Yep, Ron Paul (R.Pluto) is Pretty Much of a Wackdoodle Isolationist

YouTube Preview Image

That Ron Paul is a conspiracy believing nutcase as the video above indicates should not be controversial.  This is the man who was the keynote speaker at the John Birch Society fiftieth anniversary dinner in 2008, an organization that has embraced such bizarre conspiracy theories as Eisenhower being a Communist and water fluoridation being a Communist plot.  Throughout his career he has given a wink and a nod to most paranoid conspiracy groups on the right.  We see this most clearly in the newsletters that came out for over a decade in his name.  Ron Paul claims now not to know what was in those newsletters which I find passing strange since he earned a million bucks on them in one year alone (1993).  However, Ron Paul the crank and coddler of cranks is not the focus of this post.  This post is concerned with Ron Paul the isolationist.  That he is an isolationist, and not simply a non-interventionist as he claims,  was amply demonstrated in  a recent column by Eric Dondero who worked for Paul for 12 years:

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist.  He denies this charge vociferously.  But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views.  For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII.  He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business.  When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY.  He’d finally concede that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust. 

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views.  Let me just concentrate on one in specific.  And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11. 

He did not want to vote for the resolution.  He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq.  He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time.  He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District.  Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign. 

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director.  Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe.  All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo.  At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I.  He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002.  Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria.  And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.”

Go here to read the rest.  Some of the responses to Mr. Dondero’s piece were priceless, betokening the anti-Semitism and lunatic conspiracy mongering which is present among many Paulbots who comment on the internet: 

“So, Dondero/Rittberg is yet another Jew talking trash about Ron paul. The international Jew bankers and Jews heads of international war profiteering corporations are really running scared this time, and digging DEEP!!!”

“AELF, the insult is inappropriate. I suggest the level of your analysis is flawed, as there are a number of careful thinkers, including at least one retired Maj. Gen. who is concerned that we do not know the truth about 9/11, or the level of involvement (or at least malign neglect) of elements in the intelligence apparatus. We had better all become 9/11 Truthers if we are to preserve what is left of our Constitutional Republic. Kudos to Ron Paul for daring to question the orthodoxy of the moment. “

“The Entire world KNOWS Israel and CIA was behind 911. The President of Italy and US Army War College Director Alan Sobrosky both state Israeli Mossad were behind the attacks, NYPD arrested 150 israeli Mossad agents caught celebrating and high fiving the First Attack! Odigo, an Israeli company, gave a 2 hour forewarning to its WTC employees. Either they were psychic, OR they were in on it. Bagel Nazis repent. There will be peace in the Middle East when Zionist Jews are in Orange jumpsuits cleaning the toilets of the Palestinians living in the Gaza Concentration Camp. USS LIBERTY-Never Forget.”

Back in the land of the sane, Mr. Dondero accurately portrays Ron Paul’s reaction to 9-11.  His legislative response was to propose a bill that authorized the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal against the terrorists so private individuals could somehow fight their way through Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden.  When Bin Laden was finally found and killed by our military Ron Paul was aghast because we did not inform Pakistan that we were going after him.  The obvious response, which I assume completely eluded Ron Paul, is that factions within the Pakistani military had been sheltering Bin Laden for years, and any notice to Pakistan would have caused a warning to have been given to Bin Laden.

The hysterically funny aspect of  Ron Paul is the alternate history realm he resolutely refuses to leave.  In his world all that goes wrong in the world is a result of US foreign involvement.  Ergo, if the US simply retreats to Fortress America the Earth will be a paradise. A typical example is the blithe indifference that Paul has to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.  If Israel and Iran go to war as a result of such a development, that is no concern of the US, as if the US and the world would not sustain devastating consequences from a nuclear war in the Middle East.  His ideological forebears in the America First movement similarly believed we could simply sit World War II out on the sidelines.  The consequences of such an isolationist foreign policy were brought home to this country dramatically 70 years ago.  If Ron Paul ever got an attempt to actually implement his unicorns and faerie dust foreign policy I suspect that we would again have another Pearl Harbor style attack with nuclear weapons.  Ron Paul, like most true ideologues, lives in a world that he has constructed in his mind, and it only bears a passing resemblance to the world the rest of us inhabit, and we see this most clearly in his extremely dangerous and naive views on foreign policy.

104 Responses to Yep, Ron Paul (R.Pluto) is Pretty Much of a Wackdoodle Isolationist

  • How is it that a politician that predicted and gave us a way of avoiding the housing bubble and the attack from Bin-Laden is crazy and unelectable but their puppet say what he thinks will get him elected guy is not. Watch this video from 1999 and remember how much hate Dr. Paul received for saying that our foreign policies let to 9/11/2001. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XguvMUUtTtI

  • This from someone who believes that there’s a worldwide conspiracy to invent climate change?

    Ron Paul is an isolationist but Eric Dondero just sounds like a disgruntled employee.

    “He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq.”

    That makes Ron Paul a prophet. Fact is he voted for the war in Afghanistan and if there’s one thing you can’t deny him is that he always votes his principles.

    Paulites say that Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. What’s the difference? They say Paul wants to trade and “talk” with other nations. No, he doesn’t. He opposes free trade agreements. They say that FTA’s aren’t really free, they’re managed trade, which is true but they’re freer than the status quo. But Paul isn’t even for free trade. He wants the entire federal government funded by tariffs. Combined with his position on immigration which is the one area he’s at odds with libertarians, there’s not a shred of evidence that he’s anything but an isolationist.

  • “This from someone who believes that there’s a worldwide conspiracy to invent climate change?”

    Groupthink, as indicated by the climate-change e-mails, is not conspiracy RR. I also do not believe that there is a conspiracy among the mainstream media. When 90% of a group shares a similar world view, no conspiracy is needed.

    “Eric Dondero just sounds like a disgruntled employee.”

    Yeah, a disgruntled employee that Ron Paul kept on his payroll for 12 years and a disgruntled employee who spends a fair amount of time in his article defending Ron Paul.

    “Fact is he voted for the war in Afghanistan and if there’s one thing you can’t deny him is that he always votes his principles.”

    Actually I can deny that. Google Ron Paul and earmarks.

  • Ron Paul getting the nomination (which I do not think has any likelihood at all) would be the one thing that would for sure have me refuse to vote for the GOP candidate against Obama. I’d have to go third party or sit out. Ron Paul is so utterly and idiotically unsuited to be president.

  • Don, Paul votes his principles on earmarks. There’s a lot to criticize Paul for but earmarks isn’t one of them.

  • How is it that a politician that predicted and gave us a way of avoiding the housing bubble

    Asset bubbles can and do form in the context of a specie-based currency, as they did in equities markets in 1928 and 1929. What you cannot do with a specie-based currency is provide liquidity in response to demand. The history of the period running from the fall of 1929 to the spring of 1933 is sadly instructive as to the consequences.

    This from someone who believes that there’s a worldwide conspiracy to invent climate change?

    Just in case you had not noticed, there has been a conspiracy involving a small corps of faculty at the University of East Anglia, Pennsyvania State University, the Goddard Institute, the American Geophysical Union, et al. to block publication of papers which contradicted the thesis they were pushing and trash the reputations of scholars who composed such papers and editors who approved them for publication. These people have also, and in conflict with statutes and regulations governing the terms of public grant money they have received, refused to archive and distribute raw data for others to re-analyze and destroyed documents to frustrate freedom-of-information requests in the UK and the US. Alas, some of these folk held gatekeeper positions with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  • Not at all RR. Paul rails against big government and the taxes and borrowing to support it until it is time to request pork for his district and then he is all aboard the gravy train:

    During fiscal year 2011 he was one of only four Republicans to request earmarks and here is what he wanted from our federal tax dollars:

    •$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Piers.
    •$2.5 million from taxpayers for “new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting.”
    •$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an “Economically Disadvantaged” area.
    •$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a “Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center.”
    •$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to “encourage parents to read aloud to their children.”
    •$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
    •$4 million from federal taxpayers for the “Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative.”
    •$11 million from federal taxpayers for a “Community-Based Job Training Program.”
    •$2 million from federal taxpayers for a “Clean Energy” pilot project.
    •$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
    •$1.2 million for a “Low-income working families Day Care Program”
    •$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility

    He will request the earmarks and then vote against them in a truly hypocritical little dance he does each year to maintain the myth that he is against this type of spending, while he still brings home the pork for his district.

