By The Right Scoop


The Trifecta weighs in on Ron Paul ‘stealing’ caucus votes from Romney:

Presidential Candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) won the most delegates in the Nevada and Maine primary, putting him in a position to disrupt the Republican convention. Is Ron Paul playing dirty pool, or is he winning fair and square? Even if Paul can’t win, will he do the GOP a service by keeping conservative pressure on Mitt Romney?

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • sDee

    I voted for Ron Paul in the North Carolina primary. He was the only conservative candidate left after all. Romney is left of Clinton and Carter. Anything and everything that anyone can do to expose and put pressure on Progressive Romney, has my whole hearted support.

    The convention needs a major shakeup. the Republican Party is nothing but a shell of conservatism – the left of center arm of the political establishment.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

      The problem that Ron Paul and his supporters have is that he isn’t the definition of Constitutional Conservatism. That definition is bigger than just him. To be fair, he does represent an important wing of the Libertarian philosophy. Yes, I’ll give you that.

      But, his wing is better described as a Left Wing, Murray Rothbard, version of Libertarianism. Not, the Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Regan, Traditional Right Wing version.

      Until his supporters start to make the case of why their version of Libertarianism is the better one, they will continue to garner no more than 10% of the Party they claim to embody.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1185633984 Jacque Esslinger

        Constitutional Conservative, excerpt from:The Essence of the Constitutional Conservative

        By Carl Koch

        A Constitutionalist is a person that believes the Constitution is the supreme “Law of the Land”. All other laws are and must be subordinate to it. As such we believe it defines the scope of the federal government and its relationship to the states and the people. Further, the Constitution is not a document that bestows powers and authority to the federal government; rather it places limits and restrictions on those powers and authority. Lastly, the Constitution codifies the qualifications and duties of those who govern.

        That is RON PAUL!

        All other candidates were Social “Conservatives”. They want to control us just like the democrats. My social likes and beliefs should not be controlled by government or anyone else.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

          If it is as clear and cut and dry as you say it is, why won’t Ron Paul go on the Mark Levin show and talk to him? Why won’t Romney?

          [Crickets]

          Answer: Because they are cowards. And, Ron Paul fully knows he will be exposed as something more along the lines of a left wing anarchist. AKA, Murray Rothbard.

          Read what Ron Paul says. He says America is responsible for 9/11. He says Iran has every right to secure nuclear weapons.

          He is a whack job.

          Here is how you can tell the difference between Ron Paul and real Constitutional Republicans: When you support the Southern States during the Civil war, you aren’t a “Constitutionalists” You are a “Confederate” as in the “Papers.”

          Ron Paul is a Confederate. He doesn’t give a rats about the Constitutional protections (as limited as they were with 3/5ths) that Blacks had during that time.

          Republicans understood the need to support the rights of all people. It is why the party was founded.

          Ron Paul and his supporters still do not get it.

          • longshotlouie

            Why would anyone go on a talk show with a Trotskyite that has disrespected them and their constituency?

            p.s. It’s secede, not succeed …. which points out your lack of knowledge on the subject.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

              “I always feel sorry for people who can spell words only one way. They lack imagination…”
              – Mark Twain

              • longshotlouie

                Yepper, ….. smells of desperation.

                Hit the books.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

                  Dude,

                  Sorry if I rain on your parade. I know how Ron Paul supporters consider him God. They worship the ground he walks on.

                  You know, kind a’ like how the fake 99% crowd used to adore Obama.

                  Dude, he made millions of dollars by selling pamphlets full of racist crap. He later said he was unaware of what he had put his name to. FYI, he kept the money.

                  Like I said, he is worshiped like Obama.

                  You all have a very real awaking ahead of you.

                • longshotlouie

                  Now you sound really desperate.

                  That was mighty Leftist of you.

                • v1ctorsag3

                  When all other arguments fail, there’s always the race card. Right?

                • http://profile.yahoo.com/Z55Z6NCFF6JWJAIQ5SGRXPDEHI tc

                  You are all stupid Listen to what he says and don’t take the media for their input on him I’d rather have a man than a crook or a liar he’s straight on his word and believe in the constitution everyone else running doesn’t believe in the constitution but I’m sorry I don’t think one man should control my freedoms like Obama and Romney favor (patriot ndaa) open your eyes and quit being ignorant

                • v1ctorsag3

                  I’m sorry, I can’t make sense of what you just posted.

                • John_Frank

                  You are all stupid.

                  What a great way to win friends and influence people. Not.

                • http://www.facebook.com/ziddan127 Daniel Zid

                  You are not raining, politics are so sided with ideas of what is right or wrong, Paul is the man who is raining and the deeper we go into the storm…the more it will rain, just saying and learn what freedom is? p.s. he is not God, just a man who has been doing this government diplomacy longer then Obama has been alive, ‘He is worshiped like Obama’, maybe because he speaks truth, come on, again just saying, peace brother, feel free to choose your own beliefs but wake the f-up.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

                  “wake the f-up.”

                  Ummm… speaking of waking up:

                  Barrack Obama was born in 1961. I’m highly confident that Ron Paul wasn’t part of the political scene at the time. He certainly wasn’t doing “diplomacy.”

                  But, Hey. It’s your story…you tell it….

                  By the way, as you so aptly put it. Ron Paul has been a part of this nonsense for a long time. And, he has never has been able to do much about it.

                  Great politician you all got going on there.

                  Thanks for the reminder ……

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Gillingham/100000454872422 William Gillingham

            Here is an analogy about Ron Paul ‘blaming’ America for 9/11…

            Say you burned down your neighbor’s garage and two weeks later they killed your wife. Now, I wouldn’t blame you for your wife’s murder – but the way you treated your neighbor did have a part to play in the episode.

            And that is what Ron Paul is saying about 9/11… we have to look at the way we treat these people to understand the way the treat us.

            Ignore it at your own peril.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

              That is a pretty bizarre analogy coming from someone who claims to support the Constitution.

              You example doesn’t hold water. Let me explain:

              Killing a man’s wife over a garage may explain the actions of a demented neighbor. But, it doesn’t place blame on anyone except the killer.

              Sorry, it doesn’t. At least it never should in a Constitutional Republic.

              • longshotlouie

                ‘Context’ is really tough for you, huh?

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

                  It’s your story. It’s your context. Duhhhh……..

                • longshotlouie

                  …. he said, while looking for an exit.

              • http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Gillingham/100000454872422 William Gillingham

                This isn’t a Constitutional question as you seem to suggest – it is simple logic.

                Yes – the neighbor was demented – and he took things too far… the murder is absolutely his fault… but it never would have happened if you hadn’t burned down his garage.

                You can’t relate the two? Try again.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

                  It would appear reasonable that according to your own story, the nature of the perp says that you don’t know all that might set him off.

                  He is either reasonable or he is not. Or, you need to explain yourself better. Your call.

                  But, really, I digress….If you cannot use your own story to make your own point then find one that does.

                  This is nonsense.

                • longshotlouie

                  Yepper, you definitely do digress.

                  Human nature tells us that if we poke a stick into a hornets nest long enough, we will get stung.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Gillingham/100000454872422 William Gillingham

                  Ha! I can’t make the story any simpler for you.

                  Though… you do admit to blowback in your reply: “the nature of the perp says that you don’t know all that might set him off” – yes – the blowback cannot be calculated.

                  I think the problem is you and your ilk are either perfectly comfortable with or totally ignorant of our actions overseas for the past 50 years. You probably think Thomas Jefferson would be in Iran right now building bases and killing Muslims if he were alive today. In fact, Jefferson’s inaugural address included:

                  “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.”

                  That doesn’t sound like isolationism to me… ALL NATIONS.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

                  Let me try again.

                  What you are groping around in search of is the classic “Hornet’s Nest” analogy.

                  In other words, “If you go around kicking at hornets, then what do you expect.”

                  Do I have this about right?

                  Here is why that is wrong:

                  If hornets are anywhere in the area and are capable of killing wives over garages, or better for our analogy: killing innocent women and children on buses, … then we are talking about whole new thing than just your standard garden variety hornet problem.

                  When this type of thing is being perpetrated on your citizenry, here is how you handle it:

                  We track down all their nests and exterminate all the Hornets willing to create such mayhem.

                  Get it?

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1185633984 Jacque Esslinger

                  Thomas Jefferson tried to talk peace first. That’s the same thing Ron Paul has said. Talk first. Me thinks you have been listening to the left media too much. Do the research yourself. Do not depend on the media. They want Obama to win to be become a socialist state.

                  In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, then US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims’ hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

                  The Ron Paul Supporters are looney. They remind me of the Obama supporters when they tell us Obama was the greatest speaker and leader, ever, in the history of mankind..

                  Heck they were even willing to give him the “Peace Prize.”

                  Let us explain reality to you Ron Paul supporters: Ron Paul is no Thomas Jefferson.

                  Because, unlike Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson actually accomplished something before he took the Presidency.

                  On the the other hand: Ron Paul has been around, since like forever, and somehow escapes blame for all the nonsense.

                  The guy is either completely incompetent or crooked.

                  Your choice.

                • Damien Manier

                  I would use the following analogy:

                  A man walks into a bad neighborhood with his jewelry, expensive electronics, and cash clearly visible. Then he is robbed.

                  While the man is clearly the victim it is clear that he could have been more wise regarding his choices and probably avoided his circumstances.

                  While one could debate the “innocence” or good intentions of U.S. action in the Middle East. It seems pretty clear that they motivated members of Al Qaeda to attack us on 9/11. They were clearly the criminals and the people who died that day clearly the victims. But the actions did not happen in a vacuum and the unintended consequences of our best intentions, given the benefit of the doubt, should be considered openly and extensively.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

                  This is nonsense.

                  Let me explain some reality to you:

                  When you find someone willing to kill 1,000’s of innocent people, just because somebody else left their jewelry lying around …. get back to me.

              • longshotlouie

                Skippy, that was very Giuliani sounding.

                What ever happened to that guy?

              • Waldetto

                Paul never blames us or the government, he simply points out the motive. In all crimes, the police look for a motive, but with 911 they never did! Actually they did and it is buried deep in the 911 Commission Report, and it agrees with Paul’s point, but no one ever read that!

          • Par8tHd303

            Skip, I respect your views, but I want to correct a few of your details. Dr. Paul has never said America is responsible for 9/11. What he has said is 9/11 was cause by the American foreign policy of nation building. By having troops in Muslim countries for decades, even the CIA in the 9/11 commission report states “blowback” as the main cause of the terrorist attacks.

