-
“Fediting 101”
June 13, 2013 | 1 comment
-
National Security and the Difficult Debate
June 10, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Just Because I’m Paranoid…
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Jeffrey Lord has sounded the death knell for Ron Paul’s foreign policy perspective, and an effective end to so-called “non-conservatism.” While Mr. Lord admits that Paul’s most ardent supporters are unlikely to vanish, he suggests their numbers are effectively limited, and ultimately marginalized by his personal interpretation of authentic conservatism.
As a professional and a (hopefully) emerging academic in the field of international relations, I have some serious misgivings with respect to the degree to which Rep. Paul emphasizes America’s need to avoid foreign “entanglement.” However, I’m also bloody well exhausted of a Cold War paradigm that continues to shape presumptions about U.S. policy, and the seemingly insatiable need to rattle sabers from the comfort of our keyboards.
It would seem that Mr. Lord is either unwilling or unable to admit that I’m not alone. Many of my generation are similarly tired of this status quo. Although he dismissed the “non-cons” as a conservative aberration, Mr. Lord cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of young caucus-goers support Ron Paul. Before dismissing Paul’s utter domination of the youth vote as anomalous, I would remind you that this is the same generation of young conservatives who have watched their friends, family and classmates blown to smithereens in the distant backwaters of the global stage — their sacrifice financed by untold treasure spent to reshape and refine the political infrastructure of foreign failures. They’re sick and tired of “business as usual” and their ardent support of Ron Paul is indicative of a genuine commitment to change.
In his farewell address to the nation, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned his fellow Americans about the evolving danger of a “military industrial complex.” But he also implored his countrymen to meet the measure of an “alert and knowledgeable citizenry.” While the youth numbers suggest Mr. Lord’s celebration of the demise of “non-conservatism” is ephemeral, if not altogether premature, I’ll take it a step further. Paul’s supporters have not failed in their commitment to Eisenhower’s emphasis on those “peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” I’d day that’s something to consider moving forward.
View all comments (107) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/04/a-few-quick-thoughts-on-ron-pa
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 1:42PM
The Paulbot youth, like the Obama youth of four years ago, have not had to pay a mortgage and raise kids yet. You change at that point.
I think Nation Building Savages is ridiculous, and I note that the Bush administration did not follow the sage example of the Truman administration on this---first you beat your enemies to a pulp, and then, after the fight is knocked out of them, THEN you rebuild. Or, go in, destroy your opponent, do what you came to do, and leave to support your friends. If, for example, we had broken Saddam's regime, looked for WMD, and then parked some of our force in Kurdistan (where we would have been welcomed and the life would have been EASY), we could have threatened Iran with stable forces on the ground, supported our friends, had minimal casualties, and kept a force in being for a while.
But being nice to our enemies is moronic. Aspire away, Mr. Smith, but remember that in "The Great Game" there is no substitute for winning. You seem to like our enemies too much. I, on the other hand, look at them from what my wife's nickname for me would imply---a "wolverine's" perspective. Perhaps not having one successful suicide attempt occur while I was the treating Psychiatrist for the Alabama Chain Gang has given me a different perspective. I know my psychopaths better than you do, and how to make them ineffective.
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 2:20PM
The Israel Firsters Are Runnin' Around All Giddy And Bumping Heads Because Two Israel Firster BIG GOVERNMENT STATISTS, Mittens Romney And Runty Santorum Each Got 25 Percent Of The Iowa Caucus Vote.
Real Conservatives Recognize That You Israel Firsters Are Selling Out America And Fiscal Conservatives For Your Traitor Bastard Israel Firster Agenda Of Using American Warriors For Cannon Fodder And America's Treasury To Police The Middle East For Israel's Agenda.
This Is Gonna Stop.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To The East Coast.
DRed| 1.4.12 @ 2:26PM
Nothing like raising children to make one support needless foreign wars. I'm sure you'll be encouraging your kids to join the military, Occam, just like you did. And of course you'll support raising taxes to pay for the wars, right?
MarkO| 1.4.12 @ 3:10PM
Yeah, funny how Occam's Tool doesn't talk about serving the country himself. I bet a draft would change a lot of minds really fast.
Bob Grant| 1.4.12 @ 3:25PM
The military is currently setup like any other profession. Some people choose to enter, some don't.
People have different motives for entering: patriotism; government benefits; family tradition; as mercenaries; a chance to blow things up; a chance to kill people; or to play soldier....
To imply someone is a chickenhawk just because they support military actions but are not currently serving is an absurd (and overused) argument. It's generally used by people intent on generating an emotional response. Period.
I guess what I'm trying to say is go pound sand!
DRed| 1.4.12 @ 3:35PM
I actually agree with you, Bob, in general. The problem, to my mind, is that there are too many people in America who support endless militarism without being willing to sacrifice, at all, for their beliefs. They don't want to fight, they don't want to pay. We don't have enough money to keep spending our current level of military spending up. I'm guessing Occam would want to cut non-military entitlement programs to pay for the continued military adventurism he supports. The reality of it is that cutting Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security is just going to cause even more of the burden of our military actions on the poor and the working class.
DRed| 1.4.12 @ 3:36PM
What I meant to write was that we don't have enough money to keep our current level of spending on the military and entitlement programs.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 3:39PM
Sure. Draft away. I'm 49, with two kids, hypertension, and adult onset diabetes.
