves against attack; that is not at issue. But that is very different from launching a preemptive war against a country that had not attacked us and could not attack us, that lacked a navy and an air force, and whose military budget was a fraction of a percent of our own. A policy of overthrowing or destabilizing every regime our government dislikes is no strategy at all, unless our goal is international chaos and domestic impoverishment.

It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation building. It is in our own national interest to do so and in the interest of world peace. This is a message that resonates not only with the American people at large but also with U.S. military personnel: in the second quarter of 2007 our campaign raised more money from active duty and retired military than did any other Republican candidate in either party. Then in the fourth quarter we received more money in our military donations than all Republicans put together. This message is popular, and it is based on American security, fiscal sanity, and common sense." Pages 38 & 39 of The Revolution, A Manifesto by Ron Paul

Dai Alanye | 10.25.11 @ 6:12PM

You've got to be exceedingly credulous to swallow bin Laden's propaganda without dozens of grains of salt. This is a man who wanted to reclaim Spain for the Caliphate. Does any rational person believe he intended to stop there?

The Islamist fear of American influence in the world is why they attack us. Our military installations are merely a handy excuse.

FedupExpression| 10.25.11 @ 6:33PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....te-Club-34

Once you've ingested a bit more information concerning terrorism and its origins, you might take an hour of your life to view this...probably not though huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HnIyClHEM

Voluntaryist | 10.25.11 @ 8:28PM

Check out my PowerPoint on why terrorists hate us:

http://www.slideshare.net/anar.....ey-hate-us

I used to be a neo-conservative and a Rush 24/7 member myself. I tried to put in the PowerPoint every objection I had back in the day. Someone wrote to me on the Tom Woods blog:

"You made this PowerPoint? Someone linked me to it a while back and it really had a big impact on my foreign policy views. That was very good work--thanks for putting it together."

FedupExpression| 10.25.11 @ 6:29PM

Here, let me try and refute you Teshia...

First, you are bat-shit crazy and wear a tin foil hat.

Second, you are bat-shit crazy and are a non-thinking cult member.

Third, everyone knows that Muslims hate our freedoms and want to kill everyone with an Ipod. Why don't you? Are you crazy?

Forth, you are bat-shit crazy and a utopian dreamer to think that in our absence, people with cloth on their heads might relax and tend to their business and families.

Fifth, you are bat-shit crazy to think that someone heading the Bin Laden Unit in the CIA would have any idea what-so-ever what the cause of terrorism aimed at the US might be.

Sixth, you are a non-thinking, bat-shit crazy dolt because you didn't mention the Robert Pape study funded by the Pentagon that provides information as to the complete history and meanings behind terrorism and its perpetrators.

Seventh, you are bat-shit crazy....but I love the way you write.

Les Nesman| 10.25.11 @ 11:03PM

That was awesome. When I see comments like this here I know we are at a tipping point, the neocons are done for & soon we will have the USA back. The comments on the Iraq war here lately are giving me hope now too. We're down to the 20 % deadenders supporting the failed policies & their voice is faint & unrespected. Next on the agenda PATRIOT act - goodbye. TSA - see ya. Military commisions act - so long. Best bet for the Republicrats will be to keep a low profile & avoid foreign travel until the statute of limitations kicks in on War Crimes.

Voluntaryist | 10.25.11 @ 8:25PM

Check out my PowerPoint on why terrorists hate us:

http://www.slideshare.net/anar.....ey-hate-us

I used to be a neo-conservative and a Rush 24/7 member myself. I tried to put in the PowerPoint every objection I had back in the day. Someone wrote to me on the Tom Woods blog:

"You made this PowerPoint? Someone linked me to it a while back and it really had a big impact on my foreign policy views. That was very good work--thanks for putting it together."

Cam O. Milety| 10.25.11 @ 4:30PM

Been there, googled that. Depending on which quarter you look at Obama is either second behind Paul, or Paul is second behind Obama. I guess if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination you'll be voting for Obama in order to "take the troops seriously" eh?

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 4:51PM

It depends on who is running, I guess, Cam. If its Obama vs. Cain/Romney/Perry then I will probably stay home.

Why vote if the winner on either side represents more of the same Big Government bullshit?

SpiralArchitect| 10.25.11 @ 5:01PM

Consider:

For the followers of Paul to acknowledge he has many nutty ideas & may be nutty as well, to whatever extent, would also tell much of those same devouted to him & his cause.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 5:10PM

The Israel Firster Flunkie Stooges Attempt To Play The "Nut " Card.

What's "Nuts" Is Big Government Confiscating Our American TaxPayer Money And Handing It Over To All Those Middle East Parasite Leeches & Food Fighters.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

buck kennedy| 10.25.11 @ 4:26PM

Just because the MSM talking heads, who are owned lock stock and barrel by the corporations, call him NAMES?!?! (so silly isn't it?), doesn't mean that these things are true. I wrote off the owned media years ago. Why? Because the corporations that own the major media outlets, and the corporations that own them, have the system nicely sewn up and arranged to benefit them. The reason they call Dr. Paul names (i just cant get over how stupid this is) is because they are AFRAID of him because of the change he represents. The change we the people want. Examine history, we are an empire, a global empire. We are morally weak and we are spread way too thin. History dictates we are near collapse. Something has to change. Business as usual just wont cut it anymore. It's time to wake up people.

RP2012

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 5:05PM

ChamomileBoy Drinks The Obama Kool Aid.

Shove Off Asshole.

Rob A| 10.25.11 @ 6:23PM

Paul gets right, what no one else in the field gets right. Its called the CONSTITUTION. And that trumps any issue you may have with the mans foreign policy

jsully80| 10.26.11 @ 2:57AM

The media is afraid of Ron Paul. They've ignored him in the debates, slandered his name on t.v. taken down web polls showing that he won debates... Why? Because is the only candidate who wants real change and less government. Of course they are going to call him a crackpot. They fear him. You're just another one of the sheep being fooled by a system that could give a damn about you. Tell me, what makes him a fool in your book?

Jesse| 10.25.11 @ 1:15PM

Jeffery Lord should perhaps do a little spectating on the workings of Congress. First, funds are appropriated, then, they are allocated. Paul votes no on most every appropriation bill that goes in front of him. However, he has a duty to try to bring as many tax dollars back to his constituents in Texas as he can, so he tries to allocate as much of the funding as he can back to his home. It's not hypocrisy.

Also, I'm unsure of the answer here. Did Limbaugh, Hannity, or Levin oppose the PATRIOT Act? Because that was the biggest statist power grab since the Civil War.

Jesse| 10.25.11 @ 1:26PM

BTW, I'm serious. I haven't listened to Limbaugh since he went mad in the late 90's, never had the stomach for Hannity, and don't even know who this Levin fellow is. Did any of these guys oppose the PATRIOT Act?

Jeffrey Lord| 10.25.11 @ 1:42PM

Jesse...

As it happens...Jeffrey Lord worked in both the House and Senate. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes it the duty of a Congressman to allocate tax dollars from the rest of us to his district. There is no such duty. It is an excuse, however, and a frequently used one by most - Ron Paul included. The proper answer is: we don't want the money.

"However, he has a duty to try to bring as many tax dollars back to his constituents in Texas as he can,..."

Jesse| 10.25.11 @ 1:47PM

Alright, good, you don't want the money. So your constituents money gets pilfered, then it goes to CA or ends up in the general fund. That helps your constituents how, exactly?

Rob A| 10.25.11 @ 6:27PM

The sad part is that you are still fooled into believing earmarks matter. They dont. John McCain ran on earmark ban, how did that work out?

The constitution says that the congress shall allocate the funds. Not the executive branch. As the typical statist that you are, you are advocating for the Executive branch to allocate all the funds.

Paul works within the confines of the Constitution to ensure that money which would have been spent anyway, gets put to its best use for HIS CONSTITUTENTS. Which often time is in his district.

He then follows the principles of Limited Government by voting against the appropriation bill, as he has never voted for any appropriation that leads to an unbalanced budget.

As usual, you are wrong.

P.S. it is obvious that in Jeffery Lords mind, you are not a conservative unless you believe in the ordaned "Conservative Foreign Policy". Nothing else matters in the realm of Mr. Lord, Foreign Policy First.....Constitution when we get around to it...

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 1:47PM

Dr.Ron Paul,
" 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.
If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We're talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?

I'm saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows..."

Dr.Ron Paul Gets It About Earmarks & Congress Having It's Responsibility Usurped By The Executive Branch.

Next, Ron Paul's: Restore America Plan.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the.....e-america/

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Recon| 10.25.11 @ 1:20PM

Wrong Paul strikes again. I don't think I've ever seen a master of manipulation quite like Paul.

Simon Templar| 10.25.11 @ 4:32PM

Yeah, and you can include his worshiping supporters, at least the one's blogging here.

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 4:56PM

Flattery will get you nowhere, Simon.

Why, I have never been called a master of manipulation before! Does that title come with a Herman Cain Policy Decoder ring so I can "get it"?

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 5:12PM

The BibiBots Are All Upset Because Many Of Us Tea Party Patriots Support Our Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

jay c | 10.25.11 @ 1:40PM

Paul has never said that if we "come home" the world will somehow leave us alone. He quite correctly said that if we quit picking fights and interfering in other people's business, we will dramatically reduce the number of reasons other people will have to attack us. Of course there are bullies. Because some bully is bound to attack us unprovoked, does that mean we have to become a bully first, actively provoking as many other nations as possible?

Ron Paul is for a strong national defense and a policy of not invading foreign countries who haven't done anything to harm us.

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 8:10PM

Problem is Jay, if you don't man up to bullys, they will be energized to be even more of a bully.

The problem with Paul's foreign policy views is that they are basically girly-manism. They are inherently pro-weakness, limp-wristed and scaredy-cat, if I can use that term. Be a man dude, not a mouse. Show some cajones to America's enemies.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 8:44PM

Nothing shows cojones like bombing the shit out of 3rd-world countries, right Eric?