  • Don, that’s while saying it’s hypocritical for you to take the tax deduction for mortgage interest while still opposing the deduction in principle.

  • RR he poses as a peerless champion of small government, fiscal responsibility and being against any expenditures not specifically authorized by the Constitution. He then makes sure to fill his plate each year with bacon for his district. Hypocrisy is too weak a term for this grand canyon divergence between rhetoric and reality.

  • Don, what do you think of the mortgage interest deduction and do you take it? What do you think of Social Security and Medicare and do you plan to accept it? Is it your position that if you oppose a government program, you should not accept its benefits?

  • Mac,

    Pacem. Wwould you not give to your children, er, constituents?

    Apparently, Paul refuses to partake of the Congressional pension bonanza. I think that is true to his beliefs.

    And, ’bout his inflation-risk concentrated investments: if he were one of the economic apocalypse guys, he would not own 60% gold/silver mining stocks. You can’t barter, eat, or shoot mining stocks.

    Just saying.

    I’m for pretender that is
    Pro-God
    Pro-gun
    Pro-life
    Pro-America
    Not Obama.

  • If Paul wants to take the position that he opposes favors outlawing earmarks, but will nonetheless request and vote for them until they are outlawed, then this position would be at least somewhat analogous to your mortgage interest hypothetical. But by requesting them so as to appease local constituents and then voting against them so as to appease his national base, he is being at least somwhat hypocritical in my view. Given Paul’s reputation for being such a man of principle, I do have a problem with this. Most politicians embrace both the concept and the art of compromise, and live with charged of being insufficiently principled. Paul distininguishes himself as being distinctively principled, and therefore can fairly be charged with hypocrisy on the matter of earmarks.

    Finally, I agree with Don that Paul’s views are eccentric for a reason — they are wrong-headed and naive. Anyone who thinks tariffs are a good way to fund the federal government is just plain nutty.

  • “Is it your position that if you oppose a government program, you should not accept its benefits?”

    My position RR is that if an elected representative is going to pretend to be a champion of what Paul purports to be a champion of in regard to governmental spending, it is very much like a Congressman voting against abortion and then paying for one for his mistress. In regard to Ron Paul this is especially the case because his propaganda conveys a completely false impression of him and government spending. He has gloried in the nickname of Dr. No in Congress while always being Dr. Yes when it comes to pork for his district.

  • I want to see Congressman Paul debate Congressman Kucinich!

  • And the substantive difference between Paul and Kucinich is??????????????????????????

    They are both nut-cases.

  • Don:

    I totally agree I’m not going to vote for that racist Paul with his wing nut beliefs.

    Instead I am going to vote for a Republican candidate who between 1966 and 1969 actively recruited people for and since held successively higher leadership positions in an organization that believed as follows:

    • Blacks could not have leadership positions within the group or receive other benefits within the organization because being black was how they were cursed by God (until their supreme leader had a revelation in 1978 that God now believed Black people were OK).

    • The Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.

    • Ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America.

    • As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

    • God lives on a planet called Kolob. Jesus has his own planet as well. As good members of the organization they will have their own planets one day as well.

    Yes, I will be voting for Gov. Willard Mitt Romney (R, Kolob)

  • Please Eva, satire should only be done by experts. If you expect virtually anyone to rise to the defense of Mitt “The Weather-Vane” Romney on this blog you are sadly mistaken. However attempting to defend Ron “The Strawberries! The Strawberries!” Paul by attacking Romney for his inherited religious beliefs is beyond the pale and will not be tolerated in this thread.

  • While it’s hard for me to say enough that I think Mormon religious beliefs are laughable (and I’m not a Romney fan, though it seems like the nomination is likely to end up with him because of no one else turning out to be a very credible candidate) I can’t help thinking that Romney’s religious beliefs are probably a lot less harmful to governing than Ron Paul’s political beliefs are.

    However, Eva does underline that should Romney land the nomination, there will a massive amount of work put into fanning anti-Mormon feeling by the Obama campaign and it’s operatives. The “Obama might be Muslim” whispering campaign will look pretty tame by comparison.

  • If you play the Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas album backwards, it says “Ron Paul is dead.” The Zionist Illuminati Yoko Ono bankers are behind this, I tell you!

  • Ah, J. Christian, I am glad I had finished drinking my pop before I read your comment!

  • The only GOP candidate for whom I will NEVER vote is, unfortunately, the one most likely to get the nomination. I could hold my nose and vote even for Dr. Paul. But I will sit out or vote 3rd party before I vote for Romney (and his religious beliefs will play absolutely no role in my decision making in that regard).

  • Rasmussen Reports: Romney – 45%; Obama – 39%.

    It isn’t that Romeny is loved more. It’s that Obama is loved even less.

    If from his or her GOP nomination until Election Day, Romney or whomever says one word about a subject other than the horrid economy . . .

    Many Americans “are unemployed or have family members, neighbors and friends who are losing their homes, their jobs and their hope for a better future while Washington lives it up on their dime. They read stories on the Internet – stories their newspapers will not print – about billions lost on ‘green energy’ boondoggles while they pay $40 to $50 dollars for a tank of gas. They are losing their houses to foreclosure after Obama promised to fix that problem. They see trillion dollar deficits while their living standards erode and are demanding to know where the money’s going.

    They are that virtual mob with pitchforks that are desperate to anoint someone as their leader who will help them storm the castle and evict the ogre holed up there. Mitt Romney doesn’t look like the kind of guy who is comfortable handling a pitchfork, but if he’s the last man standing after all the others fail, he’ll be appointed to that role.” From The Virginian blog

    Meanwhile, on a golf course in Hawaii . . .

  • “It isn’t that Romney is loved more. It’s that Obama is loved even less.”

    Precisely TShaw. I pray that we will not have Romney as our standard bearer, but Obama is very beatable, and I expect that he will grow more so as election day comes clearer and people ask themselves the Reagan question:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBe0WXtts8

  • Doesn’t matter. O will likely get a second term bc Romney’s Mormonism is just too odd for most voters. I will vote Paul just for the fun of it.

  • This isn’t 1928 cmatt. Appeals to religious bigotry would backfire against Obama big time. The Weather-vane additionally is as threatening as a piece of white bread with a glass of milk.

  • Paul is now admitting he wrote parts of the newsletters, but only the non-controversial bits and he is still insisting that he didn’t read or know about the controversial portions. It doesn’t pass the giggle test. It is on a par with Obama stating that he sat in Wright’s church for over a decade and didn’t hear any controversial sermons. (Obama should have used the excuse that he simply slept through most of the sermons; quite a few people could empathize with that!)

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/29/paul-i-did-write-parts-of-the-newsletters-but-not-the-bad-parts/

  • What’s amazing about the support for Ron Paul is that there is another candidate who espouses pretty much all the same things Paul does but who is not certifiable. I am talking about Gary Johnson. Granted he’s a little loopy, but unlike Ron Paul he has an actual record of political accomplishment in his life.

  • In the past, I’ve quipped that Ron Paul’s slogan should be “Protecting Freedom at Home, Forsaking It Abroad,” but after this, I’m not sure of the first part.

    It’s strange that otherwise rational men like Mark Shea and John Zmirak seem to have fallen for some of his ideas (namely the ones involving American foreign involvement), though – thankfully – they haven’t embraced anti-Semitism or anything like that. (I do remember an article by Zmirak where he almost, almost comes to complete agreement with Pat Buchanan while reviewing the latter’s “Churchill’s Unneccessary War.”)