            He has also never stated Iran has “every right to secure nuclear weapons”. What he has said is Iran has every right to secure nuclear energy independence according to world treaties and the International Atomic Commission. They are two very different things.

            As someone born after the WWI it’s not possible for him to support the Southern States during the Civil War. As a libertarian, the individual rights of every person are to be protected. There is no labeling in which one group is more, or less, protected.

            I am a Ron Paul supporter, a supporter of the Constitution, and a defender of civil liberties. I DO get it, and I also GET the fact we need more people to stand up against disinformation and defamatory remarks against a man wanting to help EVERY American, to take our country back from politicians only in it for a power grab.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

              I respect people like you who stand up for the Constitution. Really I do.

              Please, I have no truck with you.

              I just want people to understand that there are much better ways to defend our country and the Constitution than following Ron Paul.

              Once again, there are many wings to Libertarian thought. There are people like Professor Walter Williams and others who have impeccable Libertarian credentials.

              They see, like many of us see, that Ron Paul is a nut job and should never be anywhere close to being in power.

              IMHO, your problem is not with your views. I honor your views. You state them very well. Your problem (if I may speak bluntly) is with Ron Paul.

              The sooner his followers figure that out … the better.

              • longshotlouie

                It is obvious that the path that we are on is leading us off the cliff. Paul is pointing back to the direction that the founders set for us.

                What, exactly, is your problem with that?

                p.s. When will you give up the ad-homs?

                • longshotlouie

                  [crickets chirping]

              • v1ctorsag3

                Williams supports Paul’s economic policies

                And, he doesn’t think Paul is racist.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

                  Dude,

                  I support many of Ron Paul’s views concerning Economics. And, I never called him racist.

                  I said, and it is the truth, that Ron Paul made millions selling racist literature.

                  FYI, Prof. Williams is not going to be supporting Ron Paul. He didn’t do so there. He said he knew Ron Paul and thought he was a good guy.

                  He didn’t support him for President. Funny how you left that part out.

                • longshotlouie

                  Ron Paul made millions? Do you have a reference for that statement?

                  The ‘racist’ charge has long been debunked. Even the New York Times posted a retraction.

                • longshotlouie

                  [crickets chirping]

                • v1ctorsag3

                  No one said Williams supports Paul for presidency. You said Williams thinks Paul is a “nut job and should never be anywhere close to being in power”.

                  Even the chairman of the Federal Reserve has power; and the current one is a post turtle.

                  Why would one say they support a person’s economic views and still call them a “nut job”?

                  Sounds to me like some people just want to start arguments for the sake of starting arguments. Which I have no problem with, because I like them (for some reason). But one should not make statements they cannot defend without completely changing their stance.

                • Waldetto

                  “selling racist literature”? Ha, there’s about 10 lines that come from about 3 issues of a newsletter that went out every month for over 12 years! 8 of those lines are in one article that has been proven to NOT have been written by Paul. Hardly racist literature. And several of those lines are borderline not even racist, I have heard worse on mainstream TV programming. By the way, unlike Romney, Paul actually has many, many black supporters.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

                  “There are about 10 lines in 3 issues”

                  Oh, trust me. There are more. But, let us start here:

                  “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” ”
                  -Ron Paul Newsletter

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

                  And, of course there is more:

                  “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”
                  — Ron Paul Newletter

                • Waldetto

                  And your point is?? Is the percentage exaggerated? Do you have proof that it is off? Have you actually researched when the riots ended, that statement happens to be true. Jay Leno has said similar before, and Paul didn’t even write this. Have you seen Romney “rapping” “Who Let The Dogs Out” with the black people? How condescending is that? Do you realize that Ron Paul has more African American supporters then all other Republican candidates combined times 10? Do you realize that Paul’s stance against judicial racism will do more for minorities then any other politician has ever offered, including Obama? Go to youtube and search “blacks for Ron Paul” and “blacks for Mitt Romney”, the first will give you more results then you can watch, the second NONE!

                • v1ctorsag3

                  Wow! Rewrite history, much?

                  You should apply for a job at the “Ministry of Truth” (1984 novel reference, for you high schoolers).

                • longshotlouie

                  INGSOC Rules!

                  lol

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

                  We don’t want to rewrite history. So, for you we will give you what Ron Paul’s Newsletter has to say about Marin Luther King Jr.: (And, remember. Ron Paul kept the money)

                  “As “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and who “seduced underage girls and boys.”
                  — Ron Paul Newsletter

                • v1ctorsag3

                  Yeah. I’m not referring to newsletters, and you know it.

                  Is your deck running low on race cards? I’ll give you all mine, since I never use them.

                  Who is “We”, by the way?

                • longshotlouie

                  He needs to get that race card laminated, as it must surely be tattered by now.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

                  So, what you are saying is that Ron Paul isn’t racist?

                  He just made his money that way? What’s a poor boy to do? Is that it?

                  OK, That’s really cool…Ummm…. I guess……

                  (And, they wonder why we tell the Ron Paul Supporters they are being played like a banjo…..)

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1185633984 Jacque Esslinger

              Ron Paul also said, if they do want war; Fight, Fight to win, Win and get out.
              We don’t need to rebuild, educate, control, dump in money.

              I don’t think Skip has truly done his research. Media bias is influencing many Americans.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1185633984 Jacque Esslinger

            “I believe that the strict and equal enforcement of the US Constitution is the best guarantee of human and civil liberties.” ~ Frederick Douglass

      • longshotlouie

        Skippy …. You really must detach yourself from the MSM teat. Ron Paul blew by 10% last year.

        See you in Tampa!

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

          He is a nut job who thinks we are to blame for 9/11.

          But, hey. If he still is asking for your money, and you are dumb enough to give.

          Who am I to stop you?

          He plays his supporters like $2 banjos. No doubt, they will line up in Tampa to “Bleat” the message….

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeremy-Boggs/1641078659 Jeremy Boggs

            So, having a military presence and actively intruding on politics in the middle east is not the reason for Muslims in the middle east to resort to religious extremism that ultimately led to 9/11?

            Hmm … I really wonder what really led to 9/11 then?

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

              Who really caused 9/11?

              Are you serious?

              Is this one of those chicken and egg things? Is that it? And, this is supposed to do what? Again?

              Ummm…. I’m pretty sure it was a bunch of killers who took over air planes and flew them into buildings……

              But, when Ron Paul supporters get together in a room with their bong, there is absolutely no telling what story will turn up …..

              • longshotlouie

                You really don’t have an argument, huh?

              • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeremy-Boggs/1641078659 Jeremy Boggs

                That is a great argument, I will take it into consideration … I’m sorry, what was the argument again? Your just pointing the finger spouting things Fox News likes to spout and accusing people that actually study history and understand it of making up false stories.

                9/11 was not just a bunch of killers. They believed that they were fighting a holy war against evil Americans. The question becomes who made them think we are evil? The answer is: We made them think that we are evil through a foreign policy of interventionism for the past 60 years.

                Seriously, please, for the sake of humanity go and study the conflicts in the middle-east of the past 60 years then come back here and try telling me that we made up a story of how 9/11 happened.

                • 2yves

                  Nobody mentioned that the Muslims want to wipe Christians and Jews off the face of the earth. We do have a right to self defence.

              • Mister_Adams

                When you have no reply do you always turn to insulting people? Please explain, then, the other theory of why “a bunch of killers took over air planes and flew them into buildings” if it wasn’t “Blowback” as defined by the CIA. “American Exceptionalism”? These guys hated America so much because it is so great, they toiled for years and struck because this country is great.

                Who is smoking the bong now?

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

                  Dude,

                  Go back to your bong and pretend that any other human being causes another to kill innocent children … if they aren’t either predisposed or forced to do it.

                  Your nonsensical excuses for providing cover to psychopathic killers is idiotic. Not to mention dangerous.

                  Learn that.

                • longshotlouie

                  Are there any innocent children in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, or Libya?

                • longshotlouie

                  [crickets chirping]

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1185633984 Jacque Esslinger

                That comment was really uncalled for. I think it is you sir on drugs. When all else fails, resort to lies and fairy tales.

          • longshotlouie

            That Look/Say method of reading has let you down. Not to mention your reliance on linear thinking.

            Paul blames Big Gov and the MIC for 9-11, not ‘we’.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

              So what you are saying is that he doesn’t blame “we” so I shouldn’t take it personally.

              But, rather it is “big government” who is at fault, and that has nothing to do with the proverbial “we” or “me” or “you”.

              Is that it?

              OK, then answer me this: If this has nothing to do with any of us or we or you …. then why is it that you all railing against big government all the time?

              I mean, is this the “we” thing? Or, the “not we” thing?

              How about, you take another hit and get back to us…..

              • longshotlouie

                [Fired it up ...... Exhaled]

                Check your grammar and spelling, again, and get back to us.

              • v1ctorsag3

                I think Regan said it best. Short, sweet, and to the point:

                • longshotlouie

                  He also said, “…. I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

                • v1ctorsag3

                  Don’t use that “L” word here!

                • longshotlouie

                  It was good enough for Ronny.

              • longshotlouie

                Thanks for the edit. Now I can almost understand.

                ‘We’ are not the government. We are the governments master.

                Think deeper.

      • Mister_Adams

        Skip,

        If Ron Paul supporters were to take over the Republican Party and change it from the inside to embrace their views (Ron Paul’s views) just like the Neo-Cons did with the Tea Party, wouldn’t that be something?

        Don’t blink! There’s a storm brewing. You might even call it a Revolution.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Dias/1680711668 Chris Dias

      I would vote for Ron Paul over Mitt.

  • Sober_Thinking

    Well, I never thought I’d utter these words… but I would almost prefer Ron Paul over Romney. At least Ron Paul is VERY conservative on many subjects – even though he’s crazy on a couple too. I’m not trying to tick anyone off… Neither of these candidates would be my first pick and frankly, I’m not even close to feeling good about either. But Ron Paul IS the U.S. Constitution in some respects and his financial plans are really good. Romney is way too moderate for my tastes and he campaigns like a Democrat. So, this is a toss up for me.

    But I do know this, if they split the voters who stand against the current despot-and-chief… then America is done. We have to unite behind the non-Obama candidate. And if Ron Paul loses and then runs 3rd party… he better leave the country because many people will likely be after him. And I’d cheer them on.

    • longshotlouie

      Yepper, …. We can’t have people voting their conscience. Let’s form a posse.

      Nice cheerleading for the status quo.