I DID apply for a ROTC scholarship to Medical School when I was 21, and young and slim and healthy---and was turned down---in 1984, that was HIGHLY competitive, and everyone had gotten into Med School, of course, who applied. They were preferential toward those who had done ROTC as undergrads. I racked up $80,000 in Medical school/Residency loans, and paid them all off, including the Government loans, in 18 months after graduating from Residency. My residency was at a VA, taking care of American vets.
By the way, if we had rearmed to our full potential in 1939, would we have needed to fight a war in 1941? It was the "AmericaFirsters" who opposed re-armament, and got us weak enough to get our asses handed bloodily to us in the first year of WWII.
Incidentally, I have noted that I applied for a Navy ROTC medical school scholarship about 20 times here. As I've noted before---Ron (finished Third, rhymes with Turd) supporters are hard of hearing and understanding.
My father-in-law served in the Army AND the Navy (two different wars), my graddad was an infantryman in WWI, my wife's ancestors fought for both the Union and the Confederacy, her college roommate is a Light Colonel in Air Force intelligence.
I don't support Nation Building or a whole lot of boots on the ground. I support relentless bombing to crush our opponents. Then I get the "ooh, what about their civilians" crap from Red Phillips and the like. A draft is unnecessary for this type of conflict. We want very experienced soldiers to keep our casualties down. I don't know why Paulbots care more about our enemies' casualties than our own. Makes no sense. But, then again, that's why the Turd finished Third.
Look---when you get into a War, you get in
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 3:44PM
Let me finish the last paragraph.
When you get in a War, you get in to win, and you should win it as quickly as possible with the least amount of casualties on your side as possible.
Iran attacked us in 1979 against international law, and has been killing our men against international law ever since. They deserve a good bashing, and no troops are necessary if you don't mind a lot of collateral damage. I don't mind a lot of collateral damage.
DRed| 1.4.12 @ 4:00PM
By collateral damage, you mean butchering innocents, right? At least say what you mean. How many of their children should we slaughter, ideally, to show that that we're not savages-like they are?
Furthermore, nuking or bombing Iran into the stone age would be terrible for the global economy. Bombing Iran relentlessly would hurt America. This is a country, by the way, with a smaller GDP than Sweden. While dangerous to some degree, Iran poses nothing remotely approaching an existential threat to us. Your foreign policy is a childish fantasy.
Bob Grant| 1.4.12 @ 4:27PM
Your little theory of playing nice with the enemy will be tested when obama begins the process of negotiating with the Taliban.
This should be a laugh a minute considering most, if not all, can't even spell negotiate.
Bob Grant| 1.4.12 @ 4:29PM
...that was directed to DRED.
DRed| 1.4.12 @ 5:09PM
What's that got to do with invading Iran?
Bob Grant| 1.4.12 @ 5:55PM
It's got to do with the dangerous (and naive) strategy of appeasement that Ron Paul/obama supporters adhere to. Negotiating with the Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, and the Iranians coupled with weak threats of sanctions.
The Taliban and Iran will.play.obama.like.a.cheap.fiddle.
They know he's weak and that's when miscalculations by the enemy occur.
We WILL get into a hot war with Iran in the not too distant future, either on our watch, played by our rules., or because of some dangerous maneuver by the enemy borne of some perceived weakness of they have about the obama administration.
DRed| 1.4.12 @ 6:31PM
What Iranian aggression has Obama appeased?
Bob Grant| 1.4.12 @ 6:36PM
Proceeding with a nuclear weapons program that violates IAEA mandates for one. Others include fighting a proxy war against the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, funding terrorist nations/organizations like Syria and Hezbollah.
Obama thought a speech in Cairo would reign in a thousand years of Middle East peace.
You don't offer olive branches to these thug terrorists and terrorist nations. You use many sticks and the occasional carrot to make them see things our way.
DRed| 1.4.12 @ 7:59PM
We've spent most of Obama's term killing Taliban in Afghanistan and had our drones relentlessly hunting them in Pakistan. Perhaps this is an occasional carrot?
As for Iran, their recent saber rattling seems to show that they're worried over the effect of sanctions against them. Iran's main regional ally is falling apart, they have a significant domestic opposition movement, their oil money is threatened, someone has been killing their nuclear scientists, their nuclear program has been weakened by cyber attacks, etc. They're not a particularly powerful country to begin with, and they're getting weaker. It's not remotely analogous to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s.
Bob Grant| 1.4.12 @ 8:48PM
Obama has the luxury of using predator drones without being called a "chicken hawk" for doing so.
When he uses then, it's considered "smart military engagement" from the likes of you and your ilk.
Funny how that works.
His leading from behind in Libya is ultimate weakness as we all know (as well as our enemies) he would never start another military engagement with significant ground forces. Only predator attacks and leading from behind from this guy.
Ironically this is precisely how major wars begin. Weakness begets provocation, which begets miscalculation, which begets aggression, which begets war.
Hobbes| 1.4.12 @ 5:27PM
Chicken Hawk.
Hobbes| 1.4.12 @ 5:26PM
YES! Send your kids, raise your taxes to fight useless unending wars...then preach to us Occam. Not one Traditional Conservative supports endless, mindless war. Only the NeoCons.
MarkO| 1.4.12 @ 3:10PM
Yeah, funny how Occam's Tool doesn't talk about serving the country himself. I bet a draft would change a lot of minds really fast.
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 3:40PM
That's Because Tool Job's A Neo-Chickenhawk Coat Holder,Who Wants American Warriors To Be Cannon Fodder For His Screwball Maniac Israel Firster Agenda.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 3:44PM
Third. Turd.
tonypal| 1.4.12 @ 4:03PM
Why bother responding to Paulbots? Is it really worth your while?
9thID| 1.4.12 @ 4:37PM
Occam - no need to defend your position to Neo-Liberal “chickenhawk” Clint and his ilk as they would be the first to head up to Canada if the draft was reinstated - just like their Liberal cousins did during Nam. They are the new genocide enablers like their Euro-Pacifist hero Neville Chamberlain was. Ron Paul is a John Kerry/Jack Murtha veteran, except he “chickenhawked” out of combat duty...
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 4:33PM
The Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Turd, Tool Job.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 4:38PM
No more "tea party rebellion," huh, Cwint? How sad for you.
wtf| 1.4.12 @ 3:26PM
"ThePaulbot youth"
If you're so smart you should know better to insult a whole generation. Young Americans want freedom and so do I.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 3:45PM
The Paulbot Youth. There, I'll do it again. If your young and voting for Paul, you deserve insults. It means you're supporting Bradley Manning. If you do that, you're no kin of mine.
Bill Carson| 1.4.12 @ 4:42PM
Hey tough guy.
As long as you use a large brush to paint a huge portion of the world's population as "enemies" and "psychopaths" then yeah, your ideas may make some sense.
If, (for the sake of argument) Ron Paul's understanding of the world is too "nice" as you say, it is still way closer to reality than your paranoid view of the world.
If you want to go find people to fight, be my guest.
But i dunno, maybe my perspective as one who spent 14 months in Iraq--supposedly defending people like you--has given me a different perspective.
reidtsmith| 1.4.12 @ 5:47PM
Thank you. This is precisely how I feel.
aware| 1.4.12 @ 7:03PM
Yes.
JR| 1.4.12 @ 6:55PM
Ocam you hit the nail on the head. I concur.
JR| 1.4.12 @ 6:55PM
Occam.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 1:44PM
Paul's supporters are non-inteventionalists at almost any price. Puh-lease. I LIVED in the man's Congressional District for 4 miserable years. I never returned after I grabbed my MD. The man, and his District, are equally despicable.
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 3:47PM
This Is The Short, Fat, Agin' Maniac Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Tool Job Big Yellow Bus Calli' The The American Air Force Officer Dr.Ron Paul Yellow.
The Tea Party Rebellion Runs Over On The Big Yellow Israel Firster Bus.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 4:25PM
Considering he never left the Continental US & only served 4 years, while never being selected for promotion, he's hardly a "warrior's warrior," is he, Cwint?
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 4:43PM
You're An Israel Firster Smear Busnd Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Liar, Con Job.
Air Force Captain Dr. Ron Paul Spent Time On The Ground In Iran, Ethiopia, Pakistan, South Korea And Turkey.
Dr.Ron Paul Was Awarded His Captains Bars After Completing His Air Force Residency Program.
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Smear Bund Coward Liar, Con Job.
Warrior | 1.4.12 @ 3:59PM
John Kerry, Barney Frank, Chucky Schumer, Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Debbie Doberman-Schultz, etc. These are all despicable people that are elected by despicable people with an anti-American agenda. Ron Paul supporters are not the enemy. You sound just like the establishment GOP and media who claim the Tea Party is a bunch of racists who hate the poor and want to deny everyones medical care and education. Let's face it, if it weren't for the small percentage of Tea Party elected officials, the true conservatives would have no say whatsoever in DC. In fact, the Tea Party has been the only questioners of the status quo who have forced Boehner to at least show a toothpick sized backbone (he's a jelly fish without them).
Where I'm going with this OT is that should the GOP ignore the 20-25% of Tea Party elected candidates because they are a minority that should be ridiculed because they are not mainstream GOP? You all belittle and stereotype Ron Paul supporters similar to what the liberals and MSM due to the Tea Party. And again, you are not discussing the virtues of your chosen candidate to discuss in comparison with Ron Paul, you are simply attacking the man and anyone that supports him. Very liberal of all you.
9thID| 1.4.12 @ 4:44PM
All social and national security Liberals are now the "enemy" be they Liber-als or Liberal-tarians. BTW - no major Tea Party group has endorsed Ron Paul for a good reason as he does not support what Reagan called the "3-legged stool" of Conservatism...
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 5:35PM
Wrong Israel Firster Ass Clown
We Tea Party Patriots, The Largest, By Far Of All Tea Party Umbrella Groups, Don't Formally Endorse Any Candidate, At Any Level, County, State, Federal. Individual Tea Party Patriots Are Free To Endorse Any Candidate.
ANKENY, Iowa - 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul was endorsed today by Cedar Rapids Tea Party founder Tim Pugh on the first day of the Congressman’s two-day visit to Iowa.
Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values
Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
Core Values
Fiscal Responsibility
Constitutionally Limited Government
Free Markets
Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.
Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.
Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual. As an organization we do not take stances on social issues. We urge members to engage fully on the social issues they consider important and aligned with their beliefs.
aware| 1.4.12 @ 6:26PM
Yep, Republicans and dittoheads are blowing it. Then in November when the votes they have insulted and ostracized don't show up it will be the "paultards" fault for not voting "with the party" whose minions ran them off.
9thID| 1.4.12 @ 10:16PM
You neo-Liberals will go with Obama anyway as you are so inbred with the Democrap Party...
aware| 1.5.12 @ 6:15AM
You neo cons are a cargo cult. That 3 legged stool you mention no longer exists. It's now 2 legged cause limited government went out the window. If you think it will come back with the likes of Santorum or Romney or Gingrich you are like the South Sea natives waiting for their straw plane to bring them the wonders of civilization.
While you waste your time in a futile wait for goods that won't show up you engage in persecuting those who point out straw planes can't fly.
aloysius| 1.4.12 @ 1:55PM
Nice article, Reid.
Do you write anywhere else besides AmSpec?
Dai Alanye | 1.4.12 @ 1:55PM
We are all stupid when young, due to lack of life experience. For the good of the republic the voting age should be raised to twenty-five.
aware| 1.4.12 @ 2:33PM
They lack the intelligence to vote but they make good cannon fodder. That's your idea?
MarkO| 1.4.12 @ 3:11PM
Yeah, funny that... Will you be serving, Dai Alanye?
Woody| 1.4.12 @ 3:15PM
He won't serve, just as the gutless Santorum didn't serve. Add Romney and Gingrich to that list. I guess some are meant to die and others are meant to decide who dies. At least Paul and Perry are veterans. If for no other reason, they at least get my respect as men.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 3:46PM
Yes, indeed. Especially if they voted for Paul, bullet stopping on some foreign battlefield is their perfect use.
C Bowen | 1.4.12 @ 4:03PM
So Paul supporters should be shot and the citizens of the Middle East nuclear holocausted?
Classy fellows, the Lordites are.
aware| 1.4.12 @ 4:14PM
Yes.
wtf| 1.4.12 @ 3:29PM
And how about the age for serving in the military?
Bemused| 1.4.12 @ 1:58PM
Hear the voice of the elder, the boomers, who have so much to show for their labors. Look at the nation's current state, good job old fellows! But blame it all on Hollywood and the gays, after all they are the reason so many Red staters ride on the divorce and remarriage merry go round.
Regarding mortgages, Occam, are you against Paul wanting to end government programs that keep the price of houses like your artificially high?
Also, I see that you are an employee of the Prison-Industrial-Complex, so it ain't like you have any skin in the government patronage game. Oh no, you're an independent player like Cheney or Gingrich, not relying on the tax-payer at all.
And Paul has no problems with "dealing" with enemies. He was one of the few Congressmen who supported Israel's strikes on Iraq decades ago, you know, back when Rumsfeld was glad-handing Saddam, who was never our real enemy, unlike the Saudis.
And on the Kurdistan welcome, I take it you agree with Santorum, no welfare, unless it's for foreigners, then somehow it becomes "conservative"?
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 3:51PM
Paul didn't support Israel responding to Hamas' rockets. Osirak was in 1981, during the Cold War. games' changed.
I live near the Canadian border. My house's price is $280,000. It's a rural area, and I serve Native Americans mostly. I was in private practice for 7 years, incidentally.
I work in rural Minnesota. 93% of the Psychiatrists in MN work in the big cities. I work in a small town, serving the underserved.
Have you been smoking the stuff Paul wants legalized? Guys, he LOST! GET OVER YOURSELVES.
About the mortgage programs...what, you don't own a home? Why, is it because you got a Government degree, bemused? My path to relative wealth was open to you if you had worked hard and had a brain.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 3:53PM
Sorry: that should be "Game's changed." Paul has been worthlesssince the cold war ended on defense. he also said we were losing in 1987.
Guys, he was an MD in the military, not a line officer. Please. He wasn't a combat grunt. He was in less danger than I was in LA, living through the riots.
Ed| 1.4.12 @ 4:17PM
As someone will remind you, he rose to the rank of Captain (even though M.D's are commissioned as Captains). He's a fiscal conservative, even though he's never met an earmark he didn't like. He's the last conservative constitutionalist, even though his followers and their view of history is, well, wrong, to say the least. Other than that and hanging out with neo-nazi's, he's great.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 4:29PM
Captain in the AF is O-3. He was inducted as such. He "rose" to no higher rank. If he was such a shit hot officer, then why did he never rise above O-3? There are TONS of guys in medical/dental corps in the armed forces who rise higher. Like my own Dad, who retired as an O-6 Navy captain with his own command.
No such accomplishments for Dr. Paul. Gee, I wonder if it was just one crappy fitness report.
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 4:48PM
Wrong, Israel Firster Ass Clown
Dr.Ron Did His Residency Under An Air Force Program And Was Promoted To Captain Upon Completion Of The Program.
He Also Spent Time On The Ground In South Korea, Turkey, Iran. Ethiopia And Pakistan.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 2:02PM
From the Article:
"Mr. Lord cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of young caucus-goers support Ron Paul."
Yeah, the same young, historically ignorant fools who voted for Obama will vote for Paul. Speaks VOLUMES for the overall intelligence of THAT group....
aware| 1.4.12 @ 2:24PM
Obviously then those votes are needed, genius. Keep insulting them like you've been doing and rack up another 4 years for the commies.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 4:31PM
I don't need to keep insulting them. They, & those who make excuses for them, prove their idiocy every time they hit "submit" on this site. And every click of that button is like $50K worth of free anti Paul advertising.
aware| 1.4.12 @ 4:39PM
Anybody else you want purged, comrade?
9thID| 1.4.12 @ 4:49PM
Just like in the civilian sector the epidemic of SPICE heads in the miliary is where the majority of Paul's "support" comes from. Some are even coming home and joining their Liberal cousins in the Occupy movement. Public schools and basic training ain't what they used to be...
Ed| 1.4.12 @ 2:09PM
Except that's not Ron Paul. If Mr. Smith is the "intellectual" Ron Paul supporter, could Mr. Smith let us know if he supports the jew hatred? Could he let us know if he, like Paul, considers the Bilderbergers, Trilateralists and Jews to be the major concern of the world, not radical Islam? Is Mr. Smith, like Mr. Paul, a truther who thinks either the Jews or the American government brought down the WTC? If you want to be the Ron Paul supporter, present the real man and not the vague platitudes that aren't him.
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 2:22PM
Like I Said,
The Israel Firster Smear Bund Are Runnin' Around All Giddy And Bumping Heads Because Two Israel Firster BIG GOVERNMENT STATISTS, Mittens Romney And Runty Santorum Each Got 25 Percent Of The Iowa Caucus Vote.
Real Conservatives Recognize That You Israel Firsters Are Selling Out America And Fiscal Conservatives For Your Traitor Bastard Israel Firster Agenda Of Using American Warriors For Cannon Fodder And America's Treasury To Police The Middle East For Israel's Agenda.
This Is Gonna Stop.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To The East Coast.
Woody| 1.4.12 @ 3:12PM
And you're the authority on what Ron Paul is or isn't? I've seen a lot of criticism of the Israeli government going back to 1978, but if you're unable to deal with the fact that a government can be criticized and not the dominant religion or ethnicity, then you need to go back and sue the educational establishments that wrought you. It's like saying criticism of Russia means I'm anti Orthodox church.
Ed| 1.4.12 @ 3:27PM
Uh, no, he is the authority on what he is through his words and actions. Sorry but I don't think much of neo-nazi loving jew haters. He has many other faults, including the lie of fiscal conservatism but my main problem is that he is a man of such low character. The history of the founders as presented by Paul through paultards is pretty bad but that's just the stupid in them.
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 4:57PM
I Deal With The Fact That Ben ami Kadish And Jonathan Pollard Had The Same Israeli Spy Handler Out Of The Israeli Consulate In New York City. I Deal With The Fact That Israel Illegally Sold U.S. Weapons Technology To The Red Chinese, Jeopardizing Our Allies Taiwan And Japan. I Deal With The Fact That Israeli Company,Check Point Systems Got The Same Treament From C.F.I.U.S. in Their Sourcefire Deal, As Dubai Ports Got. I Deal With The Fact That Israeli Intelligence Withheld From The U.S. Military The Fact That They Were Tracking The Mercedes Truck With The False Bottom That Blew Our Marines To Hell, In Their Beirut Barracks And Never Gave Us A Heads Up Warning.
Occam's Tool| 1.4.12 @ 3:53PM
Ed, Mr. Smith would say yes to Islam not being a threat. Read his stuff.
Ed| 1.4.12 @ 4:03PM
If true, then he's an idiot. He'll go far in academia.
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 2:16PM
We're The Pennsylvania Gun & Bible Clutchin' Conservatives, Who Helped Throw Little Ricky's Ass Out Of The Senate, After He Stepped In The Last Weeks And Propped Up The RINO-CINO Poster Boy,Arlen Specter Against Our Republican Primary Guy, Pat Toomey.
Now, Little Ricky And Specter Have Been Chased Away And Our Tea Party Senator, Pat Toomey Is In.
If Little Ricky Comes Back To Pennsylvania,We'll Throw His Big Government Israel Firster Ass Out Again,
Make Our Day Little Ricky.
Ed| 1.4.12 @ 2:32PM
Here you go, Mr. Smith-Clint, the prime Ron Paul supporter, is giving us the Ron Paul policy planks. Please put this level of jew hatred and frothing into those neat, generic and uninformative boxes you had in your article.
9thID| 1.4.12 @ 4:52PM
Capo Clint is still coming off his pot binge after his messiah lost in Iowa...
Ivan| 1.4.12 @ 2:52PM
Mr Smith, I think that a much better reference for Ron Paul's foreign policy than Eisenhower is Robert Taft, and the Old Right in general. Those were the guys whose politics was motivated by the wish to abolish the New Deal and progressive era "big leaps forward" and whose followers are Ron Paul and his supporters these days.
What kind of pathetic know nothings pass for the "right" these days is best seen in Jeffrey Lord's elevation of the likes of Sean Hanity to the status of exemplar conservatives and arbiters of ideological "right-wing" purity - the same Sean Hanity who had never heard that Roosevelt's New Deal may have not got us out of depression and who was greatly surprised and interested in that novel theory when he was introduced to it, few years ago, by Tom Woods,.:) a Ron Paul supporter and an excellent Old Right thinker and historian.
And now the people like Hanity, Levin, Limbaugh, Lord, who grew up and intellectually socialized in an environment in which the span of allowed opinion went from Artur Schlesinger Jr on the left, to Irving-three chears-for-the-neoconservative-welfare-state Kristol, on the "right", are purporting to arbitrate in ideological disputes and give the "left wing" labels to the intellectual heirs of the Old Right. :)
Ed| 1.4.12 @ 3:00PM
Uh, Ivan, Ron's an old Washington hack who has had his hand in the cookie jar for decades. You say he wants to abolish the New Deal. As pointed out by Mark Steyn recently, he goes around preaching that ending our "excessive foreign entanglements" will enable all the social goodies to be funded. The numbers don't work, I'm afraid.
Ivan| 1.4.12 @ 4:01PM
Wrong. He offers abolishing Social security by allowing the opt-out. Any other repubican came close to that? However, I agree that he does not emphasize enough the abolishing of the welfare state in his campaign. But, that's not the issue - the issue here is that completely clueless Jeffrey Lord claims that any anti-interventionist foreign policy is somehow "left-wing", which is so only if one is "educated" by listening to Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Hanity and similar luminaries and giants of "conservative" thought. We can go even further - what about Robert Nisbet, Rusell Kirk or Richard Weaver, all of whom were the staunch opponents of foreign wars and interventionism. Were they also they also the followers of McGovern?
Woody| 1.4.12 @ 3:22PM
Kudos Ivan. I was starting to think that nobody remembered "Mr. Republican." Who, by the way, was in JFK's "Profiles in Courage."
Woody| 1.4.12 @ 3:04PM
"Authentic conservatism." I think the founders of "authentic conservatism" have a say on the matter. Robert Taft, Howard Buffet, Barry Goldwater, et al. There was no "social" aspect to their conservatism. These guys had a libertarian streak a mile long. In terms of foreign policy, Taft even wanted to stay out of Korea, and Goldwater only became hawkish (I think he said "with a heavy heart") when he realized the unique nature of the Soviet threat. It wasn't until the late 70's when Reagan reached out to the Moral Majority that "conservatism" began to manifest itself as the bible thumping, war drum beating, civil liberty violating political ideology that it is today.
Ed| 1.4.12 @ 3:11PM
Looking at some history, Taft was one of the pre-WWII isolationists a la Charles Lindbergh. He opposed the Marshall Plan and NATO, something in retrospect I would say is kind of stupid. Would he, like today's paultards, have been a big supporter of Bradley Manning and Hamas? Was Robert Taft, like today's paultards, a jew hater?
C Bowen | 1.4.12 @ 4:09PM
So please go to the New Republic magazine, and leave conservatives alone.
Take Jeff Lord with you.
Why do you Americans so much? What is with all the American hatred you and Occam spew?
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 4:35PM
So now calling out closet Jew haters & those who laud traitors is classified as "hating America."
Project much?
I love it when liberal-tarians presume to lecture us on "true conservatism." Its like getting safe sex advice from Jenna Jamison.
aware| 1.4.12 @ 4:41PM
Who's that?
MikeN| 1.4.12 @ 3:35PM
>follow the sage example of the Truman administration on this---first you beat your enemies to a pulp, and then, after the fight is knocked out of them, THEN you rebuild.
Douglas MacArthur begs to differ. And without China and North Korea, would Iran be a threat today?
>Barry Goldwater, et al. There was no "social" aspect to their conservatism.
Barry Goldwater supported Eisenhower over Taft. And he was a social conservative who very much hated the protests of the 60s. Don't let Chris Mathews or Lawrence ODonnell be your only source of history.
Woody| 1.4.12 @ 3:37PM
How do you figure, Ed? What did we gain from World War II? The cold war? First, since you appear to have a knee-jerk reaction by calling everyone anti-Jew,I'll address that first. America could have prevented the Holocaust by opening its borders to the Jews of Europe. Until late 1941, Jews in occupied Europe were encouraged to leave and the Nazis did everything they could to facilitate this. The problem was no takers. Seems like the Germans weren't the only anti-semites.(Libertarians, by the way, promote open immigration/emigration.) Our "Germany First" policy took the pressure off of the Soviets and allowed them to take over all of Eastern Europe. Good job. England wasn't going to be invaded and would stop the German's African advance at El Alamein, so no danger there. Why not let the Nazis and Communists beat the crap out of each other? If we hadn't been in the Phillipines, itself a direct result of the Spanish American war, the Japanese more than likely wouldn't have attacked. Yes, the Japanese were bellicose, but they forced Mao and Chiang to stop their fighting. At war's end, the hostilities resumed. End result? Mao wins and 70 million people die as the result of his policies. Failing to see how this was a winner. Learn something, Junior.
JR| 1.4.12 @ 7:12PM
So what war wouldve been worth fighting in? Let's be honest all you Paul coksuckers are just big pussies who are so ashamed of it you want everybody else to follow suit to make yourselves feel better. Btw before you go calling me a chicken hawk I tried to enlist and they wouldnt take me. Too old but at 40 I know I could kick the shit out of the 20 something Paultards anyday. At 5'11 245lbs most of em wont say a word when I call em out. Nothing i hate more than a grown man thats more girlie than my 8yr old daughter. You pussies all make me sick.
Ed| 1.4.12 @ 3:54PM
I love history lectures from Paultards. I especially enjoyed educating some a few weeks back about how our Founders (you know, the Ron Paul's of the day) sent forces to stop the Barbary Pirates. The brilliant responses amounted to "Duh, those were just pirates". I then enjoyed their stupidity in addressing how the Monroe Doctrine really wasn't the Monroe Doctrine. It was actually pro-isolationist even though its language was the exact opposite. Now, we have the Paultard bizarro version of WWII, the Buchananite one where Hitler was really just a reasonable guy rightfully striking back against Churchill (even though Churchill wasn't in power).
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 4:36PM
These idiots know less about history than the regressives.
Dan Phillips| 1.4.12 @ 4:09PM
"As a professional and a (hopefully) emerging academic in the field of international relations, I have some serious misgivings with respect to the degree to which Rep. Paul emphasizes America's need to avoid foreign "entanglement.""
Mr. Reid, I appreciate your fresh perspective that is somewhere between Lord style interventionism and Paul style non-interventionism, but I wonder if it is that hopefulness about an academic career that keeps you from embracing full on non-interventionism. Unfortunately there is little room in academia and the professional foreign service for cranky non-interventionist naysayers, hence the need to appear "reasonable."
As I am sure you know, avoiding "entanglements" means you avoid trip-wire mutual defense agreements and such. It doesn't mean you cease relationships with foreign countries. Avoiding the former might end punditry jobs funded by neocon fat-cats, but it wouldn't end the need for competent foreign service professionals.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.4.12 @ 4:22PM
Clint Pukes:
"That's Because Tool Job's A Neo-Chickenhawk Coat Holder,Who Wants American Warriors To Be Cannon Fodder For His Screwball Maniac Israel Firster Agenda."
This from the valour thief coward who just trades on his father's supposed service, while never having set foot into a recruiter's office.
9thID| 1.4.12 @ 4:55PM
Capo Clint flies a Canadian flag in his room in his mom's basement...
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 5:06PM
You're An Israel Firster Smear Bund Liar,9th IDiot.
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Firster Smear Bund Liar, 9th IDiot.
Resist We Much! | 1.4.12 @ 4:32PM
"Libertarians, by the way, promote open immigration/emigration"
We do?
"England wasn't going to be invaded"
There were certainly plans for it and the Channel Islands were occupied by the Nazis during WWII.
Dan Phillips| 1.4.12 @ 4:44PM
Mr. Smith, I ask you to please embrace your inner non-interventionist.
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=10708
reidtsmith| 1.4.12 @ 5:50PM
Thank you for this. I will read, consider and respond.
aware| 1.4.12 @ 7:10PM
Excellent!
Clint| 1.4.12 @ 5:03PM
USS Liberty' veterans demand investigation
Jun. 3, 2007 12:00 AM
Conclusions submitted in October 2003 to the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense by the USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc., in demanding a congressional investigation into the aborted rescue during the attack of the USS Liberty and subsequent alleged cover-up.
The group also calls for a new Naval Court of Inquiry and that June 8 be officially recognized as USS Liberty Remembrance Day.
1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance, Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against USS Liberty, the world's most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead and 173 wounded American servicemen (a casualty rate of 70 percent, in a crew of 294);
2. That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on USS Liberty's bridge and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship, causing 821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes which were jamming all five American emergency radio channels;
3. That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but the machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers as they struggled to save their ship and crew; the Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded;
4. That there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA Director Richard Helms, former NSA Directors Lt. Gen. William Odom, USA (Ret.), Adm. Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.), and Marshal Carter; former NSA deputy directors Oliver Kirby and Maj. Gen. John Morrison, USAF (Ret.); and former Ambassador Dwight Porter, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967;
5. That in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States;
6. That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack; evidence of the recall of rescue aircraft is supported by statements of Capt. Joe Tully, Commanding Officer of the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, and Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis, the Sixth Fleet carrier division commander, at the time of the attack; never before in American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack;
7. That although Liberty was saved from almost certain destruction through the heroic efforts of the ship's captain, William L. McGonagle (MOH), and his brave crew, surviving crewmembers were later threatened with "court-martial, imprisonment or worse" if they exposed the truth; and were abandoned by their own government;
8. That due to the influence of Israel's powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people;
9. That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no surviving crewmember has been permitted to officially and publicly testify about the attack;
10. That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history; the existence of such a cover-up is now supported by statements of Rear Adm. Merlin Staring, USN (Ret.), former Judge Advocate General of the Navy; and Capt. Ward Boston, USN, (Ret.), the chief counsel to the Navy's 1967 Court of Inquiry of Liberty attack;
11. That the truth about Israel's attack and subsequent White House cover-up continues to be officially concealed from the American people to the present day and is a national disgrace;
12. That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel's interests when they conflict with American interests; this policy, evidenced by the failure to defend USS Liberty and the subsequent official cover-up of the Israeli attack, endangers the safety of Americans and the security of the United States.
Hobbes| 1.4.12 @ 5:22PM
Preach Brother! Lord is a Neo-Con. That's worse than a Non-Con. Paul is closer to Kirk, Friedman and Buckley than he will ever be.