    On Paul’s proposal to grant letters of marquis and reprisal, two questions come to mind:
    1. Wasn’t privateering primarily a sea-based activity? If so, how could it effect al-Quaeda, the leadership of which resided in the decidedly landlocked country of Afghanistan.)
    2. Does Ron Paul know why letters of marquis and reprisal were outlawed under international law – because privateers often became pirates once the war is over? If he thinks sending patriotic, government-controlled US troops abroad causes international chaos, he should see what would happen after we’ve enabled a ton of free-booting mercenaries groups with military capabilities…

  • Tommy, Paul’s idea of simply picking up our marbles and going home strikes a chord with people who opposed the Iraq War, and that explains Shea. Zmirak I do not know enough about to comment. We live in a time of “let’s pretend” in our society and the idea that we can simply abdicate our role in the World without dire consequences is deeply attractive to more than a few Americans and plays to the isolationist sentiment never far below the surface in this country. (I can’t tell you how many people have told me over the years that we could easily balance our budget if we were not giving away all of our money to the “durn foreigners”. ) In the Nineteenth Century we could get away with isolationism courtesy of broad oceans and the Royal Navy. Now, it is simple lunacy.

    In regard to letters of marque and reprisal you are correct in your observations. I am certain that none of this would register with Paul since he has an ability to steadfastly ignore mere facts that contradict his ideology.

  • It’ll be interesting to see whether the groundwork laid by Paul will translate into votes for Gary Johnson.

  • Tommy, Paul’s idea of simply picking up our marbles and going home strikes a chord with people who opposed the Iraq War, and that explains Shea.

    Doesn’t explain Shea.

    Zmirak I do not know enough about to comment.

    It can be difficult to tell at times whether or not Mr. Zmirak is being tongue-and-cheek.

    We live in a time of “let’s pretend” in our society and the idea that we can simply abdicate our role in the World without dire consequences is deeply attractive

    More precisely, Paul et al deny the reality of political conflict and the consequences thereof in contexts which lack a coercive and adjudicatory authority. Joseph Sobran’s writings (his turn toward anarchism) made this more explicit. Paul trafficks in the notion that conflicts abroad will always and everywhere be inconsequential to us or that we face no conflicts ourselves if we do not generate them with policy errors (which we would not if we would stop listening to fools like Henry Kissinger and Bernard Lewis and start listening to savvy and well-informed folk like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell). The pretense that one can turn the effects of political conflict on and off with a spigot does tend to save libertarians of a sort from giving consideration to trade-offs and qualifications.

    (I can’t tell you how many people have told me over the years that we could easily balance our budget if we were not giving away all of our money to the “durn foreigners”. )

    You might remind them that the sum of appropriations for various components of the State Department, the Defense Department, the Agency for International Development, &c. devoted to foreign aid amounted to about $58.4 bn during the fiscal year concluding on 30 September 2010. That would amount to 0.4% of domestic product, or about 1% of all public expenditure.

    In the Nineteenth Century we could get away with isolationism courtesy of broad oceans and the Royal Navy. Now, it is simple lunacy.

    Now try to tell that to folks who fancy that several sentences in Washington’s Farewell Address suffices for a permanent blueprint for American foreign policy.

  • Calling Ron Paul an isolationist only makes sense if you see American’s main role in the world as a military power. This is, unfortunately, all too common.

  • Ron Paul’s view of the World Nate is that the rest of the planet can go to Hell as the United States enjoys peace and security at home. He is the ideological descendant of the fools who made up the America First Movement prior to our entry into World War II and who would have been happy to see Hitler and Hirohito emerge triumphant from the War if the US could have avoided being part of it. The political and moral blindness of such a policy should be self-evident to all but the willfully blind or the terminally gullible.

  • “Doesn’t explain Shea.”

    I gave it my best shot Art, perhaps you would care to give me a hand? :)

  • “You might remind them that the sum of appropriations for various components of the State Department, the Defense Department, the Agency for International Development, &c. devoted to foreign aid amounted to about $58.4 bn during the fiscal year concluding on 30 September 2010. That would amount to 0.4% of domestic product, or about 1% of all public expenditure.”

    Oh I do Art. I am usually met with stunned disbelief. Then when I start talking about social security they want to change the subject!

  • I seem to recall that the America First Committee dissolved the 2d week of December in 1941, that Sen. Gerald Nye cast a vote in favor of a declaration of war, and that Charles Lindburgh volunteered for service. Sen. Vandenberg later said that the attack on Pearl Harbor pretty much discredited the foreign policy he had been promoting in Congress. An earlier generation of isolationists was less impervious to empirical data.

    I gave it my best shot Art, perhaps you would care to give me a hand?

    I’m already in the doghouse with Dale Price.

  • People believe things such as that Bush was behind 9/11 because it is much easier to find flaws with friends who won’t harm you than to deal manfully with enemies who wish to kill you. Paul represents the fundamental selfishness of modern life – the merciless disregard of anything that does not bring pleasure to the self. Bush, flaws and all, immediately saw the threat post-9/11; so did many others…but at the end of the day, the selfishness of our society triumphed over our duty to do what is right. Obama rode it to victory in 2008…Paul hopes to do the same in 2012. That literal millions of people are suffering the cruelest of repression doesn’t even enter in to the equation for the selfish…they are out of sight, out of mind and their problems – if they must be brought up, at all – are entirely someone else’s fault (the “neocons” or the “Zionists” or what have you..as long as you are attributing the problem to something that doesn’t actually exist … there are, actually, no “neocons” … it gets you off the hook for dealing with the real perpetrators).

    Paul, though, will flame out – my bet is that third place will be his showing in Iowa (and God grant us that Santorum finishes in first place!). So will Obama – I sense a swing in our nation back towards honor, back towards a willingness to just do what needs to be done. Not all of us, to be sure, but I think a majority…and a majority which will rule in 2012.

  • Not that I am any great fan of Romney, and I certainly don’t think he’s really the best possible candidate — but really folks, if he does turn out to be the GOP nominee, does anyone on this forum truly, honestly, believe that he would be worse than Obama?

    If anyone here truly would rather see Obama reelected than see Romney elected, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

  • I am on record Elaine as stating that I will vote for the Weather-vane over Obama. The only Republican, out of the current field of candidates, I could not support would be Ron Paul. I think he has zero chance of being the nominee, but if he were I would not vote for President. On second thought perhaps I would write in Dead Ronald Reagan, as the corpse of Reagan would be a far superior President than either the Empty Suit from Chicago or Doctor Delusional! :)

  • If anyone here truly would rather see Obama reelected than see Romney elected, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

    Just want to point out that if Romney is elected, we could be stuck with him for eight years, and many Republicans in the House and Senate will feel obligated to support his agenda out of loyalty to the party. If Obama is re-elected, we have only four more years of him and his agaenda faces a strong “loyal opposition” in Congress. Just sayin’.

  • Four more year of Obamanomics, Obama court nominations and Obama at the helm of our foreign policy in the perilous days I see ahead? No, the Weather-vane is much preferable to that in my opinion.

  • Court appointments are the only reason I’d consider pulling the lever for Romney. But even on that score, how much can we trust him?

  • I have zero trust in the Weather-vane Paul, but I find it hard to believe that he would be worse than Obama on any aspect of the Presidency, and I think he would be substantially better than Obama in the areas I set forth above. Additionally, a primary challenge could be brought in 2016 if Romney proves a disaster. Reagan came close to unseating Ford in 1976 and the party was much less conservative then than it is now. Additionally I think the Weather-vane is a political opportunist above-all. I think he will keep up his current born-again conservative act as President because it will be to his political advantage, at least through 2016.

    My motto if the Weather-vane is the nominee: Vote for the Weather-vane! He won’t be as big a disaster as Obama has been!

  • Whether Romney is preferable to Obama (a debateable point as far as I’m concerned) matters little to me. I’m tired of voting for whatever RINO stiff is placed before me simply because of dire warnings that “the alternative is worse”. I won’t vote for him under any circumstances (and I will use my blog to try to convince others to do likewise), so don’t bother playing the “but Obama is worse game” with me.