      • Sober_Thinking

        Lol! A posse would have been nice…

        I agree with you in spirit. I don’t want to vote for Romney. I don’t want to vote for Ron Paul. But to write in Duncan Hunter’s name, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Allen West, or even Mark Levin or Bill Whittle’s name is throwing away a vote. It’s like fighting a war with no bullets. If Americans don’t unite behind ONE person this election, Obama wins and America loses BIG TIME.

        Consider this… there is going to be rampant voter fraud anyway. All the moochers will vote for Obama anyway. Most of the blacks, Hispanics, gays, Jews, and all the liberals, Socialists, progressives, unions, Hollywood, etc. will vote for Obama. We need EVERY single vote we can muster against this monster. In 2016, we will have the luxury to vote our conscience – not this year (and not in 2008). A vote for anyone other than the clear contender to Obama is throwing your vote into the street. It serves NO purpose. The GOP establishment won’t get the message and Obama will be laughing all the way to 4 more.

    • Jim McClarin

      When you say “he’s crazy on a couple too” I think you mean he has said things you disagree with. By that measure we are all crazy since no two of us agree completely.

      The thing about Ron Paul is that he is very well-read, he’s a deep thinker and a writer, and he has studied a great many issues from a number of angles for years. When he says something that sounds crazy, chances are it’s just a sound-bite pulled from a well-developed philosophical position that he’s detailed in clear English in one of his books. Why do you suppose Ron Paul’s intellectual revolution is growing? It’s because once they really look into what he is saying they discover someone who’s thinking they respect and who is unlike any other politician. There are very few FORMER Ron Paul supporters.

      You should read one of Paul’s bestselling books dealing with political philosophy and economic/monetary policy. Then you will see that “crazy” is a poor label indeed.

      • Sober_Thinking

        Jim, you make a good point. I’ve learned to respect Ron Paul more and more as I’ve learned about his positions and beliefs. I also respect the passion his followers have for him.

        I’m not going to list all my grievances against this man but I’ll mention two things. I think his stance on Iran or any other terrorist nation trying get a nuke is dead wrong. We can debate the finer points but I think he’s making a big mistake by standing by as they go nuclear. And as a veteran, I can’t understand why anyone would cut our military budget when the world grows more dangerous every single day. Can we be more efficient with our funds, absolutely. Legalizing drugs, dealing with illegals… those are other discussions.

        I’m about 80% there with Ron Paul. It’s the 20% that I’m STRONGLY opposed to. I apologize, “crazy” was inappropriate. Thank you for your response.

      • 2yves

        I agree. The RNC and media would like us to think he is crazy. The RNC is dead to me. We need to do our own research on Ron Paul and on any other who is willing to stick their neck out for us.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

    Is it okay to like Ron Paul on here now?

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      NO!

      :-)

    • sDee

      :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Cheeseman/100000710503508 John Cheeseman

      If that is your candidate Jim, then emphatically “yes”. Your choice is just as important, just a valuable as anyone else’s. As for me, it’s Ron Paul or no one at all, though sober_thinking makes a very good point as far as that line of thinking goes. My thoughts on Obama are that he does not need to be beated in an election, he needs to be beated period. Arrested for the fraud he is not to mention the many and continuing violations of the Constitution he swore to uphold, but then again he was holding the Koran as well which makes lying okay in his tiny brain.

    • MikeBri527

      It’s never been OK to like Ron Paul on this board. Take it from me. I’ve been a Ron Paul supporter for years. Anytime I tried to talk about him on this board all I got was insults, lies, distortions, and the usual anti Ron Paul talking points.

      Yeah, The Right Scoop replied no with a cute little smiley face….great. If you really try and start an honest dialog about Ron Paul on this board, be prepared for the vitriol.

      Don’t get me wrong I am about as anti Obama as they come. I cannot believe that the people of this country actually believed this man and somehow with all the historical evidence against it believe that “spreading the wealth” and “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” are going to be good things.

      Just FYI and for whatever it’s worth, I’ve made 179 comments on this board and have received 424 likes so I think that says that I do share some of the opinions with others on this board.

      This board is not a board for Libertarians. It is a board for what I would call neo-cons. Those that complain about “the welfare state” proposed by the left, democrats, progressives, etc. but have no problem backing “the warfare state” proposed by Republicans, conservatives, etc. To me they’re two sides of the same coin. They’re both designed by the politicians to say to the citizens of the US that we need them to either provide for us (the welfare state) or to protect us (the warfare state) or both as they take more and more of our liberties, freedoms, and money and claim more and more power and control over us.

      If I had said this on any other post but this one, my in-box would’ve been flooded with the vitriolic e-mails from most of the people on this board. It probably won’t happen now because I said it here.

      • Waldetto

        Those that complain about “the welfare state”

        You mean like GWB’s Senior Prescription Drug Program? The largest entitlement give away in 40 years!

        • longshotlouie

          And doubling the size of the DoE ……..

          • MikeBri527

            Yes, another expansion of the Federal Government’s welfare state under GWB.

        • MikeBri527

          OK fine…you are correct.

          Then republicans, conservatives, etc. under GWB were the party / people of BOTH the welfare AND warfare states. Either way, it just helps to reinforce my point.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1185633984 Jacque Esslinger

          YEP.. and more

  • Sober_Thinking

    To sDee:

    I agree with you. If Ron’s run does nothing else but straighten Romney out (assuming he wins the nomination), then this is a good thing.

    • Garym

      Ron Paul supporters will NEVER support anyone but Ron Paul in the Republican party. After he loses, they will either write him in or vote for Gary Johnson.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

        I think you are loosing the focus on what the Ron Paul people want. We want Obama out. I, personally, will not vote third party, nor will I vote for Gary. If worst comes to worst, then so be it, I will vote for the Mittster.

        • v1ctorsag3

          Good example of what’s wrong with our two party system, right there.

          Too many people are willing to compromise on their principles.

          • John_Frank

            Perhaps, but today that is what we are working with.

            The very essence of the Republican is at risk if Obama wins re-election.

            http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/05/10/wall-street-insider-economic-doom-to-follow-obama-re-election/

            So, if the person you support for the Republican nomination does not win, you get behind the ultimate nominee.

            However, until the nomination is decided, the Paul campaign is proceeding within the rules and pushing to maximize the number of delegates at the convention, so that even if Paul does not win the nomination, the nominee’s feet are held to the fire.

            That is why a lot of supporters of other candidates (and even non-candidates such as Sarah Palin) are working with the Paul campaign.

            Even after the nomination is decided and once the election is over, if the Republican nominee wins, you continue to hold that person’s feet to the fire.

            P.S. I agree with Paul on the fiscal issues and the economy. I understand his analysis viz foreign affairs, but I disagree with some of his analysis and the resulting conclusions.

            • longshotlouie

              Appreciate your rationale.

              One thing that we know for certain, the current path is unsustainable.

              We either make a bold change, or we go the way of every previous republic.

              • John_Frank

                One thing that we know for certain, the current path is unsustainable.

                We either make a bold change, or we go the way of every previous republic.

                Agreed.

            • v1ctorsag3

              I think the very essence of the Republican (principles) is at risk if a big government candidate wins the GOP nod.

              I’m not tied to the Republican Party’s unspoken rule, so I’ll vote for whomever I feel best represents my values and principles. And, honestly, if more people did the same (Independents, Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats), the US would be better off in every aspect.

              No one forces a person to vote for the party they are registered with. For some reason, people feel that since they are part of a team, they have to vote down the party line or they are somehow dooming the world. It’s not quite that dramatic; these voters are just dooming their own principles.

            • 2yves

              Maybe we can all agree on another republican who is also a conservative with libertarian leanings who is not handpicked by the establishment like Sarah Palin. She can bring us all together. We should make sure her name gets on the second ballot.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

            (had to work, sry for the late reply)

            I understand the problem, and I would hate to be part of the problem, however, if for some reason Ron goes third party, all this garnishes is a second term for Obama. To me, that is a problem. I don’t want Obama in office for 4 more years(and that is baring he doesn’t just become a dictator before that term ends), and I sure don’t want a RINO in office either. That said, if I were to vote my heart(and conscience), and that person garnishes a mere 9%(high mark for a third party holder), and lets say Obama hangs onto the 46% or so he is at now, that leaves the RINO party with about 43%, giving Obama a second term. I couldn’t live with myself knowing a Marxist is in office with the chance to turn us into the next Pre-WWII Germany. My principles state that Obama is worse than the RINO Mitt, and couldn’t live with knowing that this country had a chance to slow down the demise, and didn’t do it. And yes, I know Mitt will only slow down the demise, giving us at least a shot at fixing things 4 years from now(baring we have a pure candidate).

            Currently, I am voting Ron Paul, everyone here(I am pretty sure) knows this of me. I have not hidden from this fact. I will be voting Ron at my elections coming up soon. I would love for more to get out of the LSM’s perception of Ron, and actually point out where the gubmint has the right to do just half of what it is, and provide me with facts that what Ron says is BS. So far, I haven’t been able to uphold 70% of the bureaucratic offices when I search through the Constitution, nor have I been able to find where the President can issue war edicts or other imposing ideas on the people the way the last 4 Presidents have. And the reason for only 70%, cause I gave up understanding RINO thought. They call for smaller gubmint, but they impose just as much as a big gubmint, just in smaller increments. Congress is to blame as well, as they are allowing this President to do their job for them, or not, and say nothing to the contrary.

            I hope you understand this Victor, cause I am a libertarian(ooooh, scary), and will do what I can with those who promote true Constitutional Conservatism.

        • http://twitter.com/digthat27 T Ebeling

          Never that.

          • John_Frank

            So Paul’s supporters want to participate in the Republican party, but if they do not get their way, they are going to take their ball and go home?

            With that attitude, it is understandable that the Republican party would be somewhat guarded.

            • longshotlouie

              Good try, Mr. Frank. We want to take the party back to it’s roots, not participate in it’s current form which (results wise) is barely distinguishable from the Democratic Party.

              • John_Frank

                We want to take the party back to it’s roots,

                … No, Paul’s supporters want to move the party in a different direction.

                At least that is my understanding.

                • longshotlouie

                  Exactly, ….. back to it’s roots.

                  The MSM likes to call it ‘hijacking’ when, in fact, it is the passengers taking it back from the hijackers.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  John, Paul supporters(such as myself) don’t want to “move the party in a different direction”, so much as, correct its current course. The course in which it is headed now, is that of the Democrat party. The Republican Party hasn’t represented Republican ideas in quite some time now. They speak the party platform(smaller, less intrusive gubmint), but they act as Democrat-lite. They never reduce, they just try to manage it better than the guy before them. This is the problem. We need the Republican Party to become Republican again, otherwise, third parties are gonna become much more popular. Republican will become the Progressive Party(thanks Teddy), and then only true, die in the wool Libertarians are gonna come out and form their own party, resulting in Democrats winning for the foreseeable future. This isn’t to scare anyone, but pay attention to what is going on. How many of our candidates(Republican) claimed to be Progressive?