Lets show these brown pussies what's up by debt-financing some wars! Hell yeah! Go Conservatism!

Jimmy Page| 10.25.11 @ 8:50PM

Are you considering the Founding Father's foreign policy to be one of those hyphenated confusions?

The Constitution trumps any problems with Ron Paul's foreign policy.

GET IT RIGHT
RP 2012

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:37PM

I seem to recall Thomas Jefferson beating the crap out of the Barbary Pirates for reasons considerably less than 9/11.

Rob A| 10.26.11 @ 1:36PM

From Reason Magazine

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.

Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.

Reason: But he says he's running because of your debate performance. So is this presidential campaign weakening your standing in your district?

Paul: Well, if it affects my standing in my district then I wouldn't be a very good candidate for the presidency. If these views are popular, and I think they're popular enough, then they should be popular in my home district. They've been hearing me saying this for a lot of years and I keep getting re-elected rather easily. I think politicians are always concerned about how they're doing in their district, but right now, if Eric Dondero is the only thing I have to worry about, then I don't have a lot to worry about.

Reason: What Dondero's said is that "there are essentially two Ron Pauls. There's the national liberal media (and libertarian blogosphere) Ron Paul. And then there's the South Texas good hometown doctor, red, white, and blue Ron Paul." And he's said you talk a good game about supporting veterans but they don't know your positions.

Paul: All one would have to do is go to the veterans part of my website. I win so many awards; we have so many people who call us from around the country because of the work we do for veterans. My biggest beef is that the veterans get shortchanged because of our war spending, and we end up with Walter Reed problems. So that statement makes zero sense.

Robert| 10.25.11 @ 1:42PM

You miss the point. Hannity is hurt and whining that Paul isn't being "nice." This is the opposite of 2008. Hannity is known for supporting "some form" of healthcare support and blindly supporting unconstitutional war is statist in my book. This isn't about a journalist - this is about the conservative establishment getting shaken to their core. Rush just endorsed Paul's plan; Palin is talking nice...and now Hannity is begging to be on the bandwagon. Things are looking good.

AngMan1022| 10.25.11 @ 6:02PM

This is exactly what I was thinking. Just compare Hannity's tone in his newest Ron Paul interview with this one in 2007 http://youtu.be/Fh2sBKpLxpQ. Night and day. And now EVERYBODY including former federal reserve member Cain wants an audit of the fed. Hmmmmmm.... I think Dr. Paul's becoming less "un-electable" by the day. Funny to me how nobodies really jumping on the Anti-War bandwagon...

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 8:13PM

And you Paul cultists were calling Sarah Palin a "bitch NeoCon" for years. This despite the fact that she was super nice to Ron Paul very early on in 2007.

Now, you all are seeking to embrace her cause, once again, she makes some nice remarks about the Congress. Hypocrites!

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul, 1997-2003

Bruce Majors | 10.26.11 @ 8:56AM

She is still nice to Dr. Paul. And the NYTimes has been writing about how several GOP candidates have moved toward "old right isolationism." No doubt of concern to AS.

jay c | 10.25.11 @ 1:42PM

Your quote of Mulshine's interview doesn't show Paul calling anyone a statist. Thank you for proving his point.

os| 10.25.11 @ 1:43PM

A big ol' LOL @ Mr. Lord for quoting Russell Kirk while defending a radical interventionist foreign policy. In reference to the first Gulf War Kirk said, “After carpet-bombing the Cradle of Civilization as no country ever had been bombed before, Mr. Bush sent in hundreds of thousands of soldiers to overrun the Iraqi bunkers — that were garrisoned by dead men, asphyxiated.”

Russell Kirk didn't advocate for the kind of foreign policy supported today by people like Hillary Clinton and Jeffery Lord.

Eddy| 10.25.11 @ 1:54PM

Calling Muslims the bullies is just racist and ignorant. Ron Paul is right that the only reason terrorism exists is because they want US to stop bullying THEM. They don't like us invading them, or supporting militias who want to overthrow their governments, or embargoing them, etc. Communists did invade neighbors to acquire more natural resources, and needed to be stopped - just like we need to be stopped from doing the exact same thing in the middle east.

SpiralArchitect| 10.25.11 @ 5:10PM

Terrosism is only as old as the USA (America)?

Thanks for the ingonarant viewpoint of history.

Perhaps next story you tell will be how Islam is a peaceful religion. Full of equality & a rich history of openess to ideas, other points of view, religion and technology throughout the centuries.

FedupExpression| 10.25.11 @ 5:31PM

Sorry, but this Pentagon funded study is gonna ruin your day...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HnIyClHEM

I trust you'll be able to find Parts 2 thru 4

FedupExpression| 10.25.11 @ 5:47PM

Seems terrorism in History has a decidedly Irgun origin to it. How are we to feel about the Jewish religion after Jewish Terrorists blew up the King David Hotel? How about the Haifa train bombing? The Jaffa bombing? How about the 17 British officers killed in the Jerusalem Officers Club bombing? (I could go on with this for quite a while...)

Perhaps you'll tell us next how Judiaism is a peaceful religion, full of equality and a rich history of openess to ideas, other points of view, religion and technology throughout the centuries.

Next we can get those damned Catholics ya freakin' sound-biter dolt.


Might the Irgun have been a powerless group fighting an asymetyrical war against a mechanized western democracy?

JR| 10.26.11 @ 4:21PM

Hey FedupExpression were you wearing your nazi uniform when typing that? I'm beginning to see what all the supporters of Paul really are, a bunch of antisemtic assholes.

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 8:14PM

Geez, having a little hatred for the very people who killed 3,000 of our fellow countrymen is now "racist"?

So then, all those GIs in WWII who called Germans "Krauts," and Japanese "Japs," and those Vietnam Vets who still call them "Gooks," they're all "racists" 'eh?

Eric Dondero, USN Veteran 1981-85

FedupExpression| 10.27.11 @ 9:42PM

JR,

You sir are truly a dolt. That you are in such intellectual deficit has me wondering how you turn your computer on in the morning without instruction.

That you are so ill-equipped to somehow read anti-semitism into what I have just posted has me rolling my eyes and fully understanding how you must get regularly abused by better equipped Ron Paul supporters. No wonder you dislike them, you are jealous of them. Now that I've gotten that out of the way...I'll spell it out for you...

In the post above is a link to Robert Pape's presentation on his Pentagon funded study on suicide terrorism. Sure that you have no idea what this study concluded, I'll help you...

The study found that terrorism is a "tactic" that is ALWAYS applied by a powerless people in combating a western democracy that has invaded "their" land, taken control of its people and resources, and oppressed the indigenous population socially, politically and economically.

The VAST majority, of all of the cases are NOT emanating from a Muslim population and religion is NEVER the reason for such activity. It is ALWAYS used as a means to combat oppression to obtain political self-determination. Most importantly, you'd also now understand that the VAST majority of suicide attacks have been from non-muslim perpetrators...and I mean VAST.

Further, my post, in reaction to the insinuations about the Muslim faith above the posts, points to the FACT that the Irgun was a Jewish terrorist organization that took a tactic from the anarchists playbook from the end of the previous century, and employed it extensively in their fright against the British...but no one is vilifying their whole religion for it...even when their "book" claims some authority for the actions...like "An Eye for an Eye". Ahem...NOR SHOULD THEY vilify a religion over some adherents use of a battle tactic.

The Irgun perpetrators did not quote the Bible and God as their reason for the attacks although the perpetrators might certainly have looked to God for comfort...or even seen legal title as codified in an old book. But it was political self-determination that drove their actions.

Are you getting this yet? "Religion" being blamed for terrorism is a canard...as the CIA and now the Pentagon have told us (although the conclusions of this study seem to be rather hush hush for some reason.)

Further Mr. Shit for brains, I have never met an anti-semetic Ron Paul supporter, although I am sure some exist...just as they do in all other political persuasions. And to be clear...I am referring to those idiots who hate the Jewish and Arab semetic people for whatever reason they fallaciously rely upon. Kinda like you treating others who don't cotton to your rationalizations as being somehow beneath you when, given your stances taken online, you are the one to be treated with disdain.

As to disliking Israel, there are many, again of all persuasions that hate the Zionist State of Israel and their penchant for abuse. The same reasons for hating Israel are used by Europeans in their hatred of the United States. But ask most and you'll find a distinct separation of ire for the American Government as opposed to the American people...just as you find in hatred towards the Zionist Government of Israel for their abuses of less powerful people. I use "Zionist" since "Zionism" is a non-inclusive, apartheid like political ideology that the leadership of Israel adheres to.

That you sit here under Lord's by-line and parrot bullshit you don't even comprehend is laughable. That you do so in full belief that you have something to say is sad given that you are a sound-biter who hasn't had an original thought in all of the posts you've ever made.

You sir, are an idiot.

Bob| 10.25.11 @ 1:58PM

Man, the establishment is really reaching in their attempt to smear the good doctor......it really is pathetic.

Simon Templar| 10.25.11 @ 4:34PM

Bob, and all this time I thought you were a liberal troll. Thanks for coming out of the closet.

buck kennedy| 10.25.11 @ 5:02PM

Isn't it though?

Mayur T| 10.25.11 @ 2:05PM

Let's take a look at this logic:

Paul agrees with McGovern on bringing our troops home from around the world and ending years of war. McGovern cites inspiration from FDR. That means Paul, through McGovern, draws inspiration from FDR.

Under that same logic, you could argue that Thomas Jefferson and FDR might have been philosophical best friends. "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none," was Jefferson's foreign policy recommendation.

Ron Paul emulates Jeffersonian classical liberalism closer than any conservative in Washington today.

JP| 10.25.11 @ 2:11PM

Jefferson would've had Paul killed for treason. Do you have any idea what President Jefferson did? Domestically and in Foreign Policy?

Paul is not a Classical Liberal, he is an Anarcho-Capitalist in the Rothbard/Rockwell tradition.

Jesse| 10.25.11 @ 2:29PM

No he wouldn't, because Jefferson, much like Paul, believed in the rule of law, and under our rule of law, no one person has the authority to have another killed without a trial.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 2:36PM

WTF ?

Apparently, These RINO-CINO's Don't Know What Real Conservative Foreign Policy Is.

Read Jefferson First Inaugural Address & Washington's Farewell Address & The Old Right And Get Back To Us.

Dr.Ron Paul Is A Constitutionalist.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

JP| 10.25.11 @ 4:35PM

You clearly have no earthly idea what President Jefferson did, its the polar opposite of Ron Paul on Foreign Policy especially.

Mike Bergsma| 10.25.11 @ 5:12PM

Do these folks know anything about the war against the Barbary pirates?

FedupExpression| 10.25.11 @ 5:56PM

I think you raise the question...Do You?

Verduci| 10.25.11 @ 6:25PM

Do you know anything about it? How about Letters of Marque and Reprisal?

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 5:20PM

I Know What Jefferson Did & Didn't Do, Pseudo-Intellect Boy.

Following Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, the pasha of Tripoli, Yussif Karamanli, demanded $225,000. Jefferson refused. In May, the pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate in Tripoli. Morocco, Algiers and Tunis joined their ally Tripoli against the United States. Jefferson sent some frigates to the Mediterranean, with the approval of Congress.

Voluntaryist | 10.25.11 @ 9:58PM

Paul is the Jefferson of our time:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dil.....zo137.html

"Jefferson advocated a modest foreign policy, unlike his nemesis Hamilton, the original Neocon, who wanted to invade France and become an imperialistic power. "[P]eace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none," was his foreign policy philosophy (from the first inaugural).

Jefferson understood that war is the mother of the state, and did everything he could to avoid it. When the British began confiscating American ships and kidnapping American sailors, he imposed an economically destructive trade embargo rather than risk an even more economically destructive war with England. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate in memory to espouse the wisdom of Jefferson and Washington when it comes to foreign policy."

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 8:16PM

Jefferson fought a long war against the first Islamo-Fascists - the Barbary Pirates - in the early 1800s. Don't you dare try to associate Jefferson's tough of terrorism foreign policy with Ron Paul's weak-kneed surrendertarian approach.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003

os| 10.25.11 @ 8:35PM

He fought pirates...pirates! Pirates that were a THREAT to our interest! And he negotiated with them first. He didn't attempt to remake Tripoli in America's image. Ron Paul supported the Afghan war because it was in our INTREST to go after OLB. It's the nation building he opposes.

Voluntaryist | 10.25.11 @ 8:57PM

Eric Dondero: The Barbary Pirates were engaged in piracy - a universal crime. Piracy isn't something that only "Islamo-Fascists" engage in. Conflicts with the Barbary States in the early 19th century did not contradict the principles of neutrality, defense against foreign aggression, or the supremacy of Congress in national security affairs. Force was not used to extend freedom to North Africa or to gain an economic advantage over rival trading nations.

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:39PM

Except that Paul sucks jihadist phallus every day and twice on Sundays. It's why he always looks like he is tasting something foul. But hey, money is money.

JP| 10.25.11 @ 2:06PM

Mr. Lord - if you really want to expose Ron Paul for who he truly is, of course you need to expose Lew Rockwell and Rotbhardian ANARCHISM.

See here, Anarchist debating if RP is an Anarchist or not complete with video of Paul admitting he wants to get past the Constitution to an "Volunteerist" utopia.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/24421.aspx
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/14462.aspx

Mayur T| 10.25.11 @ 2:32PM

JP, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are inter-related, as I think all conservatives would agree.

If the Founders believed in limited government, whose sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property, doesn't that make the Founders mostly voluntarists? Coercion is the dominion of totalitarian regimes.

So you think Paul being a voluntarist is anti-Constitutional and a negative thing? Interesting.

JP| 10.25.11 @ 4:35PM

The Constitution is a limited Govt. document, Paul and his clique don't believe in limted Govt., except rhetorically.

Go to LewRockwell.com, note the "Anti-State" tagline and Anarchist logo they sell They are Anarcho-Capitalist Utopians and followers of the disgraced Murray Rothbard.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 5:26PM

Many Of We Tea Party Patriots Support The Constitutionalist Dr.Ron Paul.

So Did Ronald Reagan.

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."

So Did Nobel Prize Economist Milton Friedman.

Milton Friedman,
"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."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:39PM

Until Paul slammed a knife in Reagan's back. Again and again and again....

Voluntaryist | 10.25.11 @ 9:51PM

Reagan deserved it:

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=0.....sc;.page=1

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 9:55PM

After Reagan slammed a knife into fiscal-conservative's backs. Again and again and again...

Voluntaryist | 10.25.11 @ 9:26PM

I agree with about 99% of what Rothbard has said and he is a hero of mine. How was he disgraced?

The charge of being utopian fails for three reasons. First, anarcho-capitalism lacks the totalitarian character of utopia. Second, problems like crime, instability, disease, death, ignorance, etc. would still exist. Anarcho-capitalism just removes the biggest killer in human history from society: government. Third, Rothbard suggests a practical instrument to move toward the libertarian society: the right to secession.

And anarcho-capitalism is based upon property rights and laws. For how laws would work without government:

http://youtu.be/khRkBEdSDDo

http://youtu.be/8kPyrq6SEL0

youtu.be/5qmMpgVNc6Y

For how defense would work:

youtu.be/feoOSbgG4p4

For how the Constitution allows for theft:

youtu.be/ngpsJKQR_ZE

How taxation = unjust aggression:

youtu.be/PGMQZEIXBMs

How could a voluntary society function?

youtu.be/tE9dZATrFak

Rozeff's Wager:

I do not ask for anyone to convert to my way of thinking. I ask only for one thing: Give me my freedom from your government. Correspondingly, I give you the freedom to have your government – with one important stipulation: that neither of us demand that the other remove himself from the country (this land, this place, and this people) that we both cherish.

JR| 10.26.11 @ 4:45PM

I watched the videos and felt like I was in grade school again. Really? You really think that would work? utopian pipe dream. You would just have mob rule if you dont believe that your an idiot.

CalMark| 10.25.11 @ 2:12PM

Paul-bot whack-jobs out in full force.

Don't forget to take your meds, kids. And put on your tin-foil hats; it's getting cold outside.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 2:31PM

Uh Oh !

RINO-CINO Colliefornia Fruits & Nuts Land Boy Plays The "Nuts" Card.

This Is The Big Colliefornia Yellow Bus Callin' The Heartland Yellow.

CalMark| 10.25.11 @ 3:25PM

I rest my case.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 5:30PM

We Heard The Only Case You Got Is Bein' Treated With Penicillin.

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:40PM

You are a nut, Clint. And a scumbag, and a Gigolo for Jihadi terrorists. You spend 90% of your time in an ankle grabbing position for Achmed, Clint.

Jesse| 10.25.11 @ 2:33PM

Tin-foil hat. Check.

Now you neocon nutters remembered to say your prayers for the holy smiting of Iran today.

CalMark| 10.25.11 @ 3:26PM

I rest my case.

And now I'm done. It's not much fun, targeting ducks in a barrel.

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 3:44PM

We should probably give that barrel to a Muslim dirt farmer in Iran...then targeting it might be more fun for you.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 5:33PM

Go Duck Yourself, Colliefornia FruitNut, Marky Thing.

SpiralArchitect| 10.25.11 @ 5:50PM

ad hominem for the win, Clint?

Yes, when the going gets tough the simple get personal, rude & offensive. Pity petty.

FedupExpression| 10.25.11 @ 5:59PM

Of course you are beyond such things hmmm?

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 8:29PM

Another Israel Firster Crybaby.

http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....people.jpg

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 8:19PM

And explain please how it is "NeoCon" to oppose SOBs who want to force my wife to wear a burqa from head to toe, jail my marijuana smoking buddy for life, outlaw booze and gambling, and execute my gay friends by hanging in the town square?

NeoCons are social conservatives. We LIBERTARIANS oppose Islamo-Fascism because of what it means for our civil liberties.

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:43PM

Eric, I'm sorry Paul went South. You are correct that his domestic policies make a lot of sense. But your comments on the Shariaists and his whacked out foreign policy are absolutely correct.

Clint has no spawn, you see. Not a woman who would sleep with the alleged college athlete. I wonder why? You know, there's shrinkage due to use of performance enhancing drugs, Eric. Perhaps that applies to people like Clint. It would also account for his rage attacks.

buck kennedy| 10.25.11 @ 5:09PM

i see you never got past name calling. try climbing out of the intellectual box you live in. your type of small minded rhetoric needs to end. we all need to unite, because we surely have been divided.

os| 10.25.11 @ 2:19PM

Tom Woods gave Lord an intellectual spanking a couple of months ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8

Jay| 10.25.11 @ 8:58PM

Whenever Lord writes about Paul, Lord always gets his own rear end handed to him 50 different ways in the comments section. Given Lord’s heroic capacity for stale and inaccurate analysis, this expected; but still a joy to read.

I recommend that Lord follow the example of one of his fellow neocon knitting circle members, Mark Levin. Both Levin and Lord share the same paucity of integrity and intellect, but I commend Levin for being pragmatic enough to twice take down his “Who Won Tuesday’s GOP Presidential Debate?” online poll at Levin’s website. Levin had to take it down because twice in a row, in the same evening (10/19/11), Ron Paul won Levin’s own online poll. Manifesting his characteristic irrational fear of Paul, Levin ensured that his poll yesterday (10/24/11), entitled “If the GOP primary were held today in your state, who would you vote for?,” totally omitted Paul as an option.

Levin’s example is instructive. In order to conceal or contain his own idiocy, Lord should close down the comments section completely when he criticizes Paul.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 2:26PM

WTF ?

Dr.Ron Paul Is A Constitutionalist.

No Way, Does Dr.Ron Paul Wanna Trash The Constitution.

ADAM KOKESH:
So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?

RON PAUL:
Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.

ADAM KOKESH:
Do you think we have a chance of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?

RON PAUL:
Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritation approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can't do.

Read: Dr.Ron Paul's Restore America Plan.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/wp-.....caPlan.pdf

Aloysius| 10.25.11 @ 2:32PM

Mr. Lord, I don't know why you have a grudge against Ron Paul that is so personal that you're willing to twist facts and contort logic, but I do wish you'd get over it and go back to writing the very good and constructive articles that you can write, such as "President Robespierre."

Conservative Bob| 10.25.11 @ 2:44PM

I knew when I read the headline that the comments would be fun to read... maybe he is just a significantly better communicator but I much prefer Rand to Ron.

I like Ron's spending plan just announced but what I read and here of him on foreign policy, not quite as interesting.

And the near idol worship of his dedicated followers scare me even more.

At the end of the day they are all politicians and one should never lose sight of that fact.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 3:00PM

Dr. Ron Paul Understands Us Tea Party Patriots & Many Of Us Support Him.

Our Candidates Are Our Hired Help.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

steve in ohio| 10.25.11 @ 3:12PM

My sentiments, too. Rand Paul may be able to unite libertarians and conservatives like Reagan did. (I know Murray Rothbard didn't like him.) Question: would we be better off with four more years of Obama and then electing Rand or eight years of the opportunistic Romney?

Mike Bergsma| 10.25.11 @ 5:17PM

If Obama is re-elected, the Republic is dead. Rule of law will be crushed by his judges and our foreign enemies will run wild. The currency will be debased.

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 5:36PM

The currency IS debased...right now....as we speak. And our economic woes didn't begin when Obama took office, they have been snowballing for decades under the stewardship of both Big Government parties.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 5:37PM

That's What The RINO-CINO Ruling Elites Want Us To Do.

That's Their Arlen Specter John McCain "Lesser Evil" Serial Traitors To Conservatism Scam.

We Tea Party Patriots Say, "No More Lesser Evil" RINO-CINO Crap.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up.

9thID| 10.25.11 @ 3:20PM

Liber-als and Liber-tarians both come from a root stock of liberinism that has an inherent "cult of personality" worship built in... Their worship is cultist and sociopathic...

Jesse| 10.25.11 @ 3:36PM

The root of the word is liberty, and that's what people get impassioned about. Liberals were sidetracked into thinking liberty comes from the government, and a lot of the self proclaimed big L libertarians seem borderline anarchistic in their disdain for government. Liberty is a paradox and a compromise, and you have have to walk a fine line to achieve it. Sliding too far in either direction will destroy it.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 5:40PM

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.

Voluntaryist | 10.25.11 @ 10:09PM

You should read this:

Can Ron Paul Really Be Right About Everything? [Yes and Here's Why]

http://lewrockwell.com/orig11/mullen-t5.1.1.html

Obama Llama Ding Dong| 10.25.11 @ 2:46PM

Ron Paul voted AGAINST all his own earmarks anyway.

And btw, he never called these guys statists. He simpily said: "they're not really limited-government people"

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:45PM

He voted against them knowing they would be passed. It's called rank...hypocrisy.

Voluntaryist | 10.25.11 @ 10:13PM

News Flash. The money is already taken. Congress is just deciding what to do with it.

Taking Ron Paul's earmarks off the bill would not reduce spending a single cent, that money would simply be handed over to the bureaucracy to be spent as it sees fit.

If I had to choose between 100% earmarks and 0% earmarks, I'd probably go with 100%. Atleast congressmen are artificially accountable through elections, unlike a bureaucrat.

The best description of Ron Paul's approach to earmarks that I've seen is the Pizza Parable:

You and a group of friends are deciding on what to have for dinner. You argue for Chinese food because it's much more economical, while your friends all want to order pizza. They decide to put it up for a vote, but before you vote, you say that, if pizza is what is decided on, you want to earmark two pieces. The vote is taken, you vote for Chinese food, but pizza wins out. However, you still get to eat.

Or to put it another way:

Ron Paul submits earmark requests, and his district usually receives them.

He submits them because it is his job as their representative to do so.

He votes against them because they are unconstitutional.

His constituents get their earmarks anyway so they don't vote him out.

Paul makes his point, people get their money back (Texas is a net tax producer) and everyone is happy.

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 2:59PM

Attention Good Conservatives of The American Spectator,

I have it from a respected conservative source (Lieberman) that the Evil Islamists have a new weapon to use against Patriotic US conservatives like yourself. It's a new Faith-propelled Islamist Magic Carpet that can glide on the jet-stream...and into US airspace! Mass-produced in Iran, this horrifying new weapon is powered by Sharia Law and can penetrate the defences of any coward's den or armchair-chickenhawk's roost.

This perfectly legitimate and super-serious threat requires that Good Conservatives like yourselves demand more government control of your security at the expense of your pitiful freedoms. The ghost of Osama Bin Laden is reported to be heading your way, so it's time for you to ask the taxpayers to buy you some of those new bullet-proof throw pillows and sheets so that you can fortify the underside of your beds against the Brown Menace!

Paid for by Lobbyists of The Defense Industry

Cam O. Milety| 10.25.11 @ 3:14PM

This is your idea of how to make Paul and the Paulbots look less fruitcakey?

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 3:42PM

Less fruitcakey? I was aiming for MORE fruitcakey!

I was under the impression that to be taken seriously as a candidate, Paul needed to act MORE like a caricature of a GOP fiscal-conservative.

What works for all the other candidates might not work for Paul, though.

Cam O. Milety| 10.25.11 @ 4:34PM

I was aiming for MORE fruitcakey!

Well done then! Although in any thread that Clint is posting on you're going to be a distant second in that category.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 5:42PM

ObamaBoy Brooks Is In The Building.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 5:41PM

Get Lost ObamaBoy Brooks

Sean| 10.25.11 @ 4:42PM

I think Occam just crapped his pants.

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:46PM

Don't think so, Sean. Thanks for playing, worthless maggot.

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:45PM

Mal: when they nuke us, as they will---please volunteer to clean up without protective clothing.

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 9:57PM

Will do, buddy.

JR| 10.26.11 @ 5:05PM

I love it how we are the cowards yet its the paulbots who want to run away with our tail between our legs cause they are mad at us. lol

A-Remnant-Conservative| 10.25.11 @ 3:00PM

Mr. Lord: are you a non-statist domestically?

Would you get rid of the central bank; legalize currency competition; get rid of the Patriot Act; allow privatization of airport security; allow state secession, decentralization and nullification; would you get rid of the FDA, allow privatization of roads and highways; end the war on drugs; etc.?

I didn't think so.

How about healthcare : http://mises.org/daily/3643

Too free-market for you? Thought so.

By the way, is Russell Kirk, author of "The Conservative Mind," not a conservative in foreign policy?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8

Will you answer that question, Jeffrey Lord? You disagree with Paul, but have been proven false on what is and is not conservative from the view of Kirk. You mention Kirk as hating libertarians, but he praised them on foreign policy. Do you know nothing about conservatism or are you a protagonist? Are you this easy to show wrong?

Kirk knew human nature and this is why he was against Empire, unlike you!

Big Government abroad is still Big Government.

William R| 10.25.11 @ 3:50PM

Lord, you're such a dumbass it is comical. Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity are statist. They are big government all the way. They're mostly good domestically, but when it comes to foreign policy all three are Wilsonian NeoCons. Military adventurism. Endless war. War is the epitome of big government.

Whoever gave you a job at the American Spectator needs to be fired.

Mayur T| 10.25.11 @ 3:56PM

"In the 3Q 2011, Paul received more donations from active military members than Obama. Paul also received more donations from active military members than all of the Republican presidential candidates combined."

Wake up, folks. Our foreign policy is not conservative. Endless wars, misappropriated funds, drone attacks, secret prisons and torture, suspension of due process, nation-building, economic sanctions are trade barriers are characteristics of totalitarian regimes.

What happened to our Republic? At least out Troops have a pretty good idea who the real conservative in Washington is.

Link: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/.....z1bpDEUOaA

William R| 10.25.11 @ 4:05PM

Mulshine responds

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mu.....emy_o.html

beavis| 10.25.11 @ 4:06PM

When those guys support somebody who will live up to the limited government moniker, not through words, but through actions...then you're statists and liars.

Dan Phillips| 10.25.11 @ 4:40PM

Surprise, surprise! Jeffrey Lord is demonstrating his anti-Ron Paul obsession (and ignorance) once again. AmSpec must need page views.

First, personally I wish Ron Paul would not pass on earmarks (on budgets that he ALWAYS votes against, btw) because it gives ammo to the Jeffrey Lords of the world. (I wish Mr. Lord would let us know which Congressman he thinks embodies fiscal restraint in comparison to Paul so we could all get a good laugh.) But it should be noted that earmarks DO NOT increase total spending. They simply direct spending that is already budgeted.

Second, as I have already schooled Mr. Lord, non-intervention is the foreign policy that flows naturally from the authentic conservative mindset. From a philosophical standpoint this is not a debatable point. Modern style non-interventionism, based as it is on a belief that America has some supranormal duty to maintain world stability, is inherently radical. It is modern day Jacobinism. Mr. Lord's simple-minded non-interventionism must be leftism because McGovern believed it dichotomous thinking is quite pathetic, and he ought to quit embarrassing himself by displaying his utter lack of nuance.

Third, while I don't think it is good politics for someone who is trying to get GOP primary votes to go after talk radio without qualification, (although Levin’s anti-Ron Paul hysteria borders on unhinged and is even worse than Lord’s), it is obviously true that the modern “conservative” movement, of which talk radio is one manifestation, has done a pretty lousy job of conserving anything. This is why Ron Paul is so beloved by constitutionalists. He is THE ONLY consistent constitutionalist elected at the national level, and is one of only a few significant spokesmen for constitutionalism. Most consistent constitutionalists are associated with third parties or with groups that “respectable conservatives” like Mr. Lord undoubtedly label fringe. Who, I would like to know, does Mr. Lord think epitomizes conservatism?

Tom| 10.25.11 @ 4:46PM

Looks like the Paultards are out in force again to defend the idiocy of their Cult Master.

Mike Bergsma| 10.25.11 @ 5:19PM

Amen, the cult is a bit disturbing.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 5:47PM

Looks Like The Israel Firster Propaganda Jerks Are Out In Force Again To Attempt To Smear Up & Marginalize Real Conservatives,Who Don't Asskiss Their Israel Firster Agenda.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Firster Agenda Assholes.

Tom| 10.25.11 @ 6:19PM

Paultards like Clint the Nitwit are NOT true conservatives; never were and never will be.

Paultards are libertarian frauds will hate this country, hate those who spend their lives defending it, and would leave it defenseless in the face of its enemies.

Each and every one of you Paultard losers are nothing but low-grade garbage.

FedupExpression| 10.25.11 @ 6:54PM

Paultards, as you so love to put it, have ripped all power from YOUR hands as YOU and YOUR KIND will never again win a National election without us...except as Democrats who will fully support your world view.

We have your lesser evil statism stashed in a flimsy paper bag and we are walking it gleefully to the edge of your bridge over troubled waters and are readying to hurl you in. Good luck with the name calling.

Seen this yet?

http://thedailyviz.com/post/11.....r-campaign

Fully 13-15% of the Republican's Active base is permanently off t5he reservation and setting up camp in the Insurrection Mountains. You might want to read Mao to understand what that means to your agenda.

os| 10.25.11 @ 7:19PM

There's a long history of anti-intervention conservatism in this country. Was Robert Taft "low-grade garbage"?

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:47PM

When we win...without you Paultards...we certainly hope you set up an insurrectionist nation in Idaho. get violent and give us an excuse to pacify the region.

Tom| 10.25.11 @ 10:06PM

Taft was no Libertarian, despite the best efforts of you lying Paultard frauds to remake him in your own worthless image.

Voluntaryist | 10.25.11 @ 10:28PM

Taft was no libertarian on foreign policy?

From the 30's until his death in 1953, Taft was one of the few voices in the mainstream political arena challenging the liberal and mainstream orthodoxy of American globalism. He supported true neutrality in Atlantic shipping in the early days of the war in Europe, believing that a disregard for neutrality had brought the United States into the First World War, and he attacked the president heartily for "stirring up prejudices against one or another nation."

He was one of FDR's few critics in Washington during the Greer affair where Roosevelt claimed that the Germans had fired unprovoked on an American sub, failing to mention to the American public that the destroyer had been tracking the sub on behalf of the British Navy.

Most characteristic of Taft was his rejection of the proposition that the war — even if a legitimate case for national defense could be made — was some kind crusade against evil. Calling the "pro-democracy" argument nothing more than a specious belief that the United States had a "divine appointment to reform the world," Taft would fight against framing the war in such terms and would later lead the conservative opposition against permanent membership in NATO, and against involvement in the United Nations.

Taft failed to see the inherent goodness in the United States adopting for itself the role of global caretaker and noted, "however benevolent we might be, other people simply do not like to be dominated."

As the Cold War progressed and Truman claimed "that as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces he had the authority to send troops anywhere in the world," Taft found himself increasingly isolated among Republicans who were adopting the liberal interventionist view of American foreign policy.

Men like Barry Goldwater would vote against him at the 1952 convention, and by the time of his death, Taft's opposition to a perpetual military presence in places like Korea and endless commitments to international organizations like NATO became lost in the anti-Communist din.

os| 10.26.11 @ 10:10AM

Well no shit genius. He was a conservative AND staunchly anti-interventionist. Before you go spouting off about who's conservative and who's not, you ought to know a little bit about the history of the movement.

The American conservative movement began long before Rush took to the air-waves.

Tom| 10.25.11 @ 10:10PM

Yada, Yada, Yada!!

Libertarians in general and Paultards in particular have NEVER done a thing for Conservatives. In fact, we are much better off without you. So you can take your warped, delusional ideology and stick it.

os| 10.25.11 @ 7:17PM

There's a long history of ant-intervention conservatism in this country. Was Robert Taft "low-grade garbage"?

Tom| 10.25.11 @ 10:04PM

Taft was no Libertarian, despite the best efforts of you lying Paultard frauds to remake him in your own worthless image.

os| 10.26.11 @ 10:11AM

Well no shit genius. He was a conservative AND staunchly anti-interventionist. Before you go spouting off about who's conservative and who's not, you ought to know a little bit about the history of the movement.

The American conservative movement began long before Rush took to the air-waves.

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 5:47PM

It's perfectly normal for conservative ideology to disturb liberals.

Tom| 10.25.11 @ 6:20PM

And that's why Paultard frauds hate true conservatives.

FedupExpression| 10.25.11 @ 6:56PM

Snicker...

Tom| 10.25.11 @ 10:06PM

Yes, Ron Paul and his cultists are one of the sickest jokes in modern American politics.

Clint| 10.25.11 @ 8:24PM

Israel Firster Neo-Con Faux Conservatives Don't Get To "Define" Real Conservatives.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:49PM

You got a fascination with Israel, Clint, that's interesting coming from such a "philosemite." (You're Playing The Antisemite Card Again...)Please tell me again why you like Jews so much. I'm waiting...

Tom| 10.25.11 @ 10:07PM

Clint the Nitwit is totally clueless of what true Conservatism is.

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 11:27PM

Enlighten us, Tom. What is true conservatism?

os| 10.26.11 @ 10:19AM

Were Robert Taft, Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, Richard Weaver, and Felix Morley good enough conservatives for you?

Steven| 10.25.11 @ 4:52PM

Oh lord save us. Mr.lord, please, oh please stop with the crap. You, unforuately, dont realize what everyone with half a brain knows. You're nothing but an APAC operative. If Israel made peace with it neighbors, you'd be out a job. You're a despicable loser.

Jim| 10.25.11 @ 5:00PM

Yes, he lets his constituents earmark, then votes against all of them. If they all did that, we would not be in this mess. (You seem to have left that fact out for some reason.) And the statism he refers to is secret prisons, torture, universal wiretaps, assassinations and undeclared wars. Yes, that IS the philosophy of statism, and it is popular with the Blood and Iron wing of the GOP.

Hansa Junchun| 10.25.11 @ 5:03PM

Rush, Sean, and Levin ARE statists! They all want to use the POWER of the State for their own purposes. That is a statist in simplest terms.

Rush himself warned Obama in spring 2009 on the President's expansion of Executive power and czars, and said "Go ahead, Obama. Built up your power. Pass your legislation. Go after Republicans. But when you fail, when you lose elections, then Republicans will have that power! And then WE'LL USE IT AGAINST YOU."

Rush didn't say he wanted Republicans to undo Obama's damage or reduce executive power. No! He wants to USE it for himself. And Hannity and especially Levin aped him like the parrots they are.

Sean Hannity IS a statist.

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 8:24PM

Yeah, right. Rush gets his economic views from two prominent libertarians - Dr. Williams and professor Hazlitt.

If you're not a libertarian yourself, you have no right to judge others on their libertarianism.

I'm a 25-year hardcore LIBERTARIAN political activist. Rush is most certainly an economic libertarian, and he's halfway there on civil liberties. He most certainly is libertarian on foreign policy, opposing Islamo-Fascism.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003
Fmr. Libertarian National Comm mbr.
Ron Paul, Libertarian for President personal aide, 1987/88

Voluntaryist | 10.25.11 @ 8:33PM

Eric Dondero: Check out my PowerPoint on why terrorists hate us:

http://www.slideshare.net/anar.....ey-hate-us

I used to be a neo-conservative and a Rush 24/7 member myself. I tried to put in the PowerPoint every objection I had back in the day. Someone wrote to me on the Tom Woods blog:

"You made this PowerPoint? Someone linked me to it a while back and it really had a big impact on my foreign policy views. That was very good work--thanks for putting it together."

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 9:10PM

I don't need too. I've been in the Middle East. I speak and read some Arabic. I monitor the foreign press, mostly French press (fluent in French) all day long. I can see with my own eyes what's happening in Europe. The Islamists have declared full-fledged War on Western Civilization. My gosh, wasn't Libya, Egypt and Tunisia going hardline Muslim proof enough for you! Wake up man, or your wife/girlfriend will be wearing a burqa sooner then you can say Allahu-Ahkbar.

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 9:12PM

There's nothing "NeoConservative" about being Anti-Islamist. Anti-Islamism is called LIBERTARIAN.

NeoCons are appeasors to Islamists. They want to buy them off with foreign aide. They want "increased diplomacy." And they half-way agree with the Islamists on social matters (gays, drugs, smoking, alcohol, ect...).

WE LIBERTARIANS ARE THE ONLY ONES STANDING UP TO THE ISLAMISTS - Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, Frank Gaffney, Oskar Freysinger, Lou Ann Resnick, Fred Grandy, et.al.

Scott R| 10.25.11 @ 9:42PM

"Anti-Islamism is called LIBERTARIAN."
...
"NeoCons are appeasors to Islamists."

What's that old saying?

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt?"

JR| 10.26.11 @ 5:22PM

The problem with your assertion is that muslims dont want to acknowledge Isreal's right to exist. They have a better claim to that land than anybody else. Muslims only use our presence to further their goal which is to get rid of Isreal. Period. Anything else they use is just an excuse.

os| 10.25.11 @ 8:54PM

Ok you're a dumb fuck...move along.

Steven| 10.25.11 @ 5:07PM

One more thing. You sir, as evidenced, care not for not his country- but another. You are NOT an,American. Pitiful you.

Teshia| 10.25.11 @ 5:36PM

I'm just curious, do you have a secret crush on Dr. Ron Paul? You sure do spend a lot of time trying to break him down and despite what you or your mindless followers may think, you've get to win at any argument you've made.

You talk about bullies yet you forget the biggest bully of all - the United States. I think that's the big difference between Ron Paul and the ones who argue against him, you're too wrapped up in the "America the mighty" to realize we are a joke and anything but mighty BECAUSE of our foreign policy of interventionism all over the world.

In fact, four star Gen. Wes Clark has exposed our foreign policy to be a total fraud - when will you acknowledge this? When it's too late and no one has the last laugh because we've all been vaporized by the nuclear bombs?

Please, if you have children, stop being so full of yourself and consider their future - you're robbing them of it by mocking Dr. Ron Paul and not taking him seriously. Stop kissing your boss's ass and start paying attn to the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....2C&index=7

Teshia| 10.25.11 @ 5:37PM

*yet

Dan Phillips| 10.25.11 @ 5:39PM

"The notion that if America "came home" the world would somehow leave us alone has never worked for the simplest of reasons."

Oh really? Ever heard of Switzerland Mr. Lord?

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 8:26PM

Hey Dan, do you know anything at all about Swiss politics? The SVP Swiss Peoples Party are the largest party in the country. They are vehemently anti-Islamist. The Swiss know they are under seige from Islamism and are fighting back. They are not the pacifists you make them out to be by any stretch.

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:51PM

Dan: Ever hear of the Swiss Army and how militant they are in defense of country?

In addition, the Swiss DON'T have porous borders like we do.

JR| 10.26.11 @ 5:26PM

Yea right. Switzerland was Germany's bitch during WW2.

Iva| 10.25.11 @ 5:59PM

Why is it conservative to spend all the nation's wealth, build a virtual police state at home, so we can become the next Hitler before someone else does?
Bush and the neocons are has beens. They will not beat Obama. Ron Paul will, if he ever gets a fair shake with the corporate media.

FedupExpression| 10.25.11 @ 7:06PM

It won't matter. They are already marginalized. Ron Paul will win the nomination and the Presidency.

JR| 10.26.11 @ 5:27PM

Yea right. Switzerland was Germany's bitch during WW2.

FedupExpression| 10.25.11 @ 7:05PM

Funny how Mulshine disagrees with this assessment...hmmm...maybe it's wrong.

Tom Smith| 10.25.11 @ 7:07PM

What a weak attempt at accusing Paul of lying. the term "statist" from the quote is right there in the question, not Paul's answer. then he told hannity that he didnt deny it. where's the lie? what kind of reporting is this? it's obvious your media blackout didnt work, so now you're trying to fight. so predictible. give it up.

Scott R| 10.25.11 @ 7:43PM

The author of this article is obviously a warmonger, since he admits as much by talking about 'only' disagreeing with Paul on 'foreign policy'. Our foreign policy is the crux of the issue for this country's demise. The Fed finances the wars through inflation, thus devaluing the currency, and the foreign intervention results in blowback and animosity towards our country. The murdering of thousands/millions of innocent women and children by way of drones and sanctions results in animosity towards our country? Who'd a thunk it.

The author wants to claim that Paul threw one of his supporters under the bus. No, here's what happened in a nutshell. Paul was interviewed by someone who was *like him" so he spoke his mind, calling Hannity and his ilk the statists that they are.

Then, later, Paul goes on Hannity's show. Why? Not because he respects Hannity. No, he goes on his show for the same reason that he tolerates campaigning as a 'Republican': Because it's a two (actually one) party system where if you're not a Democrat or Republican, you don't get *ANY* airtime. And since Paul is too nice a guy, he'll never interrupt during a debate to ask for the 2nd most amount of time that he's due, and while on Hannity's show he'll never call him out to his face as the statist that he is.

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 8:29PM

The definition of "warmonger" is to support war for territorial gain. I'm not seeing where Mr. Lord or any other pro-defense libertarian for that matter is advocating territorial expansion, outside of perhaps Statehood for Puerto Rico and Guam.

We fought and won two wars Iraq and Afghanistan. So, where is all the war booty? Where's the new American territory?

America is the oddest Nation ever invented. We win wars but we never ask for anything in return, except a small plot of land to bury our war dead.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003
USN Veteran, 1981-85

Scott R| 10.25.11 @ 9:16PM

Eric,

I find it amusing that you list in your sig line that your credentials include having worked for Ron Paul. Yet you would later run against Ron Paul and be quite outspoken against him. You're looking to ride his coattails on the one hand while standing for everything he opposes on the other. You're a very sad, pathetic, little man.

As for your comments...Oh yes, the US state is such a great philanthropist, invading countries, murdering hundreds of thousands, and asking nothing in exchange for these things. Well, while the average US taxpayer sees nothing in exchange for this (e.g., lower gas prices, etc.), you know as well as I that there are certain connected companies that see a *lot* of gain from this. The defense industry (e.g., GE), oil companies, etc. all do quite well. And that's the whole point. It's economic redistribution, but not to the poor on welfare, but rather to those that are already rich, who earn their profits based on the deaths of bothforeigners and US soldiers.

But, of course, you already know that, and are just playing dumb.

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 10:28PM

"Ride his coattails"? What? Are you fucking kidding me?

I list my 12 years with him so that those who are not aware of who I am, understand where I am coming from, on the issue of Ron Paul.

So they understand, that Yes, I admit it. For 12 long years I was part of the Ron Paul cult. I finally got cured. Thankfully.

Voluntaryist | 10.25.11 @ 10:34PM

Yeah yeah, this is all I need to know about Eric Dondero.

Voluntaryist | 10.25.11 @ 10:34PM

http://www.dailypaul.com/12208/who-is-eric-dondero

Eric Dondero | 10.26.11 @ 5:34AM

Hey Voluntaryist, could you kindly explain to the readers here why it is you hide behind a bogus on-line name, and why it is you don't post under your real name?

Pussy.

Mal_Content| 10.26.11 @ 10:41AM

Voluntaryist isn't promoting himself or his website...just posting ideas and opinions.

Keep shilling, Eric. You'll get some blog-traffic out of TAS, I'm sure.

JR| 10.26.11 @ 5:30PM

Eric is right. All you paul supporters are pussies.

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 10:33PM

I find it mighty curious that in your entire rant you did not mention September 11, 2001 one single time.

Has that like been erased from your memory? Doesn't fit your template? Let me refresh it for you.

3,000 OF OUR FELLOW AMERICANS WERE BRUTALLY MURDERED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

And two others at a Little Rock Recruiting Station in 2009.

And another 14 were murdered in 2009 at Ft. Hood, Texas.

And two others at a German Air Force Base in 2011.

ALL BY ISLAMISTS.

It's funny that you use words like "America invaded, so and so..." And "taxpayer-funded wars with no justification..." All the while not even mentioning the fact THAT WE HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY RADICAL MUSLIMS FOR 30 YEARS NOW GOING WAY BACK TO THE SEIZURE OF THE EMBASSY IN IRAN.

It's called Revenge Asshole. You fucka wid my people, I will fuck wid you and your people 10 times over. And we'll make it hurt, hurt bad.

You don't fuck with the Big Bad United States Military. Saddam found that out. Anwar Al-Alaki found that out. OBL found that out.

Scott R| 10.25.11 @ 10:49PM

"It's called Revenge Asshole. You fucka wid my people, I will fuck wid you and your people 10 times over. And we'll make it hurt, hurt bad."

Next time you run for Dr. Paul's seat, you should use this as your campaign slogan. You're a mouth-breathing, warmongering, nut-job.

Eric Dondero | 10.26.11 @ 5:33AM

Again, the definition of "warmongering" would be starting wars for the purpose of territorial gain or gain of money or products.

The U.S. fights wars of defense. And after we win, we leave, asking only for a small plot of land in return to bury our dead.

Where's the U.S. Territory that we gained in Iraq? Afghanistan?

There's:

1. Pacifist - don't fight wars for any reason (Ron Paul)

2. Defense - fight wars when attacked.

3. Pro-War - launch wars unprovoked for the purpose of gaining territory and goods.

JR| 10.26.11 @ 5:33PM

Eric is right. All you paul supporters are pussies.

Steve Teters| 10.25.11 @ 7:47PM

I'm sorry, I clicked on this post before I saw who the author was, so I didn't bother to read it. Lord's opinions make less sense than my dog's, he always seems to have his head somewhere where it is dark.

Voluntaryist | 10.25.11 @ 8:29PM

Check out my PowerPoint on why terrorists hate us:

http://www.slideshare.net/anar.....ey-hate-us

I used to be a neo-conservative and a Rush 24/7 member myself. I tried to put in the PowerPoint every objection I had back in the day. Someone wrote to me on the Tom Woods blog:

"You made this PowerPoint? Someone linked me to it a while back and it really had a big impact on my foreign policy views. That was very good work--thanks for putting it together."

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 8:35PM

Folks, I escaped the Ron Paul cult 8 years ago. I was a card-carrying Ron Paul cultist for 12 long years. I worked as his personal travel aide in the 1987/88 Libertarian Presidential campaign. Ron and I campaigned in 44 states, including Alaska. I then ran his brief presidential campaign in 1992 (until Pat Buchanan jumped in). And I was his campaign coordinator for congress in 1995/96.

When he decided to vote against the War in Iraq, I resigned.

Earlier in 2001 I came real close to resigning when he initially would not support the War in Afghanistan to avenge the deaths of our 3,o00 dead Americans.

He finally relented on the very last day, after myself and half the staff threated to resign.

Ron Paul is fantastic on economic issues. I agree with him 100% on the domestic side. On foreign policy, read my lips, HE IS NOT PRO-DEFENSE. He sides with the pacifist, leftist side of our libertarian movement. He opposes all wars for any reason. He is also notably anti-death penalty. He is a pacifist all-around. Don't believe the Paul cultists who argue otherwise.

Believe those of us who escaped the cult.

Eric Dondero, Publisher
LibertarianRepublican.net
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003
Fmr. Libertarian National Committee mbr.
Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus

Scott R| 10.25.11 @ 9:24PM

Eric,

No need for the intro. Many of us already know who you are: A man with no scruples, no morals, a liar, and a fool. For those of you who *don't* recognize Eric's name, feel free to Google him and you'll learn all the details you need to know.

As for accusing Dr. Paul of not being "pro-defense", do yourself a favor and invest in a dictionary, or maybe read the novel '1984'. Your definition of "defense" is "offense". And our nation's "defensive" actions of imposing sanctions, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children, and meddling in the free will of other nations, is what results in isolated incidents of certain individuals deciding to risk their lives to cause harm to us. *Defense* is defending yourself when someone attacks you, not *proactively* leveling another country because you're worried that they might harbor ill will towards you.

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 10:24PM

Wrong Scott. Dead fucking wrong.

The definition of "Offense" would be starting wars for military conquests, territorial gain, and war booty.

The definit9ion of "Defense" would be hit back, and hit back hard when you are attacked.

Guess you've plum forgotten asshole, but 3,000 OF YOUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN WERE BURNED, CRUSHED TO DEATH AND INCINERATED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

There's an old Italian saying: You fucka wid my family, I fucka wid you, your family, and burn down your whole entire village.

That's DEFENSE. Walk softly; carry a big stick.

We didn't get any territorial gain out of Afghanistan or Iraq. Where's the war booty? If we were conducting an offensive war we'd have an Iraqi island or two now in the Persian Gulf, and control of their oil fields. We'd be importing Afghani women to service American males here in the U.S. and the ugly ones as house maids.

None of that. We just liberated and skid-daddled. Some "imperaliasts," and "conquerers" we are.

Rob A| 10.26.11 @ 1:24PM

Offense is defined as military action without provacation and cause. Iraq is a perfect example.

Read Robert Papes book Cutting the Fuse for more information on Why Suicide Terrorism occurs.

JR| 10.26.11 @ 5:38PM

You guys sound like liberal peace activists. a person who doesnt believe in defending his friends, family or himself is the one who doesnt have scruples,morals and a fool. Now Scott how come we dont have any German, Japanese or Italian terrrorists?

Red Phillips | 10.25.11 @ 9:30PM

I'm sure Jeffrey Lord is resting easy now that he knows intellectual heavyweight Eric Dondero is on his side. :-)

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 10:39PM

Oh, geez. Forgive me Red. I didn't go to Hah-vad like your guy Obama. I wasn't given a scholarship cause of the color of my skin. I had to work my way through college, 45 hours a week in fact. And spend 4 years of my life in the military to get some help for my college education.

But I'm sure you got it handed to you, just like B - Hussein - O.

Rob A| 10.26.11 @ 1:20PM

Eric,
You are a former Ron Paul staffer who was fired. Stop being a disgruntled mess.

Rob A| 10.26.11 @ 1:27PM

He is not a pacifist, as he supported military action to get Bin Laden....

JR| 10.26.11 @ 5:39PM

Only after his staff threatened to resign.

os| 10.25.11 @ 8:52PM

"When he decided to vote against the War in Iraq, I resigned."

Well here we are eight years later and he was right, and you were wrong. Why should we be listening to you?

Mal_Content| 10.25.11 @ 9:01PM

This.

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 9:14PM

How's that? We won the War in Iraq. Spectacularly. I remember Ron saying there'd be "tens of thousands of American soldiers dead," from the War. What happened Ron?

I remember him saying we'd never get Saddam? Geez Ron, what happened to that one?

Mal_Content| 10.26.11 @ 10:09AM

Looking at the cost of the Iraq War, "spectacular win" is not the phrase that first comes to mind.

How about "pointless waste of money"?

But the cost of war doesn't concern you, does it Eric? That's what us taxpayers are for.

Rob A| 10.26.11 @ 1:21PM

Disgruntled fired staffer.

John| 10.25.11 @ 9:11PM

Still butt hurt from the ass kicking Tom Woods gave you I see.

So this is what you want to hang your hat on? Hannity was practically begging Ron Paul to affirm his own conservatism. That's what the story is. Hannity, Limbaugh and Levin are all versions of progressive Republicans as are you. Have you thought for a moment that Ron wanted to talk about something more important instead of a stupid "I'm more conservative than you are" debate? Jesus your dumb.

Your shtick is tired and you still don't understand the Constitution or liberty.

jamesjameson536@gmail.com| 10.25.11 @ 9:26PM

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Dear establishment Republicans, neocons, defense conservatives... I supported the hell out of Bush. I supported the invasion of Iraq. I supported his efforts to make every American a homeowner. I was wrong. I admit it. I've learned from my mistakes, so now I support Ron Paul.

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 10:17PM

And I used to support Ron Paul. There was a time that I bought into his non-intervention BS. Boy was I an idiot.

9/11 happened. Ft. Hood happened. And countless other Islamist attacks on the United States. George Bush wasn't that great on the economic agenda, but on foreign policy he was right on!

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003

Occam's Tool| 10.25.11 @ 9:52PM

I like Dondero more than Paul, I must say.

William R| 10.25.11 @ 11:09PM

He's just another Israel Firster like you.

JR| 10.26.11 @ 5:44PM

Better than being a nazi like you. Now I get it about you guys. You wouldnt have supported WW2 either. Who cares about the millions of Jews that were murdered. They deserved it huh William since they were in Germany bullying everybody.

Eric Dondero | 10.25.11 @ 10:19PM

Thanks, but you can't vote for me for president, cause I'm not running. You can however, join us pro-defense libertarians at LibertarianRepublican.net (yes, shameless plug but I link AS all the time.)

josh| 10.25.11 @ 10:52PM

I did not see Paul use the word statist there, that was clearly mr. mulshines' word in the question. From the response that Paul gave it doesn't seem like he directly answered the question asked. It does seem that he accused limbaugh et. al.of being less conservative in their actions than in their words.....at least that was my take away maybe someone else reads it differently though? As for the "pork" it is my understanding that once appropriated the money will be spent somewhere, the only question is where, and by whom? Paul never supports the appropriation, but once it passes over his objections then he goes ahead and earmarks it for a project in his district when he can. Maybe this is not a perfect solution, but it seems to strike a reasonable balance between pragmatism and ideological purity.

Jacob Schans| 10.25.11 @ 10:54PM

Wow. I'm getting an education on this blog. I think I will vote for Ron Paul in 2012.

Brent Smith| 10.26.11 @ 12:40AM

Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity are statist because they support candidates give us bigger government, more war and less liberty. They repeatedly support candidates that talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Snake Oil Salesmen -"on air!"| 10.26.11 @ 4:02AM

I agree. Limbaugh's been on the air how long now? Seems like a lifetime.

He's the biggest con artist there is.

If ever you needed to find a how-to instructor on self centeredness and loquatious bragging, El Dittohead would fit the bill.

All three are nausiating. You can flip the radio on and listen to them for one hour today and wait until the 26th of the next month to listen for another 60 minutes. And then wait another 30 days for that one hour (painful) dosage.

Their themes are constant. Never specific. Always fuzzy. Always sounds the very same.

They are broken records.

"Great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great.....American panel."

Con artists.

One more commonality: We learn every tidbit of their lives. They have no shame, no reticense. You can learn their full biographies in just 3 weeks of listening. All of the episodes of their lives glossed over in glossy terms. Paragons of our time.

Just keep picking up those tennis balls....

Bruce Majors | 10.26.11 @ 8:34AM

My comment is not about this specific incident but instead on the relationship between Ron Paul and the tea party and other small government people among independents and all parties.

There is an enormous gulf between the foreign policy views of Paul and those of Jeffrey Lord and many people at American Spectator. To disagree with Paul (whose public speaking abilities are not perfect and whose style leaves much to be desired) about some particular aspect of foreign affairs (whether we can trust Obama to use predator drones, take out Iranian nukes, kill Americans and their teenage sons when they move to Yemen and blog in support of Islamic terrorists, etc -- and that is the AS/neocon position as they defend the creation of legal structures and military forces that give any Obama-type elected POTUS those powers) is not to accept Bill Kristol's (Obama's big fan's) foreign policy views. One can believe in reducing the military budget by 60% and ending the Patriot Act and forgoing nation building occupations and still support preemptive strikes against nuclear sites or terrorists, and even support cooperation with other countries in monitoring or countering actions taken by China or Iran. One can disagree with many particular actions or positions of Ron Paul and still select him as vastly superior to anyone else in the GOP field in terms of both honesty and character and in terms of substantive positions. I think this is why Rush Limbaugh endorsed Ron Paul's budget proposal a week or so ago.

Without Ron Paul the current crop of GOP candidates would be less likely to be putting forth tax and budget cutting plans that seek to get his hard core 8-12% of the potential GOP voters. Without his son Rand Paul in the Senate the tea party caucus would be far less articulate. It is clear that Ron Paul intends to build his Campaign for Liberty infrastructure nationwide to permanently bid for control of the GOP and it is clear this is what the GOP incumbatocracy and others find threatening.

Rob A| 10.26.11 @ 1:37PM

@ Eric Dondero,

How did your Primary Challenge to Paul work out for you? LMAO!!!!!

From Reason Magazine:

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.

Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.

Reason: But he says he's running because of your debate performance. So is this presidential campaign weakening your standing in your district?

Paul: Well, if it affects my standing in my district then I wouldn't be a very good candidate for the presidency. If these views are popular, and I think they're popular enough, then they should be popular in my home district. They've been hearing me saying this for a lot of years and I keep getting re-elected rather easily. I think politicians are always concerned about how they're doing in their district, but right now, if Eric Dondero is the only thing I have to worry about, then I don't have a lot to worry about.

Reason: What Dondero's said is that "there are essentially two Ron Pauls. There's the national liberal media (and libertarian blogosphere) Ron Paul. And then there's the South Texas good hometown doctor, red, white, and blue Ron Paul." And he's said you talk a good game about supporting veterans but they don't know your positions.

Paul: All one would have to do is go to the veterans part of my website. I win so many awards; we have so many people who call us from around the country because of the work we do for veterans. My biggest beef is that the veterans get shortchanged because of our war spending, and we end up with Walter Reed problems. So that statement makes zero sense.

theRightRadical| 10.27.11 @ 11:11AM

In month twenty six during the reign of George the Lessor. The Legions thrust forward. This was the Great Leap Forward for Imperia, as laid down by the Jesters Feith, Boot, Kagan, and Kristol. These jesters had jumped rope to the Retrons, from the Deltrons. Except for the father of Kristol, who had came from the Nasty Trotsky. The thrust was going swimmingly. And all smiled under the big banner, as Lessor stood there. He has avenged his father, George the Slippery. The Span of Green was clipping coin heartily, and the citizens of Imperia. Who just a short time earlier were trembling at the numbers began to dance. Later that summer Lessor sealed a Mandate Unfunded for the Gray Hairs Medicine. All was well in Imperia.
Then suddenly the reports from the land faraway of our brave Legions began to become worrisome. The Browns of Akahnid; decided that they did not like the Legions being there. The flower people in Akahnid. Promised by the jesters of George were beginning to throw not flowers but IED thingies at the Legions, and the plow shears promised by the jesters to be used for Dates, and Black Gold were being pounded into swords. The Lessor did not worry though. As he shouted “Bring it On” , as though Lessor would mount his own chariot like Alexander, and ride to Akahnid. Upon hearing of this, Pat of Old, mumbled something about Bozo. Lessor dispatched his Jester Rummy to check on the Legions. Rummy heard the Legions concerns, but said to mount the Chariots we have provided, and proceed post haste. But the citizens of Imperia were somewhat aghast at this, since they were told their Legions were impervious. They had spent many Taxes, Clipped coin, and borrowed funds from the Yellows across the Sea on the Legions. Why were they not impervious? They have never been told why to this day.
The Legions were brave men fighting far from home for the honor of Imperia (not the honor of Lessor as exclaimed by the Hannitit, and the Limpbaugh) They were strong, and tough but trained for war fought long ago, between Grays and Blues, not on the streets of Foodoo, and Bagwam. The Browns had many, many tribes, and they could come in all directions. To protect themselves from the IED thingies, and the Browns slinging from the rooftops. The Legions wore much armor, which slowed their pace in the land of sand. The office of Rummy did not have all the armor nor the kind needed, so some Legions took their own meager funds and bought their armor. Ought five was the hardest year. Dickabeth of Cheney the azzzistant of the Lessor. Mentioned the Throes. His words became Pyrrhic though, and many thought he cast evil spells with his tongue. The Retrons began to speak harshness at the Deltrons, who they called the Lizards. Blaming them for the blight of the Legions.
The Lizards never wanting a crisis go to the Wastecan, began to cry foul, and march around. The tribe of the Retrons, the Conservs had never read books. They still know not the words of Alexander, and MacArthur, the wise Legion leaders of yesteryear. For if they had they would not have bought this expedition of the Lessor, which was beginning to smell like flatulence. But this did not matter to the loyal young Sha-pie-row, and the boys in the YAF. They screamed devotion for Lessor, but did not join the Legions. The Lizards and others called them Chickenhawk. A bird not seen in Imperia since the war with the Yellows of the South Shelia. Many in Imperia were displeased. Fortunately their Castles were gaining price that were reaching the Heavens. Many bought Castles called McBurgers, and were pleased with the stone meal places. A new Coin clipper, the Bernake smiled broadly, as the Castles of the citizens were entrusted to his values.
In the year ought six. Much shrieking was heard from Deltrons called Ugly Nancy, and Gutless Harry. They cajoled the citizens of Imperia with stories about bringing the Legions home. Many of the Legions had traveled to Akahnid many times. Back and forth, and since there were not enough Legions to go around. Many of the Home Guard too, had to travel to Akahnid. The Home Guard had not been called to battle in many generations, and many were in advanced age compared to the young Legions, but they did their best in the sand, and hot sun of Akahnid.
The Retrons wanted the Jester Ashcroft to use the Act of the Patriots against Ugly and the Gutless, but he could not do so. He did take Padilla a Brown from Chicago under the Lamp and into the Stockade, where he is to this very day. Throughout the time of heat in Imperia. Ugly Nancy and the Gutless spoke to the citizens. Sounding as though the Legions would be home if they appointed them. Meanwhile the Lessor spoke of Standing Up and Down. The citizens were much confused. Without objection from the Conservs, who say they like Authority spread out amongst the land. The Lessor give himself a Commission, this Act can also be used by a new Sun King if he so desires. This was the third time the rooster had crowed for the Conservs. But neither the Mandate Unfunded for the Gray Hairs nor the Act for the Small ones left Around Corners, caused them to turn their backs on Lessor and scream out in principle. No they wanted the many who shouted venom at the Lessor put in the Stockade. In the time of the Pumpkin the trick worked for Ugly and Gutless and they had many Deltrons appointed. The citizens thought the Legions would come home. If nothing else no more Clipped coin and funds borrowed from the Yellows across the Sea, for the expedition of Bush the Lessor. But this was not to be and the citizens were quite dismayed. But Ugly Nancy, and Gutless Harry had a plan. It was the Stalling plan. The blood of the Legions, and the Home Guard would still spill in the sands, so Ugly and Gutless could get their own Deltron Sun King. This is how Gutless got his name, on the blood of the Legions and Home Guard. Although Gutless made much noise about the Surges planned by the ex Deltron Kagan in ought seven. He cast for the seals anyway.
Ought eight was a year Imperia would like to forget. The value of the Castles, began to fall and the citizens wondered if they had really bought Sand Castles. The blood was still falling in the sands of Akahnid. Near the time of the Pumpkin, the Bankoks that held the notes to many of the Castles begin to scream and shout and thrust about. They cried to Lessor, and to the Coin clipper the Bernake, and to the Jester Partake. “Help Us” The Lessor spoke to the citizens, but the citizens were not swayed. So Lessor, Ugly Nancy, the Gutless, the Grump, and the Brown Eyed Handsome man met. The Grump and Brown Eye were now vying to be the new Sun King. Partake and the Bernake who said everything was OKdooky in the year ought seven, were now frowning. The citizens said “NO NO Clipped coin for the Bankoks. “ “Let them eat sand” but Ugly and the Gutless laden much pork into the Act so it could pass the second Muster, after the Poltroons frightened by the citizens, said no on the first Muster. The Lessor said he shouldn’t do this but sealed the Act anyway, as Hannitit, and Limpbaugh nodded in agreement. The Bankoks got the clipped coins, and even some borrowed from the Yellows across the Sea. And they gave the Brown Eyed many a share so he could speak from glass, with a two forked tongue, as the Lizards, who call themselves Protrons chant with him. Many citizens had to leave their homes because they had no way to gain clipped coin, and the citizens were in much dismay. Some even wondered about the future of Imperia. Then Brown Eyed Man was appointed Sun King, as many Conservs. Sat with hands under the tush and spoke venom against the Grump. This was the second appointment in a row the Retrons were pushed back with a stick.
The Sun King, is now known as the Golden Pharaoh. Speaks in deviled tongues. He got much Clipped coin from the Bankoks, so he can speak from the glass. The only way he can. The Protrons turned a blind eye to this taking of Clipped coin from the Bankoks, since they swoon over Pharaoh. Although the citizens will soon be fooled by Pharaoh. They feel bile in the mouth at the thought of the Lessor, and were happy to see him go home to Tejas.
The Retrons do not like the Pharaoh. He speaks with a two forked tongue, to the Protrons, and takes more Clipped coin and notes from the Yellows across the Sea, then even the Lessor did. The citizens hoped he would end the blood letting of the Legions but he has them fooled. He is the Lessor on the Roid. The Conservs love his blood letting but only cheer silently now, lest they fall for the Pharaoh. They hate him. He is dirty to them. The Lessor lead them into the River where he sold them, but they only hate Pharaoh. They think the Pharaoh is weak, but they will be surprised. The citizens want more then hate. They don’t like Bush the Lessor but the Conservs do, since there is not much light in themselves. The young don’t like Retons, nor do the ex Spaniards of Southwest Imperia.
The Conservs hate the Lizards more then they love the Visions that they see in their heads for Imperia. They embrace the scaredy cats who claim the Browns want them to dress funny or die, more then they trust themselves, and those who live near them. They shriek like the Lizards now, when before they took long pauses to think hard. They are empty and they will continue to lose appointments. They have to give up the Blood letting, the Stockades, the Clipped coin, and the hate for the Browns. It is time for you to love Imperia, what it meant, and what it can be more then you hate the Lizards. The Lizards can’t fix this. And neither can you unless you let go.

Dale Stewart| 10.27.11 @ 11:53PM

The very fact that so many of my fellow countrymen prefer war to peace is depressing to the point of tears. No rationale it seems is sufficient to temper their lust for the blood of innocents around the world. Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran etc., none of these are a threat to the great United States. 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals and not for a moment did we consider any action against Saudi Arabia. I smell a rat, a big bloody globalist rat.

More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/25/ron-paul-throws-mulshine-under

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 1:07PM

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 11:14AM

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|95 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|116 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|57 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|102 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|60 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Pick Obama's Brain

Paul Kengor | 5.16.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

Pray and Grow Rich

Christopher Orlet | 5.16.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

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.