    And, besides, Paul Zummo’s assessment above is 100% correct.

  • I have too much respect for you Jay to try to convince you of anything, and I pray that the Weather-vane will not be the nominee, as I have little to no respect or trust in him. However, after the primaries, assuming Ron “The Trilateralists are coming!” Paul is not the nominee, I intend to hammer away on this blog the message that Obama must and shall be defeated. However, it still may not come to a Weather-vane-Obama contest.

    If Santorum can pull an upset in Iowa, and that is not beyond the range of possible outcomes now, I can imagine a national rallying of conservatives behind him a la Perry, Cain and Gingrich, and this time I think it would stick. Santorum is bright and articulate and I think he could win this if he once gains a front position. Most Republicans do not want the Weather-vane as the nominee and a viable conservative could defeat him.

  • I guess Paul was agreeing with Spambot, so it’s Spambot’s assessment (as well as Paul’s) that is spot on.

  • Obama dillenda est.

    Here is a metaphor for Romney. A man goes to the beach, fills his navel with glue, sticks a flag in it, and determines which way the wind’s blowing.

    Either Romney or Obama is less vital than the GOP taking the Senate and adding to the House majority. That is best case scenario for us greedy bankers.

    My prediction for 2012 Jay will again vote for Obama again.

    Obama must go!

    Call me a racist. Call me anything you want. Except don’t call me late for supper. No wait! I feed myself.

  • I’m with Jay on this one (except that I prefer Romney to Paul). There are only so many times I can be told to vote for the guy that is simply the lesser of two evils. I did it with McCain, I’ve done it with Dole, and I have no plans to rally ’round the Romney flag, especially when there are several preferable alternatives. If Romney is the nominee, I’m just sitting this dance out.

  • Court appointments are the only reason I’d consider pulling the lever for Romney.

    There is no reason you have to participate (and I generally do not), but it might be agreeable to have a chief executive who takes a passing interest in the quantum of public sector borrowing the country is undertaking each year (keeping in mind that Italy’s publicly-held debt is proportionately 60% higher than ours but their current public sector deficit is a THIRD the size of ours), has some experience with restructurings, and has a demonstrated ability to run something other than his mouth. The current incumbent is not that guy.

  • There are only so many times I can be told to vote for the guy that is simply the lesser of two evils. I did it with McCain, I’ve done it with Dole,

    I would cite Phyllis Schlafly on this point: all things being equal, you get more of what you vote for when you have a binary choice; the choice, however, is less palatable. Israel’s spectrum of political parties allows you to vote for precisely what you want. What you are going to get, though, is the Ministry of Parks and a minister without portfolio.

    John McCain has a temper (which seems to manifest itself only when dealing with colleagues), sometimes acts out of personal pique, and favors an inadvisable immigration policy. He has some other deficiencies which you find in working pols generally. He has made his political career in Arizona (which is not exactly Frisco), has twice been a vigorous competitor among the 10% or so of adult citizens who vote in Republican primaries and caucuses, and (per the American Conservative Union) votes for their preferred measures >80% of the time. You problem is not with Capt. McCain. It is with the culture and general thrust of the Republican Party.

    As for Dole, he was an intemperate Capitol Hill apparatchik who manifested signs of having absorbed far too much of the culture of our rancid national legislature (see the Americans-with-Disabilities-Act). He could add and subtract though, and had an allergy to public sector borrowing. Ronald Reagan failed on both counts.

  • Mark,

    While I agree, as you stated, “That literal millions of people are suffering the cruelest of repression doesn’t even enter in to the equation for the selfish…”, until you get the the charachterization of folks as “selfish”.

    I believe that America has a role to play in the wrld that trascends our narrow national political or economic interests. I think that all the goofy folks who have ever espoused US isolationism, as if thae bad actors wouldn’t eventually get around to trying to beat our behinds after dealing with the rest of the world, are ill-informed and ignorant of human nature (does accomodation and appeasement EVER work, from the school yard to the world stage?). But I believe that terming them “selfish” mischaracterizes the cause, and our duty.

    It isn’t selfishness that causes folks to not want to send their sons and daughters off to war. For it to be selfish, there would have to exist a duty to send people off to foreign wars. and just as not all of us are called to be policement or firemen, and are not selfish if we choose to pay others to do those jobs, neither is the US mandated by manifest destiny or whatever to send soldiers and to expend blood and tresure for the freedom of others. Is it a just cause to do so? Absolutely. And I joined the military because *I* thought *I* had a responsibility to participate in the defense of the weak.

    But those who espouse isolationism aren’t “selfish”. And if they avoid military service, they’re not “selfish”. At least, I don’t think so.

    Or maybe they are. But I think there’s a better characterization. Anyone gots ideas?

  • I used to be a regular reader of the American Catholic blog, but eventually I got really turned off by certain contributors. Every so often I check in to see if things have changed, or if they are at lease tolerable and readable— this post disappoints me.

    The hate some people display for Ron Paul is disgusting in the extreme, particularly the name-calling. The attacks some people lob over to the libertarian-wing of the GOP only serve to cloud the intellectual truth. It’s dispiriting to endure, and as a practicing Catholic in particular— it’s just sad to watch.

    I changed my registration in NYC from Independent to Republican specifically so I could vote for Ron Paul. I’m going to enjoy doing so, no matter what the outcome of these initial primaries.

    Not a single GOP nominee is any more than marginally “better” than Obama. Will the wars, the spending, or the social engineering end under any of these candidates? No.

    It is exhausting to watch year after year. What is the point of phrases like “the consent of the governed” if such notions feel more like a fraud every day?

    If Ron Paul is not the nominee or on the ballot in November, I will not be voting. I refuse to be morally culpable for the actions of war mongers and socialists. I’d rather send up a prayer than submit a useless vote for more of the same.

  • I cannot fathom how attacking Iraq had any relation to avenging 9/11. And why in the world did we send troops to Afghanistan? Congress never voted to authorize either of these presidential fiat wars. Mr McClarey, you have not given any sound reason why Mr. Paul is wrong for opposing these wars. Why is Mr. Paul criticized for stating the truth about Iran? Israel has 300 nuclear warheads, and refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and allow inspectors in. Israel would wipe Iran off the map in a matter of hours with a few of those missiles. Iran is no threat to Israel, and certainly not to America.

    Furthermore, as it happened — you are the historian — the aftermath of WWII was worse than the war, for half of Europe. The allies gave the butcher Stalin (real name Jugosvili) all of eastern Europe, knowing full well what atrocities had already been committed by that quintessential dictator. How many millions of Christians died at this man’s hands, while he was ruling Russia, whose Central Committee, by the way, was not Christian as you must know. Was Saddam Hussein any worse than Castro? If the state department was so concerned about toppling dictators, we’ve had one off the coast of Florida for half a century, Any oilk in Cuba? Any in China? What have these legitimate questions to do with being a “nutcase”?

  • I used to be a regular reader of the American Catholic blog, but eventually I got really turned off by certain contributors. Every so often I check in to see if things have changed, or if they are at lease tolerable and readable— this post disappoints me.
    The hate some people display for Ron Paul is disgusting in the extreme, particularly the name-calling.

    I think ‘disdain’, not ‘hate’, is what you see manifested. At worst, ‘contempt’.

    We often do not notice what does not cut, so it is advisable to maintain some rules-of-thumb concerning the features of what you say, and that is often honored in the breach, regrettably.

    (For my own part, I would be pleased to hear as a matter of routine discourse from the ranks of the Rockford Institute, The American Conservative, et al that was temperate without being supercilious. I ain’t holdin’ my breath).

  • “If Ron Paul is not the nominee or on the ballot in November, I will not be voting.”

    Thank you for allowing me to help you choose your President for you Anthony.

  • I cannot fathom how attacking Iraq had any relation to avenging 9/11.

    Who said it did?