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1185633984 Jacque Esslinger

              No. We are not going to take the ball and go home. We stayed after 2008 and got stronger. We stayed after 2010 and got stronger. What makes you think we will cave? All we ever asked for was a seat at the table. Instead, the Republican Party said NO!. We are part of the team. It’s the Republican Party that does not play like a team. It is their way or the highway. Now, does that sound like team work to you? Not to me. The Republican Party has the problem not the Ron Paul supporters. If we are treated fairly, we can all play together. Why cheat, lie and steal? What is it the Party fears? I just don’t understand.

              • John_Frank

                Depends on whom you listen too.

                I keep hearing if Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee, we are taking our ball and going home.

                At the same time, I agree with you that many people are not going to take their ball and go home, but rather want to reform the Republican party from within.

                That written, my understanding is that the old guard, many of whom have been in power for too long, do feel threatened, are not prepared to give up power and will do everything to thwart these efforts.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1185633984 Jacque Esslinger

                  It is this power that will bring down the Republican Party. Have you looked at the “power”? They are getting up in age and are not bringing in the YRC group. They even fear their own from within. Power like that only hurts us all. If this is the case, look to the future and see the Republican Party becoming just another arm of the Democrat Party. They are both the same, just changing the verbiage.

                • John_Frank

                  It is this power that will bring down the Republican Party.

                  Dick Lugar. Nice man. Too long. Time to go.

                  They are getting up in age and are not bringing in the YRC group.

                  Agree. A lot of people are upset and concerned.

                  Power like that only hurts us all. If this is the case, look to the future and see the Republican Party becoming just another arm of the Democrat Party.

                  The social consensus which existed has broken down. The economic model which worked in the past is no longer working. We have lost faith in our institutions. We are in a time of transition.

                  The economic data is distorted to make the situation look better than it really is. Living standards are falling. We are in a long war. We are hurtling towards a financial debacle.

                  All that written, we do have a guide. We can see our way forward if we follow that guide. I am talking about the the Federalist papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Common Sense and common sense.

                  As to Representative Paul, he has put together an interesting coalition.

                  I have issues with some of the domestic and foreign policies.

                  On the foreign policy side, I understand the connection between fighting a series of wars, while involved in nation building and paying for that effort through deficit financing. Wrong. We need to bring those efforts to an end.

                  We need to change to a Jeffersonian foreign policy perspective and act in our self interest accordingly.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

            read my reply to victor, i think it may help in the understanding of my ideas.

      • asphere99

        Most Ron Paul supporters will not support Gary Johnson’s bid for the White House (too liberal). Ron Paul has repeatedly said he has no plans to run as a third party candidate. Unlike most politicians, you can definitely take Ron Paul at his word.

        The commentators above are correct that Mitt Romney would be wise to embrace the Ron Paul supporters if he is to have any chance at defeating Barack Obama this November. Ron Paul supporters and Mitt Romney supporters both agree that our country can ill afford to suffer under another four years of Barack Obama.

        The extent to which Ron Paul supporters are able to hold Mitt Romney’s feet to the fire is a good thing for the Republican Party and a good thing for our country. The efforts of the Ron Paul contingent should be embraced by all conservative Republicans.

        I hope to see you all in Tampa!

        • c4pfan

          Too liberal? I don’t see any difference.

          • longshotlouie

            More research is definitely in order.

        • Jim McClarin

          I agree. Probably no more than 25% of Paul supporters will vote Libertarian. That will still be a record vote for the Libertarian Party.

      • Sober_Thinking

        Yeah… I fear you’re right. Without EVERYONE’S support, Obama gets 4 more years. And America is done.

        • Garym

          Our ultimate goal should be to defeat Obama and his socialist agenda. We can still be principled and hold a president Willard’s feet to the fire, if he gets elected. I appreciate the Ronulans work to make sure Mittens keeps to conservative principles, but if they are doing it to cause chaos, I’m going to call them out.

  • Trust1TG

    Let’s just hope someone – Newt, Paul, Palin or Santorum – rescues the Republican party from disgusting socialist liberal pretend conservatives Romney, Christie, the Bushes and their ilk – and that no one in the TEA Party ever listens to Coulter and Drudge again.

    • sDee

      We can support them but we, the people, have got to do it. We can never give up. We have to teach our children and grandchildren. We are America’s last chance.

    • 2yves

      I trust Ron Paul more than I trust Mitt Romney. I’ll take a Paul/Palin or Palin/Paul ticket.

  • marketcomp

    Well, it appears that Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan was unaware of this. All I heard from Marco Rubio and others was that Santorum and Newt need to get out of the race because Romney had it sewn up. Well then, it appears that it’s not the case and Rubio’s and Ryan’s endorsements may not have been instrumental in obfuscating a brokered convention after all because they ignored Ron Paul’s parliamentary tactics.

  • BostonBruin

    It’s quite clear that the Paul supporters have been planning this take-over for a couple of years. They didn’t get this organized and educated on each state’s GOP convention rules overnight.

    However, I don’t think they would have gone thru this enormous effort just to influence Romney’s platform. Some of them have boldly stated that they want to force an open convention. The RNC rules are a little confusing with respect to whether or not a bound delegate can abstain in the first round of voting, but I think the Paul supporters know the rules inside and out.

    Should be an interesting few months and then a very intense convention in Tampa.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-Newby/100001436954909 Joe Newby
  • johnos2112

    Civil War may be here before the election. It sure as hell will be here if Obama gets back in!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1185633984 Jacque Esslinger

    Constitutional Conservative, excerpt from:The Essence of the Constitutional Conservative

    By Carl Koch

    A Constitutionalist is a person that believes the Constitution is the supreme “Law of the Land”. All other laws are and must be subordinate to it. As such we believe it defines the scope of the federal government and its relationship to the states and the people. Further, the Constitution is not a document that bestows powers and authority to the federal government; rather it places limits and restrictions on those powers and authority. Lastly, the Constitution codifies the qualifications and duties of those who govern.

  • PAWatcher

    Rep. Ron Paul is still standing and getting stronger, his followers are young, enthusiastic and ready to try to turn this country around. Romney and GOPe are fearful of a brokered convention, maybe Paul will give them a run for their money/Cain, Bachman, Ginrich, Perry and Santorum failed to stand……sounds like the American way to me…still standing/still fighting.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RMFSKGLFMQCN2KDAOBB2W3TM2Q Jewel

    Your blame of Paul supporters actually shows how lukewarm of a candidate Romney is. If he has such mass support, where are they and why aren’t they getting the delegates????

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_E4C65QOIQ4XH67F6MEHWTXGODY Alan

    I can’t support Ron Paul but I’m all for him getting the delegates. All he wants is a platform at the convention. I say more
    power to him.

  • puma_for_life

    An interview with Carol Paul… may be helpful;

  • http://twitter.com/OKSpeedy OKSpeedy

    The Paulbots I know say the reason they are working to amass so many delegates is for Ron Paul to be the nominee.

    If Ron Paul becomes the GOP nominee, Obama will win the election in November. It would not surprise me if Ron Paul is part of the NWO crowd and is masquerading as whatever it is that he claims to be.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Julie-Gannon/100000378054134 Julie Gannon

      according to the Rasmussen polls MSM won’t show you Ron Paul would win against Obama

    • longshotlouie

      Wow, …. Conspiracy Theories ….. Really?

    • http://twitter.com/timothy_strong Timothy Strong

      Really? I am so confused as to what information you’ve been looking at to make you believe this. The last two national polls shows Ron Paul beating Obama with Romney losing or tying with Obama. But, more importantly, where in the hell did you get the idea that Ron Paul, the man who for over 30 years has been a lone voice in congress AGAINST the NWO, the UN and a fiat money system, is actually somehow PART of the vast global conspiracy? And, not to put words in your mouth, but do you really think that ROMNEY, the most liberal republican governor from the most liberal state in the union, Mr. Goldman Sachs, Mr. government/corporate collusion, Mr. generic politician, actually is a conservative?

      What I really don’t get is that, as conservatives, we all KNOW that the MSM is bough and paid for by the state. Yet, when they target one man who stands out as different, they label a 74 year old country doctor as “DANGEROUS” and “INSANE” and tell us not to listen to him or else our world as we know it will end. They tell us “HE CAN NOT WIN” which is more of a plea for their very wretched existence, as in “Please God, don’t let him win, or else we will all be sent to the gallows as the traitors we are!” And yet, people like you draw absolutely no conclusion from this; that the one man that the MSM hates is the one man who can actually make a difference – is the one man we should fight along side.

      Ron Paul 2012, because he fights alone no more.

    • longshotlouie

      What about the Rombots?

  • MarxMarvelous

    It’s very simple. Romney loses outright to Obama, rather easily actually.
    Paul at least draws independents, civil rights and pro-marijuana legalization liberals, antiwar people from all political spectrums and sound money advocates. He’s even got blacks posting videos ALL over youtube, expounding his virtues. They’ve woken up to the smear campaign that the media has hoisted upon naive Americans.

    Strangely enough, the only group he doesn’t draw from are members of the pro-war, pro-banker, pro-police state “Neo-Con” right. True, Jeffersonian conservatives flock to his events in droves. In the past 2 months he’s drawn crowds of between 2500 and 9000 to different events all over the country. Romney can barely fill a restaurant. The question that people SHOULD be asking, is WHY ISN’T THE MEDIA BEING TRUTHFUL REGARDING THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND SHOWING VOTERS THESE EVENTS?

    It’s because the owners of the media corporations don’t want him. That alone should win your vote.

  • kervick

    These guys were superb

  • kervick

    Right on target

  • c4pfan

    Well, Ron Paul let Newt and Rick Santorum do the dirty work and he’s just using the system the Party set up. Just tells me how weak Mitt Romney is.

  • c4pfan

    As for Obama ‘losing’ to Ron Paul…why hasn’t Ron Paul won one state vs Romney then? Makes no sense.

    • longshotlouie

      You mean in the rigged straw polls?

      Why is he picking up so many delegates, the real measure of support?

      • c4pfan

        Nope. Just people that figured out how to play the system. Plus, Mitt is either too stupid or too weak to say anything or do anything about it.

        • longshotlouie

          Then, he’s fired!

        • http://twitter.com/timothy_strong Timothy Strong

          By “playing the system” do you mean follow the rules that were established in order for our government to run as a Republic and not a tyranny of the majority democracy? These have been the rules for ages because it promotes people who really care about the process to get involved and make informed decisions, rather than just taking 10 minutes to intelligently pull a level for someone because they recognize their name. The rules were not hidden, and anyone can participate. Mitt Romney cannot win delegates because no one likes him and when they learn of his real positions, they can’t vote for him. The only people Romney gets are the brain washed and those whose careers depend on him being the nominee. They have no interested in fighting for our freedom or preserving our Blessed Republic.

          • John_Frank

            The only people Romney gets are the brain washed and those whose careers depend on him being the nominee.

            That is not correct and besides it is not a winning argument. It is always a mistake to attack the intelligence of the voter.

            • longshotlouie

              Except for the Ron Paul voter?

              • John_Frank

                Good morning,

                LOL. I presume you are being sarcastic.

                It is best not to attack the intelligence of any voter in online discussions.

                (Of course, sometimes online discussions can become heated, and people will write things they would not say in face to face conversations.)

    • v1ctorsag3
    • Waldetto

      Because less then 1 in 7 Republicans vote in the primary and they are mostly older folks that get their news from the TV. Paul won 2 to 3 times the independents then Romney. Paul also appeals to some democrats because of his civil liberties positions. Paul also pulls in the young people, blacks, and Hispanics, many of whom are not registered Republican. Romney’s support is about an inch deep! Up to May 8th he was averaging 41% of primary voters WITH the media constantly droning on about how he was the chosen one. On May 8th, when the media made like there was no one else, he only reached the mid 60’s! Mitt’s rallies have more police and reporters than supporters, while Paul can draw 6000+ with little notice. In a stagnating economy with high unemployment, who would Obama rather run against? The aloof, impersonal, millionaire with ZERO enthusiasm behind him, or the guy with THRONGS of young supporters and a dedicated grass roots army the likes of which has never before existed in the history of the WORLD? Look at the conventions, that takes lots of dedicated people to start at the precinct through to the county, districts, and then to the state level. Lots of dedicated supporters WINS elections. The establishment is beginning to see that Paul wins, Romney loses, and they want to WIN!

      • longshotlouie

        c4pfan should also remember that the beauty contests (primaries) in many of these states happened months ago. Were those folks locked in on their choice, or are they allowed to change their minds?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Day/100000131629417 George Day

    We’ve already won, I know you’ve heard that before but, Rule 11b says Romney cannot be the nominee from any state the RNC helped him in, Rule 15b takes away the winner take all results in Fla and AZ, and then there’s this ruling by the RNC itself in 2008. http://www.fox19.com/story/18305604/reality-check-why-all-rnc-delegates-are-free-agents-and-unbound And if younow want you can go to youtube and find video evidence of how Mitt became the “presumptuous nominee” and a lot of other things the media never told you

    • longshotlouie

      ‘Presumptuous Nominee’!!!!

      I love it!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-DUrso/9410462 Matt D’Urso

    Skip,
    until my last combat deployment to Iraq I felt the same way that you did about the best ways to protect America. I assumed that flooding our strategic interests around the world with military assets would ensure economic and domestic security. However, this last time 09-10 there were less missions/patrols, and more time to do some critical thinking. First of all, there is know way in hell we spent four trillion dollars and shifted our entire ground forces from PACOM to CENTCOM for ten years if this war was about radical islam. The Gop establishment doesnt even make the argument (if we left there would be a vaccume of power filled by Iran/Turkey or as energy continues to get more and more scarce, having military bases in the countries with the 1 and 2 largest oil reserves is the only way to preserve the American standard of living. No, they continue to tell us that we are in danger of having a abbysaid caliphate spread across the face of the earth. Bottom line I cant think of any argument that justifies another preemptive war in the region. The waste over there is simply mind blowing!! The chairman of the joint chiefs stated that the largest national security threat to America is our sovereign debt. seriously, how are we going cancel the development of the f35 which would ensure our air superiority for decades to come but continue to station 2-3 carrier groups, rebuild entire countries, and maintain tens of thousands of combat troops for QRF… all the while having the majority of our already exhausted light infantry units in a perpetual stale mate with the pashtuns one of the worlds largest ethnic tribes. who bye the way, defeated 500,000 soviets, defied alexander the great, carry an AK from the time they can walk. They cant shoot worth a shit but tactically you would think they had gone to ranger school. Why are we there? Turn off hannity and oreilly for a week. Our foreign policy, economy, and attacks on our liberties are intrinsically linked man…

    • longshotlouie

      BAM!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Skip-Thompson/100000245516633 Skip Thompson

      I don’t support the war in Afghanistan as we are dong it. It is rapidly becoming a boondoggle.

      But, I also don’t pretend that Ron Paul is the only one pointing this out.

      By the way. Ron Paul voted to go to war in Afghanistan. I guess that “Declaring War” thing only goes so far for a strict Constitutionalists like Ron Paul.

      • longshotlouie

        He voted to go after OBL in Afghanistan, not to spend a decade and a trillion dollars there.

        • John_Frank

          Let’s read the resolution which Congress (including Representative Paul) voted in favor off:

          http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

          “Authorization for Use of Military Force
          September 18, 2001

          Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

          107th CONGRESS

          JOINT RESOLUTION

          To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

          Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

          Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

          Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

          Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

          Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

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

          SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

          This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force’.

          SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

          (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

          (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

          (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

          (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

          Approved September 18, 2001. ”

          That resolution is extremely broad and very open ended.

          People are unhappy with how the Bush and Obama administrations have exercised that authority, along with the appropriations authorized by Congress and the laws passed in furtherance of that authorization.

          … Ultimately, that is why we have elections.

      • recon2323

        His vote was to give the pres. authorization to hunt down and kill those responsible for the murdering thousands of Americans. Tragically, the Bush administration completely dropped the ball in tora boro, and decided to invade Iraq… Paul pauls argues consistently that when apply military force, it must be done with a clear objective and with overwhelming force. For instance, when asked what he would do if a south American country seized the panama cannal. “I would take a look at the intel, get a declaration of war from congress win it and come home” . I don’t know if his solutions the absolute best, but right now we are following the same pattern we used before the iraq invasion. encirclement, economic sanctions, convince the american people. Oooorr just wait until we are all real pissed off about something again.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1185633984 Jacque Esslinger

        The point being…..Declare war, fight to win, get out. Do not rebuild the country. Do not stay and spend my tax dollars when they are needed in the US.

    • John_Frank

      FWIIW, IMV the Obama administration’s foreign and domestic economic policies, along with the continued degradation of our civil liberties in the pursuit of those policies are worse than those of the Bush administration.

      • recon2323

        Thanks for the link on the 2001 vote frank, and I stand corrected about exactly what it was He voted for. I think this is what he means when he talks about the need to have a clear objective coinciding w/ overwhelming force and come home. We cant afford to have a perpetual military presence in every place congress votes to take action in.

        • John_Frank

          Welcome. Paul is not the only one talking about having much clearer objectives, no more nation building, etc. Whatever we do, no more deficit financing.

  • John_Frank

    There has been some discussion about the views of Dr. Walter Williams towards Representative Ron Paul.

    People might find this interview of interest:

    Walter Williams on the Tyranny of the Majority, the US Federal Budget and Free-Market Thinking
    http://thedailybell.com/1259/Walter-Williams-on-the-Tyranny-of-the-Majority-the-US-Federal-Budget-and-Free-Market-Thinking.html

    Some key points from the interview, for the purpose of this discussion:

    Daily Bell: Can you give us some background? Can you identify any influences early in life that pointed you toward classical liberalism? Were you influenced by the American exponents of the Austrian school, such as Murray Rothbard?

    Walter Williams: No, I was not. And if I can identify anybody, it was Thomas Payne, who wrote Common Sense, which I have read a number of times. It was a pamphlet that Thomas Payne wrote to rally the American Colonies to rebel against the Crown.

    Daily Bell: Would you characterize yourself as conservative, a libertarian or something else?

    Walter Williams: If pushed to choose between the two, I would say libertarian. But I call myself a Jeffersonian liberal. Today the people who call themselves liberals are for the most part fascists. I think libertarians need to take back the meaning of “liberal,” because liberal means free. For today’s so-called liberals, personal freedom is the last thing on their mind.

    Daily Bell: What do you think of anarcho-libertarianism as championed by Rothbard?

    Walter Williams: Well, I think his ideas are very good. I met him a number of times and had nothing but respect for him.

    Daily Bell: What do you think of Dr. Ron Paul and his impact on the sociopolitical conversation?

    Walter Williams: Ron Paul and I are friends and longtime associates. I agree with Ron Paul on most matters, but we part company on issues of foreign policy. I believe in a strong defense, and I believe there are circumstances that call for pre-emptive attack on people who would do us harm.

    Daily Bell: What is the difference between a conservative and neo-conservative, if any?

    Walter Williams: (Laughing) I don’t know. But conservatives, neo or otherwise, and liberals all believe it’s all right for government to take the property of one person and give it to another. They prove H.L. Mencken’s definition of an election as “…an advance auction on the sale of stolen property.” Liberals believe in taking your money and giving it to poor people and poor cities. Conservatives believe in taking your money and giving it to farmers, banks and airlines. They both agree on taking our money, but they disagree on who should get it.

    ….

    [On that point, read this article on how the GOP has thrown away the issue of crony capitalism – http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gop-joins-obama-embracing-crony-capitalism/531836

    Daily Bell: Was George Bush a good president? Was he conservative? Are there any good presidents?

    Walter Williams: Well my hero of all presidents, at least modern day presidents, is Grover Cleveland. He was the “Veto King.” He vetoed more legislation than all presidents before him combined. His veto message to Congress often was that “this is not authorized by the United States Constitution.” We don’t hear presidents today vetoing acts of Congress because they are not authorized by the Constitution.

    Few people appreciate how serious our Founding Fathers were about the Constitution. For example, James Madison is considered the Father of the Constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for the relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, saying “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

    Now if you look at the federal budget, two-thirds to three-quarters of it is for benevolence, and it’s been the same under all recent Presidents. Whether you are talking about foreign subsidies, bank bailouts, welfare programs, food stamps, Medicare or prescription drugs. There is no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving the government the money; the only way the government can give one American citizen one dollar is to first take it from some another American. I think it’s despicable. It’s legalized theft.

    Daily Bell: What is your opinion on America’s present condition? Is it like Rome in the empire days?

    Walter Williams: Yes. Rome? Spain? Portugal? France? They all went down the tubes for precisely the same reason. Bread and circuses! In 1892, if someone had suggested during Queen Victoria’s Jubilee that England would become a 3rd-world power and be challenged on the high seas by a 6th-rate power such as Argentina, he would have been put into an insane asylum. But the British Empire went down the tubes for precisely what we are doing in our country now – what we have been doing for the past 50 years. Bread and circuses and big-government spending.

    Daily Bell: How do you se the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

    Walter Williams: Our “intelligence” said that Suddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That turned out to be false. But the question we have to ask is which kind of mistake is more costly? We assumed he had weapons WMDs when in fact he did not. But we might have assumed he lacked WMDs when in fact he did. I think the latter kind oferror is more costly. Keep in mind that intelligence is fraught with error. This is one of the reasons the Allies spent so much time and effort trying to defeat Hitler before defeating Japan. Our intelligence said that the Germans were close to having nuclear weapons. But after the war, we found that they were nowhere nearly as close as we had thought.

    In terms of the war and what is going on now, if I were President, I would have toppled the Iraq regime and left. I wouldn’t be involved in nation building. As far as Iran is concerned, and my libertarian friends get upset with me about this, I think that if Iran gets any nuclear weapons it would be very dangerous for the world. But I would not send a single troop there. I would call Ahmadinejad and say, “We know where your facilities are; we have a Trident submarine off your coast; tell your people to get out, because at 10:00 pm two days from now we are going to start destroying your facilities.”

    Read the rest of the interview. Dr. Bell has some good thoughts on the Federal Reserve.

    http://thedailybell.com/1259/Walter-Williams-on-the-Tyranny-of-the-Majority-the-US-Federal-Budget-and-Free-Market-Thinking.html

    When some Ron Paul supporters suggest that the neo-cons tooks over the tea party movement, they are mistaken. Rather, IMV what transpired is that by and large Representative Paul’s views on foreign policy were found wanting.

    P.S. I find myself in strong agreement with Dr. Bell.

    • recon2323

      I don’t want the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon either, and neither does Ron Paul. I disagree w/ the good doctor when he says “I Toppled saddam and gotten out”. Iraq was a huge strategic blunder. Something our arab allies begged and pleaded with us to consider before the 03 invasion. The obvious reason is because the saudis and jordanian’s new of Iran’s desire for hegemony in the reason. We basically handed over the entire shia south to Iran.

      • John_Frank

        Something our arab allies begged and pleaded with us to consider before the 03 invasion.

        At the time of the start of the Iraqi war, our intelligence services thought that:

        – Iraq had WMD

        – Libya was looking at acquiring WMD

        – Iran was working towards obtaining a nuclear bomb.

        The Saudis did not oppose the action taken. However, what they suggested was that after the invasion, we parole the Iraqi Army. Bremmer refused and the rest is history.

        People forget that as a result of the Iraqi invasion, the Libyans abandoned their plans to obtain WMD, which were very advanced and the Iranians temporarily suspended their efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon, sending out peace feelers, which the Bush administration did not consider credible.

        Also, lets not forget that the Iraqi invasion was authorized by a resolution of Congress.

        • recon2323

          ‘We think war is going to be a tremendous threat to the region… We think that, especially if it doesn’t come through the United Nations’ authority, that it would be a dangerous thing to do”

          “There has never been in the history of the world a country in which a regime change happened at the bayonets of guns that has led to stability.”
          Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal
          http://www.therightscoop.com/ronulan-rnc-invasion-will-ron-paul-supporters-invade-the-gop-convention/#comment-526109831

          you mean wmd’s biological or chemical weapons right? because after Israel destroyed their nuclear reactor (which by the way was overwhelming condemned by both U.S parties w/the exemption of Paul who supported Israels right to defend themselves) the intel was that Iraq had made no significant advances towards to aquisition of nuclear capabilities since.

          please look into that a little more… In colin powell’s auto biography he recounts numerous meetings while sec of state, with the saudi royal family telling us that we have handed over iraq to the Persians….I believe that is the source and there are thousands more, but even if there wasnt and your statement above is 100 % correct. There is no way it can be cited as justification for the lives and treasure lost…. Iran, by the way offered to let us use their airspace to attack al qaedas network in afghanistan following 9/11, so obviously we responded by putting them in infamous “axis of evil”. please look into those statements…. I don’t know much about lybias wmd so, Ill do the same.

          I think we are both missing the big picture, and that is can we really afford to maintain and even expand our military posture around the globe which has been current policy of both parties…. all in the name of hoping to deter other countries from seeking wmds. I cant support that policy. The real threat to our national security is not be able to afford weapons systems that give us air superiority, unquestioned dominion of the seas. Our credit rating is the lowest it has ever been, and unemployment at all time highs, and is being trumphed in priority by the desperate campaign for war against Iran. I am happy to see with cnn ratings down 50 percent and fox down we know that something isnt right here.

          • John_Frank

            A couple of comments:

            – No link for the quote of the Saudi Foreign Minister.

            My recollection is that the Saudis were playing both sides.

            An attack on Iraq was not popular with the Saudi people. So for public consumption purposes the King and his people took the public stance of no intervention without UN Security Council approval.

            At the same time, the Kingdom was telling the Bush Administration, yes we will allow you to use our bases to get rid of Saddam Hussein and in fact the Saudi’s had been allowing the US to their bases to enforce existing Security Council Resolutions.

            In October, 2002 Congress passed and the President signed into law:

            Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

            The recitals make for an interesting read.

            After the passage of UN Security Council resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 which in essence said to the Iraqi regime, co-operate with the weapon’s inspectors or else, the Saudi’s tried to persuade Saddam Hussein to leave, offering him a safe harbor. SH refused.

            United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Iraq
            http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000680

            Pursuant to the Authorization of the Use of Military Force Resolution passed by Congress, President Bush made the determination that military intervention was necessary because the Iraqi’s were not co-operating with the weapons inspectors and therefore … The administration also took the position that the use of force was authorized under the existing UN Security Council resolutions. The Saudi’s accepted this position and allowed the Americans continued use of their bases.

            – Deficit Financing

            Whatever side one takes on the Iraq War, the Bush administration and Congress made the decision to finance the cost of the war through deficit financing.

            So, we are now financing the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the subsequent nation building, along with all the related efforts to fight radical Islam, etc., with no plan to bring the budget back into balance and pay down the resulting debt.

            During this period, Congress also expanded Medicare, creating another huge unfunded liability.

            Then we have:

            – the housing bubble burst and two attempted stimulus which were financed with debt,

            – the financial crisis which lead to TARP (which many feel was a huge mistake, because the problem was with the wholesale financial sector and not the retail financial sector, and we should have allowed the fire to simply burn out in the wholesale financial sector), and the initial auto loan, all of which were financed with debt.

            – Obama takes office and the Democrats now have a super majority in both the House and Senate.

            – to combat the economic downturn, the stimulus which was deficit financed, along with expansion of welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps, along with a huge expansion in discretionary spending, all deficit financed.

            – Congress passes Obamacare, which the Democrats claim will reduce healthcare costs and based on the data presented to the CBO will reduce the deficit.

            Everyone knows that is nonsense, and in reality the goal is to collapse the private insurance market leading to a single payer health care system administered and run by the Federal Government, creating another huge unfunded liability.

            In the meantime, while all this is going on the Federal Reserve expands its balance sheet in an effort to facilitate the sale of Bear Stearns, after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, keep the wholesale financial market going including AIG, which included a huge expansion of the monetary base, and then despite Bernanke saying no, printing money to help finance the deficit spending of the Federal Government, etc., etc., etc.

            Then end result?

            – From 2000 to date, between the Bush and Obama administrations, the Federal Government has run up about 10 trillion dollars in debt, with the Obama administration running up the debt at a rate of about three times faster than the Bush administration. Add on top of that the unfunded liability created with the Medicare expansion, Obamacare and ….

            – In an effort to start stemming the tide, Congress passed a debt ceiling limit extension proposal last summer which lead to S&P downgrading the U.S. credit rate. Egan Jones recently downgrade the US credit rating again. Fitch and Moody’s still rate U.S. credit as triple A. However, that will change within the next 12 months, if Congress and the Executive Branch are not able to come forward with a realistic plan to balance the budget in the very near term and start paying down the debt. If Fitch and Moody’s down grade the US credit rating, we will see a run on the US dollar and ….

            So, the question becomes, what realistic proposal is required to balance the budget and start paying down the debt so that we can avoid a run on the dollar?

            Paul says end drastically cut discretionary spending and our overseas military involvements, while adopting a policy of non-intervention.

            This will allow us to balance the budget in three years, while maintaining our existing military strength at home, so that we can protect ourselves, without having to increase taxes, etc., etc.

            At the same we need to get rid of Obamacare and discuss what we are going to do with Medicare and Social Security.

            That is certainly one approach.

            He also wants to tackle the Federal Reserve.

            I happen to agree the time frame is about right, although it is possible the credit rating agencies and the bond markets might accept five to seven years, rather than three years.

            The existing Republican proposal of balancing the budget in thirty years, which also talks about reforms to medicare, etc … right, please.

            As to the Obama administration, they have no proposal on table.

            I suspect the administration has a plan, but will not reveal it until after Obama is re-elected and then will start to push it as the lame duck session of Congress comes to grips with the expiration of the existing tax rates, the spending cuts under the last debt limit agreement and the need to extend the debt ceiling again.

            How that plays out is an open question. A couple of questions:

            Is the Obama administration serious about balancing the budget?

            Nothing indicates Obama is serious, and if the administration is not serious, that leads to the next possibility.

            Will there be an economic collapse due to a run on the dollar, because no agreement is reached between Congress and the Executive Branch, which leads to civil unrest and possibly open conflict between the Federal Government and the public?

            If that happens, we can kiss the Republic good bye.

            – Bottom line:

            We need to defeat Obama because he can’t be trusted to do what is in the best interests of the Republic given his ideology and his financial backers.

            We need to elect more conservatives to the House and especially to the Senate, so that we control the House and the Senate.

            We need to come up with a realistic and credible proposal that balances the Federal Budget within at least three years and at the latest seven years, and thereafter we start to pay down the national debt.

            We do not have a lot of time.

    • Waldetto

      Paul does not have a view on foreign policy, he is simply telling you what the US Constitution says, that Congress should declare war. I take it you have a problem with the US Constitution. The power to declare war should be in the hands of the people. Do you so doubt your own abilities? As a Christian, preemptively attacking countries goes against everything I believe, but if it is allowed, any excuse can be made for war at the presidents whim.