Brooklyn| 1.4.12 @ 8:00PM
Tired of wars? Cut defense spending? Close our oversea bases? And from this you actually believe we will have peace and prosperity? Lets see. China will control the Pacific and the trading routes there. Russia will have influence over Europe and affect our free enterprise there. The Middle East and North Africa will form a caliphate and affect are free enterprise there and wil try to spread Sharia law through the rest of Africa, Europe and the Americas. South America will strenghten its ties with the Ca;iphate, Russia and China and affect our free enterprise there. And of course the USA will be a prime target for all three of these forces. There will be internecine wars throughout the world and our freedom and prosperity will be forgotten. In Western history, there was a time when there were no nations. It was after the fall of the Roman Empire and it is a period fondly called by historians "The Dark Ages". Those of you who say we cannot afford defense do not accept the truth. Our spending on bases overseas is responsible for the creation of trillions of dollars of wealth and developement here and throughout the world. Why us? Because along with free enterprise we bring individual freedom. It is the American economy that is the foundation that allowed Europe its socialistic economies as we took on the big bear in the cold war. It is the American economy that allowed our allies in the east to prosper. We have bases in Germany, Japan and South Korea. How are their economies doing since we've been there, and don't they have their autonomy? Strategically we may err in calculating the use of soft and hard power, but to withdraw from world affairs would mean the end of our freedom and the world would be poorer for it. We have gotten back many times over what we spent on defense in peace and prosperity. We lose our warrior spirit, we lose our freedom
Warrior | 1.4.12 @ 8:34PM
China can influence our military postures simply by the using the excessive debt we owe them strategically against us. Russia already exerts influence throughout Europe and the middle east. Simply look at how much influence they have and had with American soldiers losing life and limbs on the ground in Iraq (that is only one example). Our spending overseas on bases has nothing to do with development, in fact you have that ass backwards. If we didn't spend the money to keep these bases operational, we would have more money for development of weapons systems. We have given away trillions of dollars to exert influence throughout the world with nothing to show for it. The world is not a safer place now than it was 1o years ago. You are using the same outdated arguments that people used when stating we had to stop the spread of communism in Vietnam and deny Russia war weather ports. The communists took Vietnam and yet communism is less viable today than it was in 1970. We have prospered when we are at peace, unfortunately, our military hasn't been at peace since Desert Storm. Our economy and prosperity has suffered mightily through the perpetual state of war we've been for about 50 years now. We did not have a warrior spirit in 1776, just a belief in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We fought against tyranny only to live a worsening by the day tyrannical federal government.
Brooklyn| 1.4.12 @ 9:38PM
No warrior spirit in 1776? We fought a war. The bases provide security. The private sector engaging in free enterprise provide wealth and development. Your statement of Russia's influence is true and China has its maneuvers it can make without war, but they make aggresive moves on Taiwan, Vietnam and the Phillipines. But without our presence there, the situation would be worse. Our military presence was there 10 years ago when you say we were safer. But the mishandling of affairs by the Bush and Obama administrations have made us less safe.
Warrior | 1.4.12 @ 10:00PM
So there was this tremendous warrior spirit in 1776? George Washington believed in perpetual war and foreign intervention? So now, you want us to believe that military bases in Germany, Japan and the other 100 or so nations are a free enterprise private sector engagements?
We were not safe 10 years ago and if you read my post with mind open, you would realize that my statement is that with all the wars, nation building, regime changing trillions of dollars spent, we are even less safe today. So agreeing that Bush and Obama mishandled foreign policy, which has been a policy of nation building and intervention. Which candidate would you advocate has stated they would change these foreign policy mistakes? Certainly it would not be Romney, Santorum or Gingrich.
Brooklyn| 1.4.12 @ 10:57PM
We were a fledging country in 1776, any engagement in world affairs then would have led to America being a pawn for powerful nations. In our growing period in the 19th century, European powers did try to interfere with our affairs. The war of 1812. England supporting the Confederacy in the Civil War. We grew to power by the start of the 20th century. Power is now rising in the East with China and India. In world affairs, the power shifts between East and West every 500 years or so. The power has been in the West since 1500, So by the year 2000, we're right on schedule. In today's world, America can still maintain its power and way of life, but only if our leaders play their cards right. Retreat is definitely the wrong way to go. Bush mishandled the Iraq situation by not going strong on Iran. If you do Iraq, you have to do Iran, or as you see, Iran will fill in the void. Obama snatched defeat from victory by drawing down our troops, and then offering the Iraquis a Hobson's choice of a 3,000 troop force which could not protect them, or complete withdrawal and letting them make a deal with Iran. Do not be trapped by the political phrases such as nation building. With enough military power applied in Iraq and Iran in 2003, we could have stabilized the area. But Bush and certainly not Obama wanted to do that. In fact, Obama is enanamored with the Arab Spring and wants to work with the Muslim Brotherhood to establish a Caliphate. So yes, we need a Santorum (my pick) Gingrich or Romney to fix this.
Warrior | 1.5.12 @ 11:53AM
You should be institutionalized.
Luis S.| 1.5.12 @ 2:20AM
Here, here. I don't like Paul, but I'm totally on board with the whole anti-cold-war-paradigm thing. Keep up the amazing writing Mr. Smith.
Clint| 1.5.12 @ 4:05AM
Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy, Con Job Is Upset Because My Dad, The Combat Warrior Can Beat Up His Dad, The Spit Sink Warrior.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.5.12 @ 9:25AM
Unless you're in your 80's, your WII dad is as fake as his service.