    And why in the world did we send troops to Afghanistan? Congress never voted to authorize either of these presidential fiat wars.

    Yes, they were authorized. In addition to the resolutions authorizing them, Congress has appropriated the money every year to fight them.

    — you are the historian — the aftermath of WWII was worse than the war, for half of Europe. The allies gave the butcher Stalin (real name Jugosvili) all of eastern Europe, knowing full well what atrocities had already been committed by that quintessential dictator.

    The military situation on the ground would not have permitted a geographic distribution of control much different than the one with which we ended up.

    If I am not mistaken, 27% of the population of Poland perished between 1939 and 1945. Disagreeable as the United Workers’ Party rule was after 1946, I do not think it quite rose to that.

  • The attacks some people lob over to the libertarian-wing of the GOP only serve to cloud the intellectual truth.

    The shorter version of you comment: how dare you use Ron Paul’s own words to demonstrate that the man is a kook. Like most Ron Paul supporters, you bury your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that the man goes well beyond supporting the issues that matter to you, and has a disgusting history of supporting insane conspiracy theorists, including 9/11 truthers. As I said earlier, if you are that passionate about the superficial platform of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson offers an alternative that is not out to lunch.

  • Wow sounds like this group is pro-war pro-send the troops in unconstitutional wars from whims of a dictator (whoops I meant president) instead of going to Congress & asking for declarations of war. Pray tell me WHERE is this in the just war cause? Offensive wars? perpetual wars? Is that all in the catechism? All war does is promote the state. NOW Dr Paul DID say if attacked then go to Congress, get a declaration of war, win it, come home…. HOW IS THAT KOOKY?!?!?! Isn’t that logical? moral? or is nation building for decades & decades, building bases everywhere (140+ nations have our footstep in it… team america world police?), occupying other people’s lands (I’m suuuure you would be cool with a Chinese base or Russian base in your back yards huh), etc .. wait? aren’t we BROKE!? Pray tell me how you want to pay for more wars? I’d love to hear that one. Roman empire anyone? The sun never sets on the American Empire does it? Lets see we send troops to Australia to be ready to fight China (as we ask them for more $) hahaha. Someone tell me where the common sense is for that? Oh, why are the troops, overwhelmingly supporting Dr Paul? Do you people know more then the troops? If everyone had to pay for these wars from their own pockets & NOT thru the unconstitutional FED that prints money for your kids & their kids to pay for AND if every family HAD to send at least 1 to said wars (since most people don’t have anyone in the military yet they ‘support the troops’ yet don’t want them home with their families …. no matter the divorce rate among military or the stress nah we must keep them overseas away from our land they are defend) these wars would end overnight. But, alas, we are a blood thirsty union of states that love war (its good for ratings) & really don’t like the Constitution nor freedom (like how freedom sounds but the practice of it we don’t care much for – Joseph Schumpeter quote) & we act as if Israel is our 51st state which its own Prime Minister said to us ‘we don’t need you’ (yet we gave them $3bil but its enemies over $15Bil hahaha yet we claim how much we loooove Israel hahah). Now the WWII thing you may want to read up on that b/c FDR (like Wilson in WWI) did everything he could to get us into the war. There was no need for us going. Oh well ‘blessed are the peacemakers’ huh? nah we want never ending wars!

  • TAC contributors beware: the PaulBots have been upgraded with Logic Boards.

  • Not a single GOP nominee is any more than marginally “better” than Obama. Will the wars, the spending, or the social engineering end under any of these candidates? No.

    Dr. Paul would have to persuade the Republican caucus in the Senate to do away with the filibuster rule and then persuade both houses of Congress to a approve a raft of bills closing down over fifty independent agencies, three cabinet departments, the bulk of a fourth cabinet department, and portions of two other departments and two other agencies of consequence. That might just take care of the ‘social engineering’ and some of the low-hanging fruit under the rubric of ‘spending’. That’s the easy part. Best of luck.

  • Steve,

    Paragraphs and common-and-garden rules of punctuation, please.

  • “I cannot fathom how attacking Iraq had any relation to avenging 9/11.”

    Who said it did Brian? Why we went to war against Iraq is set forth at the link below:

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

    “And why in the world did we send troops to Afghanistan? ”
    Because the Taliban allowed the country to be the central base for the terrorists.

    “Congress never voted to authorize either of these presidential fiat wars.”

    Untrue. Congress through its authorization of the use of force votes authorized both of the wars prior to a shot being fired in either conflict.

    ” Mr McClarey, you have not given any sound reason why Mr. Paul is wrong for opposing these wars.”

    In regard to Iraq because Saddam was a clear and present danger to US interests in the region since his attempt to take over Kuwait in 1990. He also constantly violated the truce entered into which ended the Gulf War. Afghanistan because it was the central staging area for the terrorists.

    “Why is Mr. Paul criticized for stating the truth about Iran?”

    Because Paul is a loon who fails to recognize that the mullahs having the bomb is akin to tying a grenade to a gallon of gasoline and pulling the pin.

    “Israel has 300 nuclear warheads, and refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and allow inspectors in. Israel would wipe Iran off the map in a matter of hours with a few of those missiles. Iran is no threat to Israel, and certainly not to America.”

    Israel is no threat to the US and the interests of the US. Iran on the other hand is, as demonstrated this week by its threat to attempt to blockade the Straits of Hormuz. Neither Israel nor the US has an adequate defense to a nuke arriving by missile or smuggled into the country. Iranian agents have been known to enter this country both through Mexico and Canada.

    “Furthermore, as it happened — you are the historian — the aftermath of WWII was worse than the war, for half of Europe.”

    Simply not true. Far more people died during the war than in its aftermath in Eastern Europe.

    “The allies gave the butcher Stalin (real name Jugosvili) all of eastern Europe,”

    Complete bunk. The Red Army took Eastern Europe. The only way to get the Red Army out was to follow Patton’s advice, start World War III and expel the Red Army by force. The American public was in no mood to have World War III immediately follow World War II.

    “How many millions of Christians died at this man’s hands, while he was ruling Russia, whose Central Committee, by the way, was not Christian as you must know.”

    Actually Stalin was a bitter anti-Semite if you were trying to imply that the Central Committee was a bunch of Jews which is simple rubbish. Stalin’s hangmen who were of Jewish ancestry were no more practicing Jews than his hangmen of Christian ancestry, the vast majority, were practicing Christians. Khrushchev in his memoir wrote this about Stalin and Jews:

    “A hostile attitude toward the Jewish nation was a major shortcoming of Stalin’s. In his speeches and writings as a leader and theoretician there wasn’t even a hint of this. God forbid that anyone assert that a statement by him smacked of anti-Semitism. Outwardly everything looked correct and proper. But in his inner circle, when he had occasion to speak about some Jewish person, he always used an emphatically distorted pronunciation. This was the way backward people lacking in political consciousness would express themselves in daily life — people with a contemptuous attitude toward Jews. They would deliberately mangle the Russian language, putting on a Jewish accent or imitating certain negative characteristics [attributed to Jews]. Stalin loved to do this, and it became one of his characteristic traits”

    Stalin used the fact that his great enemy Trotsky had been born a Jew greatly to his advantage. Stalin would refer to him contemptuously as The King of the Jews.

    “Was Saddam Hussein any worse than Castro? If the state department was so concerned about toppling dictators, we’ve had one off the coast of Florida for half a century,”

    Bay of Pigs-been there, done that. We could not take out Castro due to his being under the Soviet nuclear shield. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Castro has been on his best behavior so as not to give us a casus belli, unlike Saddam. I personally think that Kennedy made a grave mistake in not toppling Castro in 1961 with a corp sized landing, instead of relying on the CIA and its brigade of exiles.

  • “TAC contributors beware: the PaulBots have been upgraded with Logic Boards.”

    They should get their money back Nate, because the boards appear to be defective.

  • ‘Wow sounds like this group is pro-war”

    Thank you Steve for a pitch perfect parody of a Paulbot ranting. Hilarious! The paranoia, the historical illiteracy, the jab at Israel, it is all there! Well done! Do carry on!