      • John_Frank

        Paul does not have a view on foreign policy

        Disagree. He has made it quite clear that his policy is non-interventionist.

        I take it you have a problem with the US Constitution.

        Nonsense.

        As a Christian, preemptively attacking countries goes against everything I believe,

        The issue is not one’s religious beliefs. We do not live in a theocracy. Rather, the question is what is in our national security interests.

        We believe that a country whose leaders have called for our destruction and who have committed belligerent acts against us in the past, is working towards obtaining a nuclear weapon. What do we do?

        Do we wait until a nuclear bomb goes off over one of our cities, or after diplomacy and sanctions have failed, do we take a pre-emptive strike.

        That decision does not preclude the President from seeking a resolution from Congress authorizing the use of force.

        The reality is that we live in a dangerous world and to ignore that reality places our national security at risk.

        • Waldetto

          He made it quite clear that the US Constitution and the founding fathers view on foreign policy is one of non-intervention and we should follow the rule of law, unlike the Democrats that like to make it up as they go along and interpret it to mean anything they want. You may be in that group?

          North Korea was named as an “Axis of Evil” member in 2003, in 2006 they tested their first nuke, they are now building long range missiles, yet you are unable to explain the hypocrisy of why you want to bomb Iran (who is in compliance with the NPT), but not North Korea!

          No foreign leaders have called for our destruction! And if they did, it would be a moot point as we are the worlds only superpower, however that WILL NOT last if we do not get our finances in order, of which you seem to have no cognizance! Many military leaders have openly said that our debt is the single biggest threat to our national security, you seem not to mind if we bankrupt ourselves, chasing phantom monsters abroad. You are misinformed because you listen to those who have a financial interest in war.

          • John_Frank

            unlike the Democrats that like to make it up as they go along and interpret it to mean anything they want. You may be in that group?

            There you go again.

            No foreign leaders have called for our destruction!

            Not correct. The Iranian leadership has called for America’s destruction.

            And if they did, it would be a moot point as we are the worlds only superpower

            The US is not a super power if it follows a policy of non-intervention.

            The concept of a super power means that the country will exercise its power for the benefit of other nations. A policy of non-intervention runs directly counter to that concept, because the US abandons its role of securing “Pax Americana.”

            That may or may not be a good thing depending on your perspective, but it is important that we understand the consequences of what we are discussing.

            • Waldetto

              You are so woefully misinformed as to not warrant a reply. According to you the GOP now stands for endless wars, endless spending, and redistribution of Americans wealth around the world and not much else. Thanks for a glimpse of the “average” voter, it was quite disheartening.

              • John_Frank

                Oh please. These sorts of insults reflect poorly on Paul.

                I am quite aware that the present course is not sustainable.

                The question is how best to proceed forward.

                Since some are adamantly convinced there is only one way forward and refuse to consider any other options, nor the consequences of that specific course, no discussion can be had.

                People can not develop a consensus by saying there is only “one way.”

                Yes, there are time tested truths. Yes, there are certain concepts and ideas set out in the Constitution.

                We left the path of a Constitutional Republic after the election of Woodrow Wilson. We moved further away during the 1930’s. We moved even further away as we put in place the institutions to deal with the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

                Now, we have reached, or are close to reaching a fiscal tipping point because we have focused on bread and circuses for roughly the last 50 years. The last time we truly balanced the Federal budget and paid down on the debt was under Eisenhower.

                If we do not dramatically change course, there is a clear and substantial likelihood that the Republic will be lost.

                In doing so, I am in the F.A. Hayek, Dr. Williams camp and not in the Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul camp when it comes to domestic and foreign policy.

                We live in a very dangerous world. To simply say that we will not intervene and therefore we will be left alone means that:

                – We are condemning to death a lot of people around the globe, who have in the past relied on our protection.

                – We are being naive, in that we will not be left alone, because we live in an inter-connected world.

                Want to walk away. Fine, but do so knowingly and with full knowledge.

              • recon2323

                come on waldetto, they definately do shout death to america in the streets after hearing a religious leader give a sermon about the great satan Weve all seen it. you have to have seen that. They also are very actively trying to prevent their encirclement. the EFP’s they were funneling into Iraq were nasty mother fuckers!! Again it’s policy, sanctions, encirclement, and the threat of being invaded, always lead to the citizens of the nations into the arms of their leaders. Policy Policy Policy, It was the hardest thing for me to accept since I had spent a large portion of my youth serving a policy I have believe I now believe destructive. I think sometimes those of us that support Paul get so alarmed when we see much of what hes warning about coming to fruition that we focus only on ending our empire. Understandable, since it’s taking place all over again. It’s a shame that we and Dr Paul doesnt go into the fact that we would still maintain the right to the freedom of the sees, which provides not only a immediately nuclear capacity, our marine expiditionary forces, and air power… oh I dont know maybe somewhere like the straight of hormuz? Also, Thomas Jefferson declared our first war against the barbary pirates in defense of the seas. This so important because of our access to both major oceans, a enormous strategic and economic advantage that isnt discussed, yet it wont be much use if we continue on our course to bankruptcy. Indeed, if the Rupublican party wants to have credibility when we outline the absurdity of all those duped by obamas welfare state lining up to sign away our liberties… Then we have to address our destructive foreign policy and the sad truth that many neo conservatives at the forefront of implementing this policy greatly influenced by the giant arms companies which depend on the wars and empire and other costs of our base empire. The two cant be mutually exclusive on our platform if we are going to save this country for children.

                went off on a tandem there wald but I agree u you. I just think sometimes it’s divisive and even counter productive to jump into a history lesson condemning U.S actions in Iran. It comes off sooo much like the over educated (and now glaringly hypocritical) liberals weve been subjected to and conditioned to hate by those right wing media pundits who no nothing about history… and at long last finally being marginalized

                • John_Frank

                  Some observations on Iran:

                  – The claim that the CIA instigated a coup which lead to the down fall of the elected Iranian Government and the Shah taking power is not correct.

                  The Government nationalized the British owned oil company in Iran. At the time the Soviets were seeking to instigate a communist takeover of the elected Government. In response to the nationalization, the British and the Americans sought to persuade the Iranian Government to reverse course. At the same time, we were working to hold the Soviets at bay.

                  The Prime Minister was unable to cope with the whole situation. He made the decision to go to the Shah (elder) and surrender power. The oil company which had been nationalized was not de-nationalized. So, how did the CIA get blamed? Look to the Soviets who continued to seek a communist takeover.

                  – The Shah (son) was over thrown after we withdrew our support in response to a popular revolution. The communists working with the religious fundamentalists, lead by Khomeni hijacked the popular revolution, which wanted to return to the original constitution, have elections, etc., and took control. The US, the UK and Israel became public enemies one, two and three to help Khomeni and his fellow travelers maintain control over the public.

                  – The Green Revolution was an effort to over throw the existing regime, return to a constitutional government, hold elections, etc. We dropped the ball. The Greens, through a secure channel, came to the Obama administration and sought help. The Obama administration declined. Huge Mistake. With our moral support, etc. the Greens could have taken power. Without help, the Iranian Government was able to suppress the Greens, throw the leaders in jail, torture, etc., etc., while pursuing their goal of pushing out the Americans and becoming the dominant power in the region.

                  – Forget the show marches. Officials within the the Iranian Government have publicly stated that to achieve their aim of becoming the dominant power in the region (aka resurrecting a form of the Persian Empire) they need to destroy America. Posturing? Maybe, but the goal of becoming the dominant power in the region has been clear for some time.

                  – The Iranians have been working with the Venezuelans. It is believed that the Iranians are working to provide the Venezuelans with missile capability that can reach America.

                  – Keep in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood declared war against America in October, 2010. Why is this relevant? Because the Iranians are seeking to align themselves with the Muslim Brotherhood.

                  – Oh by the way, who is working with the Iranians? The Soviets. I am sorry, I meant the Russians who want to return to their previous glory.

                  – In response to threats of a military strike, the Russians have warned that an attack on Iran will be treated as an attack on Russia.

                  So, if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, and some believe they have already had a successful test in North North Korea, will this lead to the Russians and their ally Iran, becoming the dominant power in the Middle East, with sway over the Suez Canal and the Straits of Hormuz, along with nuclear armed missiles in Venezuela that can reach America?

                  Needless to say the Saudis are not pleased. Oh yes, let’s not forget China. Being concerned that the Iranians were going to get a nuclear weapon, the Saudis recently turned to the Chinese for help in building a nuclear power plant.

                  What about the Indians? Well for some reason they recently felt obliged to test fire a missile that could reach Beijing. Now, why would they feel compelled to do that? Oh right, could it have anything to do with the Pakistan Government inviting the Chinese to build a naval base, which the Pakistan Government would then share with the Chinese.

                  Just to top things off, most recently the Obama administration leaked false details about a Saudi / British intelligence operation which stopped a terror attack on a US airliner. Why? For political purposes. Wonderful. Not.

                  Now, how would a Paul administration respond to all this, or would the administration simply shrug its shoulders and say, we are neutral, not our problem?

        • recon2323

          Iran is encircled, present the pentagon estimates that is would take 3 weeks to destroy the Iranian military to a extent that they are no longer capable of carrying out force on kinetic operations. The world has never seen the military superiority claimed by America in the 21st century,c and if it belonged to anyone not governed by the most sublime constitution written by human intelligence, I can only imagine what the last century would have looked like. Since our greatest security threat is our national debt, I cannot support (chairman of the U.S JFC) the policy you defend above. Did the Taliban follow the soviets home after they had to withdraw when their economy was collapsing. I would like for my son to be able to have the same military capabilities over our enemies in the coming centuries that I had should choose to be the less than 1% percent who swear that oath. I dont understand why republicans dont listen to what the boots on the ground are saying when they give ron paul more money than all the other candidates combined. It rubs me the wrong way and it was one of the major reason my entire family whom have been devout members of the republican party and contributors (and will continue to do so) started to even look into what Pauls views even were.

          • John_Frank

            Which policy are you writing about?

            The decision whether to use absolutely overwhelming military force to bomb the Iranians back to the stone age if we can not to an agreement with them that is fully verifiable, which confirms they are only pursuing nuclear power for civilian purposes.

            As to Afghanistan the issue is not whether the Taliban will come after us, the issue is will they provide a safe haven for the training of terrorists for al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood who will come after us?

            Oh yes, the Muslim Brotherhood declared war against us in October, 2010.

            It is unclear to me whether the Afghanis want us. The existing government in Afghanistan is corrupt. The Pakistanis are providing a safe haven for the Taliban and the Pakistanis don’t want the Taliban defeated, because they want to control Afghanistan after we leave.

            We are going to be leaving Afghanistan. The question is when, under what circumstances and on what terms.

            P.S. Thank you for your service and I agree that we should be listening to those who have fought in Afghanistan and returned home.

            • recon2323

              Well as far as how to poceed…. how about talking to them? the end state would be the mutual nuclear disarmament of both israel and Iran monitored monitored by states in the region that would be effected from the nuclear

              as a show of trust you could start with a assuring we will halt all covert and a drone flights into iranian territory and airspace, and the Iranians will call back hezbollah agents they have deployed attempt terrorist acts against U.S and western.

              go from there, in exchange for exchange recall of there kuds force destablizing Iraq we could unfreeze there assests from western banks.

              there are so many chips here….
              there is no simple way forward, but I no that everything weve done has escalated tension not once have we made a strategic move to defuse the situation

              why would we ever have to leAve the persian gulf… UNTIL WE HAVE BUILT ENOUGH TRUST WITH THE IRANIANS THE 5TH FLEET WOULD REMAIN UNTIL WE CAN TRUST THEM…. IM GOING TO SLEEP NOW THOUGH ILL GET BACK AT YOU LATER

              • John_Frank

                Well as far as how to poceed…. how about talking to them?

                We have been doing that.

                the end state would be the mutual nuclear disarmament of both israel and Iran monitored monitored by states in the region that would be effected from the nuclear

                Yes, that is what the Iranians want. Leave the Israelis without nuclear weapons. Why should the Israelis agree to that? The Israelis will say no.

  • Waldetto

    Romney Now Unelectable v. Obama

    The Boston CBS affiliate news radio station has obtained an explosive interview with a Romney high school classmate which brings across a much uglier picture of the bullying of a gay student than has been reported. Romney didn’t just participate. The classmate, Phillip Maxwell, calls Romney the “ring leader.” Even bullies I knew in high school would have stopped when the kid started crying, and said screw it. Maxwell says:

    “I remember the realization almost immediately that this whole thing had gone too far and it was destructive and wrong, and I think that feeling is shared by everybody who was either involved in it or witnessed it.”

    Romney had his friends pin the boy down while he cut the kid’s hair.

    This is manna from heaven for Ron Paul. Nobody, conservative or liberal, likes a bully. Romney has tapped into a deep vein.

    The Obama campaign will play pieces of this interview over and over.
    Combined with Romney’s protesting in favor of the Vietnam draft at the
    same time he took an exemption from it for being a Mormon missionary, the Obamites have the ammunition to spank Romney like a red-headed stepchild in the general. The Republican base won’t be affected, but if the party wants to win in the general election, it had better saddle up another horse.

    http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/05/10/witness-romney-was-the-ring-leader-of-1965-bullying-incident/

    With all the exposure of bullying and all of the movements that have popped up against it, this will cost the GOP if they stick with Mitt!

    • John_Frank

      Romney has apologized (unlike Obama who admits to bullying a young girl, but never expressed any regret).

      Given that we are talking about something that happened almost 50 years ago, this smacks of a smear campaign, especially as the person being interviewed is an Obama supporter.

      P.S. Paul has the racist newsletter story. Yes, I know, but Paul’s supporters may want to consider leaving this sort of stone throwing to the Democrats. Just a suggestion.

  • John_Frank

    Ron Paul is NOT a Racist. Dr. Walter Williams defends Dr. Paul on Rush Limbaugh Show

    He makes three points in responding to a caller who asks him about Ron Paul:

    – Agrees with Ron Paul on economic (domestic policy);

    – Disagrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy (and notes that many of his libertarian friends agree with him); and,

    – Says that Ron Paul is not a racist.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/EZJ7XR5XRHJP6Y23GXRMJOFVKM Caddywhumpus Poncho

      Most people do not know that Ron Paul’s press secretary, Gary Howard, is black. It is not likely that a white racist would have a black man as his spokesman, and it is equally unlikely that a black man would be willing to be the spokesman for a white racist.

      • John_Frank

        The next time the media throws the racist newsletter story at Paul, the campaign should have Mr. Howard go on national TV (and cable) to respond.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/EZJ7XR5XRHJP6Y23GXRMJOFVKM Caddywhumpus Poncho

          They may be saving him for just such an occasion. The corporate media will surely pull the racist card out again as it becomes clear Paul poses a substantial challenge to Romney.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/EZJ7XR5XRHJP6Y23GXRMJOFVKM Caddywhumpus Poncho

    The video above, and most of the comments here, consider the role of Ron Paul and his supporters in this 2012 presidential campaign, but the real story is rarely mentioned: Ron Paul supporters are successfully taking over the GOP in many states. This has tremendous implications for future elections in 2014, 2016 and beyond. Iowa is just one example. Not only will Ron Paul ultimately take the majority of delegates from Iowa to the RNC in Tampa, but the establishment chair of the Republican Party in Iowa, Matt Strawn, has been ousted and replaced with Ron Paul’s co-chairman in Iowa, AJ Spiker. This literal takeover of the GOP at the state level is happening all over the country.

  • Trust1TG

    “Will Ron Paul supporters invade the GOP convention?”

    SOMEBODY needs to invade the GOP convention.

    Somebody with a conservative record of achievement – like Newt or Sarah Palin – needs to invade the GOP convention.

    Romney is the sorriest excuse for a candidate I have seen in my lifetime.

    He is a liberal, liar and cheat. A politician, not a statesman.

    I am voting for Newt Gingrich. Period.

    A repentant Newt is far better than an unrepentant liar, liberal and cheat Romney any day of the week.

    I refuse to vote for Romney. He is a fake and a crook.

    • Robert Reitz

      You might have missed it but Gingrich dropped out..

      • John_Frank

        Actually Gingrich suspended his campaign and endorsed Romney.

        Despite that, people are still voting for him in the primaries.

        He also keeps his delegates.

  • MikeBri527

    Sorry but I just had to say this…I just finished reading thru all the posts…

    This chain discussion was been one of the most open, honest, respectful, and enjoyable posts I’ve read regarding Ron Paul on this site since I think I started posting here.

    It’s been truly wonderful to read how respectful everyone is of each other’s thoughts and comments.

    As a Ron Paul supporter myself, I wish all the posts I’ve had here and on youtube and other sites have been this respectful and enjoyable to read.

    My hat’s off to all of you!

    Now watch…just my luck someone will post something really distasteful and make me look stupid LOL! :-)

  • Robert Reitz

    Rather be a Ronulan than a Romulan anyday… Ron Paul is playing by the rule – if you even have to ask the question then that tells me you don’t know how to read the rules.

  • iamsparticus1

    Let me see if I have Ron Paul’s philosophy correct. If Mable wants to set up a meth lab in her kitchen, she has every right to do that. It’s her body and her private property. And if you asked any Jonestown Republican about that scenario, they would tell you that they are personally against doing meth and they disagree completely with it but she has every right to do that. Individual liberty means respecting peoples decisions even if you vehemently disagree with them. Now lets say that Mable wants to vote for Mitt Romney in the Caucus. Well, sorry Mable, but if you are to stupid to know that Ron Paul is “THE ONE” and the only person that can defeat Obama than we are going to have to disenfranchise you at the caucus level. Mable, don’t be angry, it’s for your own good. Oh Mable, remember how proud you were that all of those nice young people who were smiling at you were showing their civic pride by volunteering to represent the vote of the people at the caucus meeting? They have contempt for you.

  • John_Frank

    No.

    The caucus and primary votes do not determine the delegates.

    That is done through the delegate selection process.

    We live in a representative constitutional Republic.

    Reflecting that, Republicans elect delegates from each State who go to the national convention, to settle the party platform, elect the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominee, etc.

    While many State rules bind the delegates, the national RNC rules say the delegates can not be bound.

    Presuming that the national RNC rules supersede the State rules, the key to winning the nomination is the delegate selection process, because in reality the primaries and caucuses are simply beauty contests.

    Simply put the Paul campaign is following the rules.

    Of course, the RNC and the Romney campaign do not like this, so we are going to start seeing challenges to the delegate selection process, along with arguments about disenfranchisement, etc.

    Hey, will someone pass the popcorn. This is going to be one hell of a showdown between those who insist on following the constitution and those who want to ignore the constitution, while continuing to pile up the debt, etc., etc.

    • iamsparticus1

      I realize that they are following the rules. But, my point was that they don’t respect the votes of people that voted for another cadidate. If this is the way that our selection process works, then why waste money on commercials, campaigns, and voting. A representative republic means electing representatives through voting, not installing apparatchiks into key positions.

  • MikeFree

    Thank you Skip for stating the truth, My friend Rolf calls me constantly bragging and predicting aPaul takeover at the convention. When I challenge him by asking how many people actually voted for Paul at the ballot box, and that he did not win anywhere, he drifts into crazy talk like the Diebold machines are rigged. Every idea Paul has regarding foreign policy scares me to death. And despite polls that are paraded around by Paulites claiming he alone can beat Obama, I think he would be soundly beaten. As Santorum said in a debate, the things he might do on day one of a Paul administration are dangerous. Mike

  • MikeFree

    Skip is quite correct, and Paulites are mesmerized and far less numerous than they say they are. Where did they vote in numbers great enough to make a difference? The answer is only in a small corner of Texas. He could never even make Texas Senator or governor. His foreign policy would be disastrous. His veto alone would lead to riots.

  • http://twitter.com/lisalawrence64 lisa lawrence

    Ron Paul is winnign “FAIR AND SQUARE”, Paul and his supporters are playing by the rules, not thier rules, the RNC rules. When you play by the rules and WIN it is NOT called Stealing!!!!!!! Your bias is amazing, did they pay you say that? If you are going to call yourself a reporter then act like one and report the truth instead of corrupt political bias.
    I know the temptation to be Popular is tough but in the name of morals and standards the truth should be an integeral part of your story, that is sorrly lacking in this piece. The only thief stealing from anyone is Romney and the RNC. Thats the truth, but you can’t handle that,can you?

    • onceproudamerican

      Actually, he is doing well in spite of the GOP breaking their own rules, the MSM purposely ignoring him, or miss-representing his views and otherwise disrespecting the only war veteran in the race. Only one candidate in the last two centuries has been faithful to his oath of office, and that person’s name is Dr. Ron Paul.

      If we obey the Constitution, government shrinks by 80% and taxes shrink by a similar amount, the budget goes instantly balanced, and trillions of dollars are put to constructive use instead of being used for social engineering. Very soon afterwards prosperity will again reign in the u.S.of A.