  • Speaking of logic, I find it fascinating when someone does attempt to make a logical argument on a blog. Usually people ignore it. It’s a lot easier to get a response with fallacious arguments and sensationalism.

    The other problem with logic, besides boring people, is that a logic-based discussion requires shared premises, and often derails into semantics over what seem like shared premises, but are not.

    It makes me wonder why people bother talking to one another at all about politics. Is it to persuade? Is it to have fun? Is it to self-justify?

    I think that the word Wackdoodle, loon, kook, wing-bat, nut-whatever, etc, do more damage to Ron Paul than all the sophisticated and well-reasoned arguments for a strong American overseas military presence.

    Anyway. The PaulBots can’t get their money back. The boards were made in China.

  • Some of the Ron Paul friendly commenters would do well to read (or re-read) this helpful guide.
    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/06/12/how-not-to-appear-crazy-on-the-internet/

  • Combox to and fro Nate is rarely conducive to the calm logic say of the Angelic Doctor. Occasionally some nugget is set forth, but usually the cut and thrust of combox debate is for simple fun, which is certainly why I do it. Political speeches to convince do exist, and one of the masters of the art form was Abraham Lincoln, who spent his lifetime in a state, Illinois, that was largely hostile to the parties he supported, the Whigs and then the Republicans.

    For example, his explanation of what the Founding Fathers meant by the phrase “all men are created equal” is a masterful exposition:

    “Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration. I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in “certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that “all men are created equal” was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.”

    “Anyway. The PaulBots can’t get their money back. The boards were made in China.”

    Priceless! :)

  • I confess. This is my sin against charity.

    I find Paulbots less annoying than Obama-worshiping imbeciles.

    I’m not sure why.

    Maybe it is because Congressman Paul hasn’t had three years to wreck the economy.

    We should love PaulBots and Obama-worshiping morons because as long as they live the Holy Spirit may bring them to a better state of mind.

  • I have been a devout Catholic all my life and just found your website. Just WHO do you think you are! Ron Paul is NOT an “isolationist”. That term is being used to smear him, just like you whom I assume are a warmonger. Personal conversations with Dr. Paul, hardly!

    As the population is waking up, people like you will turn tail and run in the end. The biggest reason Ron is the #1 Public Enemy is because he is trying to educate the masses about how the FEDERAL RESERVE has been looting our money by printing endlessly since they were formed, and devaluing our currency which has caused a TREMENDOUS DOWNGRADE in our standard of living. Indeed, we should be richer than the Swiss, if it weren’t for the FEDs incessant looting over the years.

    Who is to blame? Ultimately, the politicians who have sneaked so many bills unbeknownst to the public that it isn’t funny. So much has slipped under the radar which has created havoc. You are simply WRONG in so much of what you say I can’t even get into it with you. But, Ron Paul said the ONLY WAR that was “justified” was WWII, so you are wrong on that.
    Furthermore, Ron Paul is the only reasonable candidate and the ONLY CANDIDATE THAT IS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, who is on THEIR SIDE!

    The rest of the pack are on the world elitists side, period.

  • Carl, your parody of a Paulbot rant isn’t bad, but unlike Steve you didn’t have a jab at Israel, which is really a must for any self-respecting Paulbot. On the other hand you do frequently have words in caps to underline Paulbot fervor so that is a plus. On the whole I do like Steve’s parody better, but I do give you points for effort!

  • “My prediction for 2012 Jay will again vote for Obama again.”

    Yeah, that’s me. Jay the Obama supporter. What a dumb-assed comment, TShaw. Moreso than your usual dumb-assed comment.

  • The thing is, you want a weathervane to point in the right direction. That’s its purpose.

    If Mitt Romney does nothing but act in his political interests with regard to social issues, he’ll do just fine. There’s no benefit to him in betraying the positions he currently holds. If anything, he’ll have to be more faithful to them than the average politician, because everyone’s got their eye on him. I don’t expect miracles from him, but he should be steady on issues such as abortion. I think he’ll be like Bush Sr., not passionate but consistent. (I know, you can shoot down that argument by pointing to
    Souter, but that could’ve happened on anyone’s watch.)

  • Pinky is right. Romney may not be as reliably conservative as I’d like, but he is smart and knows who he needs to butter his bread. Besides, I do think he leans right. I actually think he will be reliably socially conservative, but less of a small government conservative than I’d prefer. He actually will behave a lot like W in many respects, but his brain will keep him from being a little less confident and therefore a little less impulsive. Leaving aside constitutional questions, his MA position that all Americans should be required to purchase health insurance is ultimately grounded in a very pragmatic conservative view on free riders. While I would limit such insurance to catastrophic plans only, I bet that he would prefer that too, even if it would not sell in MA.

  • Doh! I ain’t so smart as youse guys . . .

  • ‘ Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.” ‘

    ‘ Maybe it is because Congressman Paul hasn’t had three years to wreck the economy.

    We should love PaulBots and Obama-worshiping morons because as long as they live the Holy Spirit may bring them to a better state of mind. ‘

    Hoping for a nut on the ballot and that wake-up call.

  • “The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with to deal with other nations with threats of violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity.” – Ron Paul

  • Thank you for that quote Jim. Few quotes from Doctor Delusional better illustrate the moral myopia of Paul than his comparison of US forces overseas with the occupation of Texas by Communist Chinese. Of course if Americans had followed the foreign policy rantings of Paul in the Nineteenth Century, Americans would never have entered Texas and revolted from Mexican rule, and Paul’s homestate would still be part of Mexico.

  • Congressman Paul is a nut and his policies if enacted could kill my gains.

    However, he’s right (for the wrong reasons) about the Fed and the central planners’/collectivists’ suppression of Americans’ financial “pursuit of happiness.”

    The value of the Federal Reserve Note is solely based on blind faith in Bernanke, Geithner, Reid, Boehner, and Obama. For your resident “Sheldon Coopers”, the formula is $Gld = 1/Trust in Obama, et al. Another real-life monetary portent: US Midwest farm land saw 71 Iowa cropland acres recently sell for $20,000 per.

    Here’s another symptom of financial insanity: investing $ in government securities which provide negligible (compared to interest rate risks, counter-party risks, etc.) yields while central bankers feverishly devalue currencies.

    The Fed is suppressing (or subverting) financial market functioning by flooding the system with FR Notes. Since 1913 in the US and earlier in Europe, centralized control over monetary systems by central planners has caused far more damage than any good.

    Never misunderestimate the insensibilities of congressmen, Fed Chmn., and presidents.
    The collectivists, credentialed geniuses with no experience in real world functioning, corrupt/idiotic congressmen and presidents, statists, etc. are accomplishing none of their “objectives” but are causing grave damage – asset/resource misallocations, devalued Federal Reserve Notes, no jobs, no GDP growth, etc, just debased setting the stage for another American tragedy.

    The so-called recovery is nothing but a stimulus induced “dead cat bounce.” Citizens and taxpayers will pay.

    Wall Street and I are now statist creatures . . . adapted to profit on the “fixed” game the politicians have set up FOR US.

    All the Fed QE’s and all the Operations Twist have done zilch for Main Street. I just totaled up my 2011 return.

    I vote for the Bernank “Man of the Year.”

  • “The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas.

    Between 1990 and 2002, there averaged a grand total of 6,200 American troops in Saudi Arabia. They were there at the invitation of that country’s government to fulfill a practical program of protecting them from their manifestly aggressive neighbor to the north. A troop force of 6,200 will suffice to subdue a recalcitrant population the size of Luxembourg’s. Saudi Arabia’s population was about 20x that. The troops were not obtrusively deployed and were offensive primarily to Osama bin Laden (living in Afghanistan) and Joseph Sobran (living in Northern Virginia).

    The last time I checked, we had 57,000 troops stationed in Germany and 35,000 in Japan. Why not ask Dr. Paul why we do not have crews of Germans and Japanese flying planes into office buildings in Manhattan?

  • TShaw, I let your comment go through, but you will resume your old moniker please. In regard to Jay Anderson and Obama, he is one of the few people I know who is more anti-Obama than I am.

  • “Why not ask Dr. Paul why we do not have crews of Germans and Japanese flying planes into office buildings in Manhattan?”

    Because there aren’t many Germans or Japanese who would for any cause. Fact is American troops aren’t popular in Germany or Japan or anywhere else in the world. Foreign troops are never popular except when fending off enemies in wartime.

  • “Because there aren’t many Germans or Japanese who would for any cause.”

    There sure were enough Japanese willing to fly planes into things in 1945 RR, and I believe the Germans had their own violent streak in 1939-45. By Doctor Delusional’s logic, our troops being in those nations for over 66 years should have made those countries bitter enemies of the US, which is simply not the case. Of course Paul also believes we should have sat out World War II, so perhaps he simply ignores our experience in those two nations, as he studiously ignores all inconvenient facts that clash with his isolationist ideology.

  • “And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?

    And the Congressman answered:

    “No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

    Paul then looked at me, and I politely thanked him for his time. He smiled at me again and nodded his head, and many of his young followers were also smiling, and nodding their heads in agreement. Clearly, I was the only one in the room who was disturbed by his response.

    When I first presented the story of Paul’s comments about the Holocaust to major news media outlets two years ago, they were so stunned they were afraid to publish my story, and as a result it has remained unpublished until now.

    I went to great lengths afterwards to learn more about the basis for Paul’s comments. I spoke to Eric Dondero, a former senior aide for Paul, in February 2010. Dondero is quoted in a Weekly Standard article today about Paul’s isolationist beliefs.

    When I called Dondero again this morning, and told him I was finally going forward with the story, he told me that Paul had made similar comments to him.

    “He told me numerous times it was not worth it to intervene to save the Jews in World War II,” Dondero said. “I don’t think that’s because he’s an antisemite. It’s because he’s an extreme isolationist and he’s trying to be 100% principled–he doesn’t think there’s any reason to intervene for human rights or any other reason anywhere on the planet.”

    Calls to Rep. Paul’s congressional office and campaign office last week and this morning were not returned.

    The Holocaust of World War II is not the only historical tragedy that Paul’s isolationism would disregard.

    In 2007, the Congressman actually faulted Abraham Lincoln for using military force to end slavery in the Civil War: “He shouldn’t have gone to war… Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world and the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did; you buy the slaves and release them.”

    Editors told me two years ago that they couldn’t believe Paul would respond in the same way to a question about the Holocaust, but I wasn’t surprised. Paul’s answer is actually consistent with much of what he’s been saying for years.”

    http://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/2011/12/26/exclusive-ron-paul-in-2009-i-wouldnt-risk-american-lives-to-end-the-holocaust/

  • Fact is American troops aren’t popular in Germany or Japan or anywhere else in the world.

    ‘Sez who?

  • By Doctor Delusional’s logic, our troops being in those nations for over 66 years should have made those countries bitter enemies of the US, which is simply not the case.

    It is a chronic problem in and among the palaeosectaries that their assessment of political conflict is composed of deductions from the same false premise: that conflict is something we can turn on and off at the source by making discretionary decisions, decisions which are invariably congruent with principles of small government and fidelity to the Founders, blah blah. This leads to some very peculiar commentary at times. (The prize would be Joseph Sobran’s remarks on the bombing of a U.S. Navy ship taking on fuel in Yemen in 1998: something to be expected and deserved because we have no business having Navy ships traveling through the Indian Ocean).

  • Art, says the German and Japanese public. Though the rise of China and the nuclearization of North Korea has caused the militarily-unprepared Japanese to look more favorably on US troops. The unpopularity of foreign troops is a fact that most Americans are unfortunately ignorant of.

  • RR my brother led an armor platoon in Nato in Germany in the early eighties. He told me that he encountered less hostility in Germany from German civilians than he did in the US. I think this story is pretty typical about the basically good relations between most Germans and the US troops in Germany:

    http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/germany/closing-of-bases-in-mannheim-ends-special-relationship-between-germans-u-s-troops-1.144258

    Marriage between our troops in Germany and German women has been so common that the US Army has this site:

    http://www.21tsc.army.mil/Aerja/LegalAssist/Areas-Family%20Law/Marr-Germany.html

  • Opposition to foreign troops doesn’t necessary show itself in open hostility. Unless there’s some major incident involving US troops, it’s not a preoccupation. Plus, the primary interaction that foreign troops have with locals is in the troop-friendly areas around bases. Not at all representative of the general public. It’s kind of like illegal immigration in the US. People have strong views but you don’t see many hate crimes against illegal immigrants and it isn’t something people concern themselves with on a daily basis.

  • The truth is RR that the world is a complicated place and different nations have responded differently to the presence of US forces among them in different ways. Germany has been overall quite friendly to US forces. South Koreans have been fairly hostile to the Americans who kept them from being slaves under North Korean rule. Most Iraqis were quite hostile to Americans being present, outside of the Kurdish areas which were quite pro-American. The Italians looked upon American troops as long lost cousins. This type of complexity is completely foreign to the ideological makeup of Ron Paul.

  • Well I thank the kind gentlemen for the name calling towards me (yet provide no evidence but the media industrial complex’s claims of jabbing Israel haha). Pray tell me how he (or I) have ‘jabbed’ Israel? The problem is you probably then would not want to click on this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ljxQn5nm8A unless Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also ‘jabbing Israel’ (whoops he says ‘we don’t need US help’ soooo is he anti-Israel?). Pray tell me how giving billions more to Israel’s enemies is being friendly towards Israel? (Can not wait to hear your responses to that). Here’s a great video on “Ron Paul & Israel” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3N0s_Ibau4 I would loooooove to hear your responses to this.

    So far none of our arguments have been broken, but plenty of name calling has been thrown out at us & someone had absolutely nothing so he became an english professor haha.

    1) are we broke? If so then pray tell me HOW DO YOU GUYS want to pay for the never ending wars, the empire, the unconstitutional wars?

    2) are you pro constitution? If so wouldn’t you side with CONSTITUTIONAL wars? & not wars via whims of a dictator in chief? (we give waaaay too much power to a man that isn’t to have much power)

    3) Name another candidate that speaks of sound money & economics like him, please. Any other candidate want to cut anything & mean it?

    4) Dr Paul is more pro life then all of them on stage (more Catholic then the Catholic ones on stage) yet he is getting called names. Wow. Gov’t should NOT be involved in marriage (its a church thing) & when you allow gov’t to be the religion we get what we have today. Morals should never be up for a vote b/c they can be voted in opposite directions (its a bad precedent).

    5) How is war a good thing to all? Wouldn’t we want troops home with their familes? They have a huge divorce rate; wouldn’t we want to help save their marriages? Being away in other people’s lands & not home is hard on families (be pro family & pro troop…. yet again nobody answered why are the troops in favor of Dr Paul?)

    6) Rome fell via debt & wars (sound familiar? Lets keep it up huh)

    7) Name another candidate that even uses the word Liberty

    8) former concentration camp member, Joseph Schumpeter, who escaped Hitler’s Germany as a Jew, wrote “that people love the sound of freedom, they love the way it sounds, & in the abstract they support it. But when it comes to the actual practice of living free & experiencing freedom, they don’t much care for that. Liberty is hard”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo&feature=share <-dedicated to the troops! Be careful there are history lessons in this too.

    Pax Christi (didn't Christ say 'blessed are the peacemakers? … did we just sell missles to the Middle East? I'm sure they will never fall in hands of any enemy right?)

  • Well done Steve! You must have seen my comment regarding Carl’s Paulbot parody post and, the competitive juices flowing, you submitted another entry. This time you included phrases in caps and included more Paulbot jargon, for example “dictator-in-chief” and “media industrial complex”, and upped your historical illiteracy quotient by your brief digression stating that Rome fell because of debts and wars. Yes, this definitely puts you in the lead for champion Paulbot parody creator! I eagerly await more entries.
    Next time you might try to work in an artful defense of Paul calling Gaza a concentration camp:

    http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/29/ron-paul%E2%80%99s-undeniable-war-on-israel/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1t4O9CcZQ0

    Remember, in your defense of Paul, alway use “Zionist” and never use “Jew”.

  • So far none of our arguments have been broken, but plenty of name calling has been thrown out at us

    There have been plenty of arguments made, with backup proof offered – usually simply using Ron Paul’s words against him – but like most Paulites, you just ignore them.

    someone had absolutely nothing so he became an english professor haha.

    Though this is merely a blog and not an academic conference, you should still present your arguments in a reasonably coherent manner. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, then learn how to write.

    As for your first two points, the major theater of war now that we have substantially pulled out of Iraq is Afghanistan. You know who voted to authorize said war, along with just about every other member of Congress? Dr. Ron Paul. Maybe you should ask the good doctor how he plans to pay for the “unconstitutional” war that he helped authorize.

    Name another candidate that speaks of sound money & economics like him, please. Any other candidate want to cut anything & mean it?

    Define sound economics? Pipe dreams about the gold standard may sound fanciful to the untrained ear, but it’s just that – a pipe dream.

    Dr Paul is more pro life then all of them on stage

    Ron Paul believes that the decision over the legalization of abortion should be left to the states. Rick Santorum would push for a federal amendment to ban abortion throughout the country. Rick Perry, I believe, also advocates such an amendment. I’d say that Santorum has the edge there.

    Gov’t should NOT be involved in marriage (its a church thing) & when you allow gov’t to be the religion we get what we have today. Morals should never be up for a vote b/c they can be voted in opposite directions (its a bad precedent).

    The fact that you cannot see the dissonance between the first sentence in your paragraph and this quoted section speaks volumes.

    How is war a good thing to all?

    War is sometimes preferable to the alternative. If you think that war is always to be avoided at all costs, at least give up the farce that you are simply a non-interventionist and not a pacifist or an isolationist.

    Name another candidate that even uses the word Liberty

    A stupid question, but for the sake of playing your game:
    Rick Santorum. See a about 26 and 46 seconds.

    Rick Perry said it and was mocked for it.

    And on and on and on. Of course, rhetoric about liberty is meaningless, as are most of your points.

  • By the way, for any other Ron Paul fans still out there, I’m just curious what they think about Cynthia McKinney. You know, the person that Ron Paul supported for president 4 years ago.

  • 1) are we broke? If so then pray tell me HOW DO YOU GUYS want to pay for the never ending wars, the empire, the unconstitutional wars?

    a. We are not broke. The problem is excessive public sector borrowing and attendant future interest charges. Solving that problem requires a thorough review of public expenditure, not merely the 14% of public expenditure which is allocated to the military, most especially when the functions performed by the military are not replicable by the private sector or by local governments.

    b. We have been involved in five separate conflicts since 1945; the constitution was not violated in fighting them; one is ongoing and the other four had discrete termini.

    c. There is no empire. The United States has not since 1848 absorbed contiguous territory populated by foreigners and had a notable portfolio of overseas dependencies only between 1898 and 1946. Ninety percent of the population of those dependencies was to be found in the Philippines, which we never intended to keep permanently and which we relinquished over sixty years ago.

    2) are you pro constitution? If so wouldn’t you side with CONSTITUTIONAL wars? & not wars via whims of a dictator in chief? (we give waaaay too much power to a man that isn’t to have much power)

    All of the wars we have fought since 1945 have been authorized by a combination of congressional resolutions and appropriations bills.

    3) Name another candidate that speaks of sound money & economics like him, please. Any other candidate want to cut anything & mean it?

    Dr. Paul’s proposed monetary system is favored only by a small corps of eccentrics within the economics profession. Again, the history of this country between the fall of 1929 and the spring of 1933 should cure anyone of a hankering for a specie-based currency. We can do quite well without it and it is a disaster under certain circumstances.

    4) Dr Paul is more pro life then all of them on stage (more Catholic then the Catholic ones on stage) yet he is getting called names. Wow.

    He isn’t.

    Gov’t should NOT be involved in marriage

    That’s about as practical as saying government should not be involved in demarcating property.

    & when you allow gov’t to be the religion we get what we have today. Morals should never be up for a vote b/c they can be voted in opposite directions (its a bad precedent).

    Please sober up.

    5) How is war a good thing to all? Wouldn’t we want troops home with their familes? They have a huge divorce rate; wouldn’t we want to help save their marriages? Being away in other people’s lands & not home is hard on families (be pro family & pro troop…. yet again nobody answered why are the troops in favor of Dr Paul?)

    There are times when you do not have better options. Serious students of history understand that and the implications of that. Ron Paul’s assessments are an inane exercise in let’s pretend.

    6) Rome fell via debt & wars (sound familiar? Lets keep it up huh)

    Historians of late antiquity and the early medieval period have run through several cycles attempting to explain the political history of Rome. The most current is that the motor of decline was an autonomous demographic implosion that went on for about 400 years.

    7) Name another candidate that even uses the word Liberty

    You can’t be serious.

  • Hmmm, when it comes to balancing the budget Ron Paul has no plan to touch Medicare or Social Security, and in regard to cuts in defense spending he doesn’t seem to have a clue as to how much we are spending. Color me shocked.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ron-paul-great-societys-great-defender_615036.html

  • Ron Paul’r problem with balancing the budget is on the revenue side. He wants all federal revenue derived from tariffs. Libertarians should be appalled.

    Santorum recently raised a good point. In 20 years, Ron Paul managed to get just one of his bills passed. It’s safe to say that he won’t be able to do anything domestically. Where the president has unilateral power is foreign policy and Paul would bring every troop home on his first day in office. He’s useless talking about anything else.

  • Sorry I had to keep myself from hurting myself laughing so hard from hearing that we are fighting constitutional wars & that we aren’t broke.
    Hey how has that federal solution to end abortion been working out? Not so well huh?

    Maybe if we allowed states to end it (which many many many would) we would be close to ending it but alas people think federal solutions is the answer for everything & nothing ever gets done (just like we made marriage a federal issue now look at it. Congrats).

    Morals should never be up for a vote (how is that sober up issue? Why should morals ever be up for a vote?)

    So how are we not an empire? The sun never sets on this empire, we are in 140+ nations. What are we then? Oh & how in your world did Rome collapse? Their games didn’t have HD telecasts?

    Again somehow you guys think we are in constitutional wars (this shows the genius of the commenters in here along with thinking we aren’t broke hahahahahhaha keep thinking that one).

    Hey keep up the name calling its awesome :) also continue to think the Constitution is being followed & that the neo-cons are the ones to vote for (let the media industrial complex tell the sheeple how to vote.)

    I would bet the farm you guys didn’t click on any link provided, but thats what I love about you guys. Enjoy serfdom!

  • Courtesy Dr. Paul’s web flacks:

    He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has introduced legislation to repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.

    An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.

    To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.

    Congress has no power to impose an income tax, but he favors repeal of the 16th Amendment because that grants Congress the power to do….?

    He will have to abrogate a raft of international trade agreements for Congress to be able to make use of tariffs as anything more than the smallest of supplements to federal revenue. Current tariff and excise revenue amounts to something on the order of 0.4% of gross domestic product, so the necessary cuts to public expenditure would have to be ‘massive’ indeed.

  • Ah, Steve now you are merely repeating your Paulbot parody. Your entry is secure, and you do not have to keep repeating the themes of historical illiteracy and constitutional ignorance which have already been well established in your earlier entries. Calling everyone who does not blindly follow Doctor Delusional a serf was a nice touch, but overall your parody this time was merely the same old same old.

  • This website is a joke calling itself a “Catholic perspective”

  • JC, you will have to do much better than that if you wish to compete in the Paulbot parody rant contest. The snark was certainly there, but you need to have much more than that.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .