Presidential Candidates

Ron Paul vs. Everyone Else on Executive Power


Yesterday I noted that Ron Paul is "the only [presidential] candidate making the points that need to be made…about the threat to civil liberties posed by unchecked executive power." A New York Times questionnaire, similar to the one The Boston Globe submitted to presidential candidates in December 2007, underlines that point. "Even as they advocate for limited government," the Times reports, "many of the Republican presidential candidates hold expansive views about the scope of the executive powers they would wield if elected—including the ability to authorize the targeted killing of United States citizens they deem threats and to launch military attacks without Congressional permission…Only Mr. Paul, the libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas, argued for a more limited view of presidential power." Here are some of the questions:

Under what circumstances, if any, would the Constitution permit the president to authorize the targeted killing of a United States citizen who has not been sentenced to death by a court?

"Under wartime circumstances or in the case of an imminent threat to the United States," Newt Gingrich said. The other candidates gave similar (albeit lengthier) answers, while Paul said, "None."

Under what circumstances, if any, would the Constitution permit the president to imprison a United States citizen, arrested on United States soil, indefinitely and without charges as a military detainee?

Paul's answer: "A President can only indefinitely detain citizens in cases of rebellion or invasion pursuant to an act of Congress suspending habeas corpus. Under the Constitution, a civilian should never be treated as a military detainee, and anyone detained must either be charged or released once the military crisis leading to the suspension of habeas corpus has passed." All the others said the president has unilateral authority to detain anyone he deems an "enemy combatant."

In the absence of an imminent threat to the United States, under what circumstances, if any, would the Constitution permit the president to direct the armed forces to attack another country without receiving prior authorization from Congress? 

Paul's answer: "Absent an imminent threat, a President should not undertake unilateral military action. As President, if I believed there was a threat to the US justifying military action, I would go before Congress and the people to present the case for war." All the others said the president has the authority to use military force whenever he thinks it's justified, although Gingrich added that "Congress' constitutional power to cut off funding is an absolute check on the president's ability to direct American armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires presidents to terminate deployments into hostilities that have not been authorized by Congress 60 days after notifying lawmakers that the campaign has begun; is that mandate constitutionally valid and legally binding on the commander in chief? 

All but one candidate said the War Powers Resolution unconstitutionally impinges on presidential power. Paul questioned the law's constitutionality for a different reason: "The War Powers Resolution, by allowing the President authority to unilaterally deploy troops for 60 days without Congressional approval, gives too much unilateral war-making power to the President."

If a federal statute prohibits an interrogation technique or mandates restrictions and procedures on surveillance for national security purposes, under what circumstances, if any, would the Constitution permit the president to override such statutes and authorize subordinates to act contrary to them?

Paul's answer: "None. The idea that at times federal agents or military personnel may need to use torture or other illegal techniques to gain information in a 'ticking time bomb' scenario is a fantasy of Hollywood screenwriters and hack neocon policy analysts." All the others said (or, in the case of Mitt Romney, obliquely suggested) the president can ignore the law when it impinges on his ability to protect national security.

Which executive powers, if any, claimed and exercised by the Bush and/or Obama administrations were unconstitutional in your view? Were there any such powers that were simply a bad idea?

Paul cited unauthorized wars, warrantless wiretaps, torture, indefinite detention, and "the assassination of anyone in any country—including US citizens—[the president] deems an enemy combatant." He said the excesses of George W. Bush's counterterrorism policies were "among the worst abuses of executive authority in the nation's history" and that Bush's successor has been worse in some respects.

None of the others cited a single example of overreaching presidential action in the name of fighting terrorism or protecting national security. Gingrich said the problem is too little executive power, thanks to interference by the Supreme Court. Jon Huntsman declined to answer. Rick Perry complained that "Congress has turned over the power of the purse…to the executive branch…particularly with respect to the Troubled Asset Relief Plan [sic]." Mitt Romney's main example of executive power abuse, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is actually an example of legislative power abuse, since Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause. Romney also cited a few relevant examples, including "automaker bailouts" and the "FCC's attempt to extend its regulatory power to the Internet in direct contravention of U.S. statutes and a court decision." 

Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann did not participate in the survey, but their statements in the Republican presidential debates indicate that their views on executive power are much closer to Gingrich's than to Paul's. Barack Obama also declined to participate, but we know a thing or two about his understanding of executive power based on his performance in office these last three years. As the Times coyly notes, "His record in office shows how circumstances and the assumption of power can alter views expressed in a campaign." Before taking office, for instance, Obama believed (as he put it in the Globe survey) "the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." After taking office, he changed his mind. The Times adds that Obama "has outraged civil libertarians by keeping in place the outlines of many Bush-era policies, like indefinite detention and military commissions for terrorism suspects. And in the Libya air war and the targeted killing of [Anwar al-Awlaki], he went beyond Mr. Bush's executive-power record."

NEXT: The Nation: From Defending Abolitionism to Defending the USSR

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …with their “slaves.”

    The Constitution is mostly that, a means of getting the abused to acquiesce voluntarily to the abusers.

    Fortunately, the Egalitarian clause (2A) is in there, which really sticks in the craw of the hierarchical elite.

    1. The Second Amendment is the Egalitarian Clause of the Constitution. (Pull that on a liberal friend tomorrow night.)

      Humans evolved to be egalitarian, and only in an egalitarian Non-State society do humans behave as “autonomous and sovereign” individuals who “bow to no political power.” (Service, 1975)

      The early agricultural city-Statist (civilization) settlers from Europe greatly admired the egalitarian nature of the Non-State tribes and bands they observed, and this rebellion against hierarchy carried into Jefferson’s “all men are created equal.”

      It also destroyed the hierarchical divine right of kings in France and gave that country the banner of “libert?, ?galit?, fraternit?.”

      Much of this egalitarian Non-State band and tribal influence is documented in anthropologist Jack Weatherford’s Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World.

      It’s no wonder that anthropologist Elman Service observed that “Many people living in non-state societies enjoy lifeways that a number of Americans seem intent on reinventing?such as close association with the land, small group size, and emphasis on oral traditions.”

      It’s a real shame that so-called “libertarians” and “anarchists” have such a dim view of egalitarianism. Only with equal sociopolitical power can there be liberty. If there is hierarchy, that means somebody is Lording-over somebody else.

      It reveals the hidden intent of those who, against clear evolutionary evidence, purport that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature: they want to Lord over others. These smooth-talking economic “social dominator” types cleverly whitewash their hierarchical intent in a toxic mimicry of freedom. I no longer am fooled by their scheme.

      1. Is that you WI? You’re unusually coherent today.

        1. Thanks for the compliment, Jimmy. And Happy New Year.

          1. Are calendars and measured time a sign of oppression, too?

            1. The improvement in accuracy presented authority with enhanced opportunities for oppression. An early devotee of elaborate mechanical clocks, for example, was Duke Gian Galeazzo Visconti, described in 1381 as “a sedate but crafty ruler with a great love of order and precision.”

              “Time and its Discontents”
              Running On Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilization
              by John Zerzan

              1. Probably don’t like to have to clean your ass after taking a dump either.

                1. City-slickin’ is an every day stinkfist, ya damn tool.

                  Unless you’re disgustipated.

                  1. I’ll have to remember to shit upriver from you. Wouldn’t want to bother you with such civilized niceties as sanitation.

              2. Called it.

                1. …against empirical data, instead of being such a fundamentalist.

      2. I think you’ve misconstrued the libertarian argument here.

        Egalitarianism, to a libertarian, implies politically enforced equality of outcome.

        1. …Egalitarianism, twisted by libertarians, implies politically enforced equality of outcome.

          It has a specific definition, and is used in biological science. It’s not hard to figure out.

          But…Libertarians LOVE hierarchy (the opposite of egalitarian) below them. They want to LORD over other people.

          The little shits only dislike hierarchy above them.

  2. “Under wartime circumstances or in the case of an imminent threat to the United States,”
    QUESTION How long a period defines “imminent?”
    ANSWER Which is longer: Eon, Epoch, Age or Era?
    Cause its whatever is the longest – cause you can’t be too careful when it comes to imminent threats…

    1. That’s the only one that I disagree with Paul on. Not the imminent threat part, but the “wartime circumstances.” Assuming that means a legally declared war and not some amorphous thing like the WoT or WoD, if a U.S. citizen is in the field fighting against U.S. troops, we don’t need to arrest him or otherwise treat him differently in combat. Might be a little different if he were captured, though I imagine what happens then is already established law, as Americans have fought against us before.

      1. I thought you lost your citizenship if you joined a foreign army?

        1. I think you can under federal statutes, but I also think there has to be something showing that you intended to give up your U.S. citizenship in so doing. I’m not sure what that means, due process-wise, though, again, I assume that we don’t stop shooting because an American is fighting against our forces with enemy troops.

          1. I assume we would as well. We had this discussion a national security law class in law school about emergency and war powers. Something that was pretty popular across the political spectrum was the idea that laws that expressly give those powers are susceptible to abuse (see “wartime” under current WOT rhetoric) and are irrelevant because in a true “guy with a nuke about to blow up a city” or “american citizen is attempting to kill our forces” situation almost any president is going to act whether it is “legal” or not and the American public can judge his actions afterwords.

            1. I took a national security law class my third year. My paper was on whether a president could veto a declaration of war (leaving aside how he could drag his feet in the conduct of the war as commander-in-chief). I concluded that he could, but, at the time, it was hard to imagine a president who would do that. Paul could possibly be a test case.

              1. similarly if a president paul started to take troops out of europe say, could congress pass a law forcing him to keep them there?

                1. I doubt it. The conduct of even a war is a presidential prerogative. Deployments are probably even more under his control.

                  I don’t think these kinds of issues have been tested much. Presidents usually like military expansion as that also tends to expand presidential power in general.

                  1. However, removing troops from Europe would require renegotiation of the NATO treaty. I doubt that even RP would unilaterally abrogate it.

                    1. That’s a great point, and I should’ve thought of that myself. I do think Paul accepts that we have to maintain our treaty obligations, which are constitutional for the most part.

                    2. Once a treaty is ratified it actually is law, isn’t it?

                      Or, has the force of law, which may or may not by the same thing.

                    3. Mind you, Bush got away with unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty, didn’t he?

                      There were some rumblings of discontent and suggestions that this was bad precedent from certain quarters, but as I recall nothing much came of them. Even the Russians didn’t sqawk that loudly.

                    4. Moving that many troops and equipment – along with the massive supply and support infrastructure also requires dedicated funding that Congress could deny the President.

                    5. Good point, Old Soldier.

                      I’m pretty sure that given the history of our many Mutual Defense pacts, with…well…just about everybody, even if RP got elected it would take years to wind down international obligations.

                      All one has to do to realize that is recall how many congressional arms and legs had to be broken (figuratively) to accomplish the 1990s base closings.

                      Doves like Boxer and Feinstein, who heretofore had thought the Air Force should have to hold bake sales to buy bombers, became raging warhawks overnight to fight over keeping their states’ defence pork.

                    6. Now it’s possible that some treaty obligations are unconstitutional. In fact, I think some are. Paul could take that position, regardless of whether treaties have been ratified. Even so, that leaves plenty that I think even he would view as valid.

                      So talk about him unilaterally taking us to an isolationist state are bullshit. Even notwithstanding the fact that he isn’t, in fact, an isolationist.

            2. If I sneak a nuke in your city, none of you would be intelligent enough to stop me anyway. Why would even consider the government an effective deterrent to an attack of that magnitude?

              1. Er, forgot to change my handle back from another thread. Sorries.

          2. As I understand, some American volunteered for the Royal Air Force before the US came into WWII. I presume that it’s permitted if they’re not at war with the United States.

            1. Haven’t reviewed the statute, so I don’t know. It could all hinge on the intent of the individual, or it may be based on whether we’re fighting that country or not.

            2. Ok, that’s what I meant, joining an army at war with us.

              1. Joining an army that’s at war with us could get you arrested for treason. Considering the potential penalty I’d say that’s a lot worse than getting your citizenship revoked.

            3. A bunch of Americans volunteered for the Royal Air Force before the US came into WWII.

              There were some rumblings about these guys violating the Neutrality Act, IIANM, but they never went anywhere. These guys were pretty universally acclaimed as heroes.

              1. See also the Flying Tigers.

        2. No.

          In some cases you are required to join the army of your duall citizenship state; Jews fight for Israel, and maintain their US rights

        3. Absent you formally renouncing your citizenship yourself the government must follow certain procedures to take your citizenship away.

          Getting naturalized in another country or serving in their armed forces or even taking certain high level civil service jobs can cause the government to bring those proceedings, but it’s not automatic.

          1. Your reply is not correct either.

            Intent can be as simple as leaving the US under one passport and returning under another

            IOW, don’t fuck with the US

            1. My list was not meant to be exhaustive. I’m sure there are many cause for revocation of citizenship besides the ones I listed.

              Also, the lesser penalty of having one’s passport cancelled can be imposed unilaterally by the State Department.

              1. You also failed to counter my point that the government can only take away citizenship after due process.

                1. “Absent you formally renouncing your citizenship yourself”

                  This was the erroneous point

                  1. Reading comprehension’s a problem for you, isn’t it?

                    There’s a whole sentence there. Quoting part of it kind of destroys the meaning.

                    1. “Absent you formally renouncing your citizenship yourself”

                      I’m not willing to play insult one up but to try to clarify; you may renounce your citizenship unintentionally.

                      If you read my comment upthread, I gave the example of leaving the US on an American passport, and returning under another as a involuntary quitclaim.
                      -IIRC the details but I need to read the case law

                    2. What part of “the government must follow certain procedures to take your citizenship away” did you not understand, you stupid fucking cow?

                      It’s not an insult when it’s the truth.

                    3. Also, the USA has no passport checks on people leaving the country.

                      You enter on a passport. Some countries do have exit procedures but the USA does not.

                      If the State Department cancels your passport, which they can do unilaterally, you can still leave the country. Getting back in is a different matter. One of the things they are checking for when you show your passport on entry is whether it’s been revoked. If it has been, they’re going to keep it.

                    4. First, you fail to realize a passport and citizenship are unique.

                      “You also failed to counter my point that the government can only take away citizenship after due process.”

                      This was the case but I have not seen the justification under which Anwar alAwlaki  was killed. 

                      Neither of us is sure anymore, or I should say, I haven’t read the ‘memo’

                      and third, I’m not interested is anyone who uses trite “stupid cow” remarks
                      Please incif me

                    5. What the fuck are you even trying to say?

                      Killing Anwar al-Awlaki is not the same thing as taking his citizenshp away.

                      I am done here. You’re too fucking stupid or to ignorant to understand any of this.

      2. Like you say, there are two problems here: One is that we are waging war in places that we haven’t declared war on, or even really an AUMF. Pakistan and Yemen for example. The second is that the definition of “battlefield” is substantially fluid. Capturing or killing an American citizen at an enemy installation is one thing. Its much dicier to say that bombing a car in Pakistan is the same as bombing an enemy barracks.

      3. I think the key is “targeted killing”. If the guy is on the battlefield actively fighting our troops then it’s no longer a targeted killing.

        I suspect RP’s position concerning an American citizen actively fighting against us on a battlefield would be the same as yours (and with which I agree).

        For me, my approval ends at drone-murdering an American citizen (even a known enemy) just because he is driving through Yemen rather than Kansas.

        1. Right, you’re not shooting an American citizen, you’re shooting a guy who is shooting at you. Similarly a guy about to detonate a bomb can be shot to stop him from doing it.

          However these self-defense rights aren’t actually _executive powers_ but rather individual rights of the citizens involved. The president doesn’t have the right to authorize a soldier on the battlefield to shoot an enemy soldier threatening him. The solider owns that right by himself.

  3. Imminent means whatever most of the people says it means.

    1. He would say that. I say imminent means while the president is commanding forces to stop the immediate military action of the aggressor whomever that may be, a staffer should be calling congresscritters and waking them up ASAP to get over to the Capitol to be ready for a vote. None of this 60 or 90 days shit. 24 hours max. These people wanted to be members of Congress, they need to be ready to declare war when war is declared on us. Passing it off to the president is unacceptable.

      1. Dude, do you really want Pelosi peeling off the sleep mask…well, ever?

        1. She can hear and then say yay or nay without peeling off the mask. Hell, put a bag over her head at all times for the good of the country.

        2. She’s liberal scum, but I’d do her.

        3. She’s liberal scum, but I’d do her.

      2. *correction. The action of the aggressor doesn’t have to be military. That’s actually the least likely scenario for this country.

      3. I’d like to see the War Powers Act a Constitutional amendment. Cutting down the time is a good idea, I’ll admit. Opinions on a three day maximum?

        1. The War Powers Act is a dead letter, at least when a Democrat is President.

          1. And Republicans, too.

        2. …stops wars from starting?

          May as well believe in astrology.

    2. Werdz r complikatud. Only lawyers are smat enuf to tel uz wut dey meen.

      1. And even then they don’t always mean the same thing everytime.

  4. And people wonder why the newsletters are getting traction with Paul supporters. The rest of the candidates are yes, that bad.

    I’ll grant the other GOP candidates one thing. Paul won’t win the GOP primary with republican voters. If he wins, it will be fed up independents that rip the GOP apart.

  5. Yesterday I noted that Ron Paul is “the only [presidential] candidate making the points that need to be made…about the threat to civil liberties posed by unchecked executive power.”
    And yesterday Balko threw a hissyfit and called Paul a liar. On Facebook.

    1. I mean, just so you know where each places their priorities…

      For Jacob, is how Paul thinks about the Constitution and our protections therein. For Radley, well…

      1. Sorry, HIS priorities. Not their.

      2. It’s really bizarre the newsletters are more important to some libertarians than unending wars and eroding civil liberties. It seriously must be a beltway thing.

        1. We’re in a war with Islamism whether we want to be or not.

          1. We’re in a war with certain Muslims who believe America’s existence to be an affront to their religion. I’d be perfectly happy to leave them alone.

            1. We’re in a war with certain Muslims who believe that its haram to have American troops in strictly religious areas. We’re in a war with certain Muslims who are actually objecting to their own gov’ts and do so by attacking the political entities that support the gov’ts in their countries to which they object.

              1. Why won’t they leave me alone?

                1. cus your tax dollar is involved in killing a mom or a dad over there?

          2. I’m not in a war with anything. Leave me out of “we” please.

            1. Gladly.

      3. Radley Balko said that he voted for Bob Barr and John Kerry. Kerry is kinda understandable under the circumstances, but Barr? Really?

    2. Irrelevant Troll is irrelevant.

    3. I’m still waiting for Balko to identify the offending sentences that number more than 8 or 10.

  6. Interesting that Perry and Romney pick things that don’t really get to the heart of the question. Are they really that dumb or just want to avoid the real question?

    1. Re: Bill,
      Are they really that dumb or just want to avoid the real question?
      The question answers itself.

    2. Why can’t it be both?

    3. I was wondering about that too. Why did they stray so far from the questions being asked about executive power? TARP? Just what DID they learn in civics?

  7. Under what circumstances, if any, would the Constitution permit the president to authorize the targeted killing of a United States citizen who has not been sentenced to death by a court?

    A snazzier answer would have been that the president should be able to shoot someone who is pointing a gun at his head (in self-defense), but that even that right, is only allowed as a result of the 10th amendment.

    1. excuse me: that right is *protected* by the 10th amendment.

    2. Andrew Jackson just seriously fucked him up with a cane.

  8. Why don’t these people just watch the beginning of Gladiator when Marcus Aurelius is telling Maximus why he is the only one fit to lead Rome?

  9. OK, that’s six clear reasons to vote for Paul and six more clear reasons to vote against each of the neocons.

  10. Ima votin fer that fella ’cause he’s the only one what will keep an eye on the darkies.

    1. So, you’re a Rick Perry supporter?


        “[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land … Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.”

        ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974


        1. “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage — the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.”

          Ayn Rand

          1. Opinions: did I just beat White Indian, a spoof, or did he have to go gambol?

            1. I noticed the first quote was from 1974, when is yours from?

              Just as Ron Paul may have had racist views he has proven himself ; did Ayn Rand become a soulless woman?

              1. “An article published in the September, 1963”

                I see now; I prefer any humbled man or woman who realizes their evil

              2. 1963. Here’s the whole quote. Right up White Indian’s alley:

                “They (Native Americans) didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.”

                This is one of the issues on which I disagree with Rand. I argue that she wasn’t anti-Native American, but anti-Primitivism. However, the Native Americans *did* have a right to their land, and should have been paid for every square meter taken from them.

                1. Was she anti-primtism? She equated Indian culture with a substrata non-worthy existence.

                  I think she held view that were common for her generation but regretfully, never exposed herself to the truth.

                  I find it frightening that an immigrant woman had that ‘some pigs are more equal that others’ mentality

                2. They would have never sold it, Mooching Taker. But that never stopped agricultural city-STATISTS like you from invading and occupying and committing genocide — and then whitewashing your brutality.

                  Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources?gold, oil, and so on?can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.

                  ~Derrick Jensen

          2. …of tyranny.

            But every now and then, the truth does get spoken plainly.

            This is one honest Kapitalist:

            ANY WHITE PERSON

            “[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land … Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.”

            ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974

            RIGHT TO TAKE

            1. What if you take that quote and replace “Native Americans” with “Erie Nation”, and “white person” with “Iroquois”?

            2. Interesting how a people who have no concept of property rights (or any other rights,) nor believe that land can be owned, should claim that something has been stolen from them or that their “rights” have been violated.

              1. Uber Capitalist Rand said it, you little shit, not anybody else.

  11. The GOP dosen’t deserve Ron Paul.

  12. Just remember, RP is the crazy one!

  13. I don’t know how anyone can vote for a man that blamed America for 9/11 and flirts with conspiracy nuts, racists, anti-semites, and goldbugs.

    Ron Paul is a crank, end of story, and bad for our party.

    1. Good thing we’re (mostly–I can’t speak for JohnD) not Republicans.

      1. Thank God you’re not. I wish all primaries could be closed to keep out the Paultard kooks.

        Ron Paul appeared on Alex Jones’s radio show, for God’s sake. The man is a c-r-a-n-k crank.

        1. “I wish all primaries could be closed to keep out the Paultard kooks.”

          This is hardly representative democracy.

          May I please know your political affiliation?

          1. Republican.

            Political primaries exist for the benefit of the party, not independents, and as private organizations have the right to restrict participation from non-members.

            1. I would think that having independents and Democrats come over to vote in your primary would yield a candidate more agreeable to their general public’s tastes.

              And the Republican Party is a “private organization” like Newt Gingrich’s work with Fanny Mae is “free market.”

              Furthermore, Ron Paul is a registered Republican, and anyone can register as a Republican to vote for him.

            2. I’ll tell you what, son, Ron Paul is the only thing differentiating the two parties right now. You should get down on yer war-lovin’ knees and thank the deity of your choice for his participation in this election.

            3. Then why are the primaries publicly funded, state-run affairs?

              If the GOP wants to have a private nominating process, then by all means do so, but they have to pay for it.

            4. Your blind loyalty to party and Empire make you a disgrace to this Republic, TTARP.

            5. it would be great if you didn’t need independents to win. shut them out throughout the whole candidate vetting process then expect sudden loyalty come general election. lol. the process has been ‘natural-selected’ for a long time. people with crooked thinking like yours wouldn’t be the first time. there’s a reason why things don’t be. learn a little about how the world works. your party stayed relevant because of paul’s independents in fact, giving you that close to 10% boost. no one would even care bout repubs for the past 2 years if you stayed the 30% you were after the bush disaster. looking back, i don’t know whether this unintended consequence is good or not in hindsight. the dissipation of repubs might have smoked people of your ilk out of the woodwork into some obscure irrelevance.

    2. Fact: I fucked your mom. She doesn’t swallow.

      1. FACT: She did for me!

        1. Quit arguing with your brother!

          1. Angie Dickinson?

    3. A man’s behavior is reflective of his beliefs. If I let some suspect newsletters dictate my view of a man without thorough research, then that would be the very same thing as prejudice, wouldn’t it? Ron Paul’s behavior through the years as a man, a doctor and as a Congressman speak loudly of a pattern of behavior that is in alignment with a strict adherence to the philosophies of freedom, self-expression and non-violation. Running those newsletters against his lifetime of saving lives, advocating for peace and freedom and abiding by the Constitution which he has sworn to uphold—then my only conclusion is that his beliefs preclude bigotry and hate. When someone begins to make a commitment to truly finding the truth through study and research—reading books, articles and really getting to know the man ….when you commit to truth, it is easy to find its voice.

    4. Ron Paul is a crank, end of story, and bad for our party.

      And people who are against money with sound, tangible backing are essentially thieves and con artists.

    5. Ron Paul is a crank, end of story, and bad for our party.

      The freerepublic circlejerk is down the hall and to the right, next to the soda machine.

    6. watch out…he buys g-g-g-gold! those damn goldbugs are shady folks!

    7. He blamed America’s foreign policy for instigating the anger that led to the willingness of individuals to go on suicide missions against us. He never, ever, ever, claimed that America was behind 9/11. And he is right, our foreign policy disaster DID instigate 9/11. Surprise, surprise…drop bombs on defenseless third world peasants enough times and they start to resent you.

  14. I think I will actually enroll in the Republican party so I can vote for Paul (and against Olympia Snowe) in the primary.

    1. I don’t think she’s running…

      Unless my snarkometer is out of whack, as usual.

      1. She was last elected in 2006. I hope someone challenges her in the primary so I can vote against her.

        1. My mistake: I thought you meant Presidential primary. Vote away against her in your Congressional primary.

          1. Does she or Susan Collins have any decent opponents? There are a couple of Rino’s I’d love to see picked off.

    2. Glad my state is open primary so I don’t have to sell my soul to a party to toss my vote in for RP.

      1. I actually agree that one should have to join a Party to vote in the primary. The whole point is that you’re choosing who will represent the club, so it makes sense that you must join the club before you choose who will represent it.

        1. I don’t “join” a party. I just register under one to vote in the primary. As soon as the primary is done, I switch affiliation to “unaffiliated.” That’s basically to stop the mail solicitations.

          1. I’m a registered Republican. My mail solicitations stopped years ago – I was using the prepaid envelopes to let the GOP headquarters know what I thought of all their spending.

        2. Actually, I’m against primaries existing. It disenfranchises the independent voter. I think all candidates should just toss their hat in the ring and let America decide, but the parties would never allow that since it would break up their power and allow people with less means to fundraise the ability to run.

          1. I like Heinlein’s ideas for Congresses: set a minimum number of signatures, and get the set number of chops on your petition. If you get twice the minimum number of signatures, you get two votes in Congress. No one can sign two petitions for the same office.

            1. I liked his “Starship Troopers” voting requirements – and his “Moon is a Harsh Mistress” House of Repeal.

          2. I have no problem with primaries but they shouldn’t be state-sanctioned. If the parties are going to use an internal vote to decide who gets their blessing, good for them. Let them organize it.

        3. Given it is their club, we should also strike their laws from the books that make it difficult for those not affiliated with their club to run nominees of their own.

    3. However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

  15. CBS news asks the question, “What happens if Ron Paul wins Iowa?”…..bsCarousel

    Apparently a lot of people will be shitting in their pants. Fuck this country. Really. I never new so many fucking cowards so afraid of freedom. “Home of the free and land of the brave.” ….. fucking satire for The Onion, nothing more.

    1. Junkies will be killing the survivors of catastrophic terrorist attacks and performing abortions on every street corner for money to buy crack?

      1. Much, much, MUCH worse. Children will sell lemonade on street corners without licenses, people will be free to buy incandescant light bulbs, and ladders will be sold with LESS than a dozen stickers warning you that you may fall off the ladder…..
        a soulless, depraved anarchy!!!

    2. You see it in the unblinking allegiance of Paul supporters like Kent Voth, who said before a Paul rally here Thursday that he wouldn’t support the Republican presidential nominee if it isn’t Ron Paul.

      How DARE you not support whoever the anointed Team candidate is! Heretic! Blasphemer!

  16. It might as well be that the US Constitution had never been written.

  17. It’s scary that the “extremist” candidate is the only one who believes in operating within the Constitution and engaging in the type of foreign policy this country followed for the vast majority of its existence.

    The rest of them are either chickenhawks or too afraid to rock the boat. Ugh.

    1. We’re a quarter of the world’s economy, things are quite different from our position in the 18th Century.

      It’s impossible to go back to isolationism. We tried that in the 20s and 30s and it got us nowhere.

      1. And, of course, he’s not an isolationist.

        1. Of course. But that kind of ruins the narrative.

        2. I’m wondering why Paul is not advocating for neutrality. That’s sounds better (more like Switzerland) than non-interventionist (which sounds like “naive peace lover”) and isolationist (closing ourselves off from the rest of the world). Neutrality allows us to defend ourselves while avoiding “entangling alliances” that cause blowback.

          1. ‘m wondering why Paul is not advocating for neutrality.

            Because some square-jawed lunatic who represents the worst in the Republican Party (that would be Hannity) would say something like “Ron Paul wants us to be neutral in the face of radical Islam and Free Whites Americans! He wants to be neutral between peaceful, Christian-beloved Jewish Israel and nasty ol’ Iran!”

          2. Armed neutrality is ineffective at best.

            1. Ineffective at what, exactly?

              1. Ensuring that JP Morgan’s loans to one side in a conflict get paid back when it proves incapable of winning?

      2. If you think Ron Paul is an isolationist then you don’t know what isolationism means.


      3. Unless Ron Paul is throwing up 100% tariffs and restricting exports and imports, your mention of the US being a quarter of the world’s economy has nothing to do with killing 16-year old US citizens or starting useless wars.

        1. Again, we didn’t start the wars. The wars came to OUR shores. We’re engaged in a struggle with global radical Islam whether we want to be or not.

          1. Oh for fucks sake, this can’t be real.

            Jim, is that you?

            1. Yeah, I was gonna reply, but now it seems like a spoof.

          2. Oh, really? When did Iraq or Afghanistan attack us?

            That’s right, it was a bunch of crazy Saudi Arabians with no State affiliation. Oh, and fun fact, radical Islam has a problem with us because WE invaded THEIR territory.

            1. Afghanistan attacked us when it hosted an organization that killed thousands of Americans.

              I didn’t know ‘radical Islam’ was entitled to control of territory. What territory did we ‘invade’ again?

              1. Oh look, cyto the trotskyite cultist shows his love for collectivism.

                Obviously he doesn’t mean the land called Afghanistan attacked him. He means people like this and this (BTW the lies from the U.S. government in the second link are hysterically funny).

                Only a religious fanatic would look at impoverished people living in a barren land known as the graveyard of empires and see a threat that requires the immolation of the unbelievers.

                Now, one of the interesting things that the imams of cyto’s cult probably have glossed over is why the Taliban allowed Osama bin Laden to take refuge there. He brought troops to help them in their war against Iran’s allies in the Northern Front in order to expand U.S. ally Pakistan’s control of the region.

                The Northern front added U.S. support to the assistance they got from the Iranian government. The Taliban now also gets U.S. government support in the form of bribe money to allow supplies to pass through Taliban controlled territory to U.S. forces.

                If not for the fact that the farce is draining the U.S. treasury, killing people who signed up to defend their homeland (note that cyto is *not* one of their number – like most collectivists, he is content to let other people pay the price for his dreams of social engineering), it would be worthy of a Joseph Heller novel!

                The warlords whom cyto thinks a threat are enriched, the peasantry whom cyto claims to be liberating are slaughtered and impoverished, and the U.S. taxpayers are bled dry.

                1. My brother served in Afghanistan. He recently retired from the Army. His primary job was delivering Taliban back to their villages once it was determined they were not a threat. Apparently, being a Taliban member mostly means your tribe or village or family is Taliban, and you follow suit. He got our mother to do a “shoe” drive, most of the kids never having owned a pair of shoes. He implied that once you’ve seen these wretched folks, the idea that they’re somehow a threat is absurd.

                  1. Why does your brother hate America?

          3. Really? Iraq came and bombed us right? No wait Libya did. Or I’m certain that Uganda was involved – no wait it was definitely Afghanistan who bombed us, not some crazy quacks that we trained and taught within Afghanistan. We’ve never ever done anything in the middle East to make people angry like assassinate the first elected president of Iran, supply Iraq with weapons while supporting Saddam Hussein’s brutal rise to power, train Osama Bin Laden’s group and supply them with weapons, enter non Muslim Americans into Mecca (highly sacrilegious to Islam) or attack countries based on intel that was completely wrong. Nope we’re definitely in a War against radical Islam because they attacked us.

            1. C’mon – everybody knows the 911 terrorists met up in Germany to hone their plot.
              I mean, we know how to fight and win Germany – its really only logical that we should go to war against Germany. Maybe without all those German cars GM could sell a few and I could get a return on my “volt” stock.

              1. You do know the USA is losing the currency war with Germany! Germany will soon be in complete control of Europe without firing a single shot.
                Pretty soon will be out of money and won’t be able to fight anyone. We’ll be broke!

              2. You mean overthrow the King of Iran in 1953?

                Actually, it was the Prime Minister (and, yes, the first democratically elected leader). The purpose of the coup was to reinstall a King, or the Shah as an absolute monarch.

                And it’s interesting that the British government that first floated the idea of deposing Mosaddegh was Atlee’s socialists. Having just gotten done with nationalizing iron, coal and the railways in Britain, they absolutely refused to negotiate with the Iranians over compensation. Why Ike agreed to participate I don’t know.

                Also interesting is the fact that the home of the constitutional monarchy instigated a coup that destroyed a nascent one in another country.

                1. “Why Ike agreed to participate I don’t know.”

                  1. Correctly or incorrectly, the Eisenhower Administration saw Communists and the potential spread of Communism, essentially everywhere.

                  2. The UK was still our closest ally and was contributing, for example, the largest non-U.S. contingent to UN forces in Korea. In that respect, think of it as an early Libya.

                  1. Ah, good points.

                    1. It’s also interesting that while Mossadegh was a socialist who nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the shah put him to shame as a nationalizer (for the sake of “modernization”) once he consolidated his power.

                      A variation on “he may be a son of a bitch but he’s our son of a bitch” seems to be, “he may be a socialist but he’s our socialist”.

                    2. Actually, Mossadegh gave the Brits a good deal. 25 percent was put away per year until the hold value was met, the technicians could stay and work. Mitterand was a socialist, but privatized a third of French industries before leaving office. Hell, I’ll take that kind of socialism any day.

            2. not some crazy quacks that we trained and taught within Afghanistan… train Osama Bin Laden’s group

              We fought on the same side against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but we never trained OBL directly or any of his henchmen.

              assassinate the first elected president of Iran

              You mean overthrow the King of Iran in 1953? That was mostly a British-led operation as he was going to channel his inner Castro and nationalize British oil assets.

              enter non Muslim Americans into Mecca (highly sacrilegious to Islam)

              A hatred of our (infidels) presense on the Arabian peninsula after the Saudis requested we protect them from a possible Iraqi invasion in 1990; it seems that not everybody is so upset about infidels in Arabia.

              1. That was mostly a British-led operation as he was going to channel his inner Castro and nationalize British oil assets.

                Actually, they were nationalizing the British assetts because there was a great deal of evidence the Brits were not paying the toyalties they owed to the Iranian government.

                And it wasn’t British led- the Iranians had rolled up the British neworks. That’s why the Brits went to their anglophile freinds at the CIA and asked them to do the deed, as a “Favor” for blighty ol’ England.

              2. assassinate the first elected president of Iran

                Oh not this crap. Mossadegh used and abused his emergency powers to eliminate the anonymous ballot and other things to get 99% of the vote. Real ‘democratic’.

                1. Finally! Someone understands that it wasn’t my fault!

              3. For some reason the sqirrels placed my response to J_L_B above his 2:42 comment.

                Couldn’t possibly have been my fault. I’m an American, godammit, and we’re never, ever wrong.

          4. I’m a scared little boy!

        2. You know, it’s possible to set up tariffs of greater than 100%. You can import you $10,000 car, but you have to pay a $15,000 fee for the privelege.

          1. *your car

      4. In addition to the points made by others, you don’t have to go back to the 18th Century to find a more rational American foreign policy. Heck, even Korea and Vietnam seem rational in comparison to getting involved in nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not that I’m justifying the Vietnam war by saying that.

        But getting us bogged down in every Third World shithole in the name of “national security” is beyond stupid. The average Republican used to understand that.

        It used to be that foreign interventionism was seen as an extraordinary occurence. Now, it’s become the normal state of affairs. That simply cannot continue, no matter what the anti-Paul trolls say.

  18. Update on the Kelly Clarkson story:
    “I used to like Kelly Clarkson. But I can’t like anyone who is either ignorant enough or arrogant enough to endorse a candidate like Ron Paul,” Spafford Freeman told Fox411 on Thursday from her home in Minnesota. “I have listened to ‘Since You’ve Been Gone’ for the last time.”…..-ron-paul/

    1. Why drag Rainbow into this?

    2. I can’t believe that anyone that I would listen to on my Ipod is not as enlightened as I am.


    Iowa GOP moving vote-count to ‘undisclosed location’

    Threats to disrupt the Iowa Republican caucuses next week have prompted state GOP officials to move the vote tabulation to an “undisclosed location,” POLITICO has learned.

    The state party has not yet told the campaigns exactly where the returns will be added up, only that it will be off-site from the Iowa GOP’s Des Moines headquarters. The 2008 caucus results were tabulated at the state party offices, which sit just a few blocks from the state capitol.

    Activist groups including the Occupy movement have indicated that they’ll attempt to interrupt rallies in the closing days before next Tuesday’s caucuses.

    The AP reported today that Occupy is making plans to even attend some caucuses and vote “no preference,” but not disturb the voting process.

    But Iowa Republicans are also bracing for other threats, sources say, including hacking.

    Iowa GOP Chair Matt Strawn wouldn’t comment on the plan to move the vote-counting except to say they’re increasing security measures.

    “The Iowa GOP is taking additional safeguards to ensure the Caucus results are tabulated and reported to the public in an accurate and timely manner,” Strawn said. “We are not commenting on specific security procedures.”

    I thought the votes were counted in the room where they were cast with every voter and campaign representatives watching.

    1. I smell something rotten, and for once it’s only partly the dirty hippies.

  20. I don’t know who Maria Menounos is, but God Damn she’s good enough to eat!…..tball.html

    1. She was on one of those entertainment tv shows, god only knows which one.

      Oh and she fucked Nick Lachey I think.

    2. 15 yard penalty for f*cking the passer…

    3. Kudos Menounos!

    4. Stacy Keibler is always the right answer.

  21. HAhahahaha, that reads like something from The Onion

    1. @ Sparky, damn you comments

  22. I’m not sure how you get “the president has unilateral authority to detain anyone he deems an ‘enemy combatant.'” from “Under any legal authority invoked to warrant detention, U.S. citizens would always have the right to challenge their detention in habeas corpus proceedings before a federal judge.” I think this point is being unfair to Romney. Besides, that statement falls perfectly in line w/ Paul’s answer, too; you may have left out the “indefinitely” in there, which is a pretty important distinction.


    Read this, please, before spewing out the same unresearched and unverfied non-sense that has been posted on every “major” media source in the last two weeks.

    The smear campaign against this man is pathetic, and transparent. Keep it up, support for RP will only grow as you continue to prove yourselves pawns of the greater powers that be.

  24. Plainly, Ron Paul hates America.

    1. Prove it!

      1. General George S Patton explained why conservatives think that Ron Paul hates America on May 17, 1944.

        “Men, this stuff some sources sling around about America wanting to stay out of the war and not wanting to fight is a lot of baloney! Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle.”

        Ron Paul doesn’t love the sting and clash of battle; he doesn’t love to fight. He’s not a real American.

        1. And yet he’s one of only two candidates who’ve actually served in the military.

          Maybe those conservatives prefer watching George C. Scott over the reality of serving under George S. Patton.

    2. It won’t be long before they just come out and say that.

      Yesterday on Faux News they were letting Dick Morris bloviate. (Why, I wonder, does anyone consider him an expert on anything other than hookers?) He said that Ron Paul is “to the left of Barack Obama”.

      I laughed my ass off. So, following the Constitution is extreme leftism? Those damn Commie Founding Fathers!

  25. In Bizarro’s world, don’t forget, the peacemakers are Bad Guys and the war-makers are the Good Guys.

    I’m tired of our arrogant, self-satisfied elites, who think they can determine the outcome of an election before a single ballot is counted. The more they say “but of course he can’t win,” the more I wonder: isn’t that the voters, decision to make?

    1. Besides that, they are wrong in their predictions more often than not. If I was so consistently wrong at my job I’d be living in a cardboard box under a bridge. But they get paid big bucks to say the same wrong shit over and over again.

  26. Okay, so all the other candidates would start unprovoked wars, target citizens for assassination, torture us, wiretap at will, detain our spouses without trial, and continue to add hundreds of billions to the national debt every year, but what about the newsletters?

    1. That’s one of the things that really makes me roll my eyes. Are their priorities really that fucked up, or are they just desperately scratching for any excuse to derail Paul?

      For that matter, if racist thoughts are disqualifying, what does that say about supposed “great” presidents like the eugenicist Woodrow Wilson or the signer of Executive Order 9066 FDR?

      1. Are their priorities really that fucked up, or are they just desperately scratching for any excuse to derail Paul?


      2. My criticisms of the newsletters have always been due to the fact it would harm the media narrative that Paul needs to get nominated and to reach out to independents and Democrats. When the race gets down to two or three candidates, Paul won’t be able to afford the media blitzkrieg as the other GOP supporters rally around the anti-Paul. Without a very strong showing of Democrats registering Republican and supporting Paul, I don’t see a path to the nomination.

        I want him to be president. He would likely be the best president ever. I prefer Johnson, who has less baggage and more executive experience, but Paul is causing a political sea change and every libertarian needs to get on board, at least until Paul is out of the running. I can ignore the newsletters because they don’t jive with his own rhetoric or his voting record, and can hold my tongue on the dogmatic federalism that leads to non-libertarian outcomes at the state level.

        I think most of Paul libertarian critics at Reason and elsewhere feel more or less the same, and think a better explanation will go a long way to helping his chances. It’s political suicide to allow the establishment media control the narrative on this story. He should have gotten in front of it earlier.

      3. SIOUX CENTER, IOWA ? Ron Paul stood before a crowded public library conference room here and warned the packed house that the United Nations is coming to take their land

        I don’t need any outside help in “derailing” my campaign, thank you.

        I’m doing just fine, all by myself.

        1. Shhhhhhhhhhhh. We’re hiding underneath your bed…!

        2. Re: Imbecile who cannot even copy correctly,

          This is the actual quote:

          If you want to use your property, you have to get a lot of permits. If you’re in the development business, from the low-level all the way to the top, you have to get permission from the federal government?I’m fearful because some people would like us to go all the way to the UN and have the UN controlling our lands, too.

          Considering the call for a Global Governing Agency for Climate Change, what Paul said is not off the track even by a minimum. You simply

      4. Better yet, Harry Truman almost joined the Klan, yet integrated the armed forces. Johnson was an out and out bigot but passed all of the civil rights legislation in the 60’s. It might take a “bigot” from Texas again to free black men from the war on drugs. Something to think about.

  27. Mitt really is the only one who can Beat OBAMA

    1. Even if that were true, it wouldn’t make any difference. Mitt is Obama.

      1. Just like Obama is Bush.

  28. Let’s see what Newt would do….

    “Years before he became House Speaker, Newt Gingrich wrote the foreword to an
    official U.S. Air Force book that described how electromagnetic weapons can
    be used to subjugate U.S. citizens who oppose the policies of the Federal
    government. The publication, titled ‘Low Intensity Conflict and Modern
    Technology’ (Lt. Col. David J. Dean, USAF, Editor), contained a chapter
    written by Capt. Paul Tyler that deals with electromagnetic, (so-called)
    non-lethal and psychotronic weapons.

    Because of the strong support for using the U.S. military against civilians
    (as clearly demonstrated by recent anti-terrorist legislation), this Air
    Force publication (and its relationship to HAARP) is very significant. Capt.
    Tyler stated:

    “The potential applications of artificial electromagnetic fields are
    wide-ranging and can be used in many military or quasi-military situations.
    …Some of these potential uses include dealing with terrorist groups” (as
    currently defined by the Clinton administration), “crowd control,
    and…antipersonnel techniques in tactical warfare. In all cases, the
    electromagnetic systems would be used to produce mild to severe
    physiological disruption or perceptual distortion or disorientation”
    (psychotronic weapons application).

    “In addition, the ability of individuals to function could be degraded to
    such a point that they would be combat ineffective. Another advantage of
    electromagnetic systems is that they provide coverage over large areas with
    a single system”(disguised reference to projects like HAARP).

    In 1986, Congressman Newt Gingrich, in a foreword for Low Intensity Conflict and Modern Technology, wrote that the United States had a long history of coping rather successfully with low intensity threats such as the Native Americans. The present Speaker of the House of Representatives pointed out that the U.S. systematically subdued low-intensity threats to America’s politics almost without debate or news coverage. In this Air Force document Capt. Paul E. Tyler, MC, USN, described the potential for use of the electromagnetic spectrum in low- intensity conflict.



    Low Intensity Conflict and Modern Technology
    Paperback: 383 pages
    Publisher: United States Government Printing; First Edition edition (June 1986)
    Language: English
    ISBN-10: 9997382749
    ISBN-13: 978-999738274

  29. What kind of person would limit their own power? The sneakiest, most devious-est, dastardly kind of person, that’s who.

    1. What kind of person would limit their own power?

      ** sheepishly raises hand **

  30. He is so obviously the best candidate. It’s shocking to me that he is not a far-away front runner. We live in a nation of chock-full of crazy stupid. Unbelievable that a man like Gingrich is even in the same conversation as Paul

    1. You must be out of your fucking tree.

    2. CALLER: “But Dr. Paul, many of the newsletters are filled with conspiracies. You had one newsletter from start to finish with fear that the $50 bill, because it was going to be made pink, and it was gonna have all kinds of things that can track us down, so we should all be afraid that maybe tomorrow they’re gonna require us to turn in all of our old money.”

      PAUL: “The paper money now IS pink, you know? No, we haven’t had runaway inflation, but I still fear that.”


      Please elect me to the highest office in the land. Because I’m only slightly crazier than a shithouse rat.

      1. That’s so extra choco-nutty, even I can’t possibly defend it.

      2. Re: Idiot who cannot differentiate between tongue-in-cheek and being serious,

        You’re an idiot who cannot differentiate between tongue-in-cheek and being serious.

  31. Doies that racist bag of shit Ron Paul think the fake eyebrows add gravitas?

    1. I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who would let you suck their dicks, Max. You need to stop obsessing over Dr. Paul and move on with your life.

      1. You didn’t answer the question. What’s with the fake eyebrows. Is it some sort of neo-nazi code thing?

        1. You’re just fucking pathetic now, Max.

          Not that you weren’t fucking pathetic years ago, or just not that long ago when you swore you’d never post here again…

        2. It’s a signal to the Tea Party hobbits.


    CIA Head Of Bin Laden Unit (Michael Scheuer) Strongly Endorses Ron Paul for President (12/30/11) MUST READ

    “Notwithstanding the damnable lies about Dr. Paul’s foreign policy constantly proclaimed by his fellow Republican candidates, leading pro-Israel/pro-intervention U.S.-citizens and their journalist friends, and most of the media, only the gentleman from Texas speaks for the Founders’ non-interventionist vision of America’s role in world affairs and for plain common sense.”

  33. I love Paul’s small gov views. But I can’t get past his anti-semitism, hatred of Israel and his willingness to give all of America’s enemies the benefit of the doubt. His foreign policy views can be classified as insane.

  34. But Ron Paul is the scary/whacky one!!! Hey RobeG, you seriously need to work on your reading comprehension skills or something. The last thing RP is is antisemitic. Here’s a link for you.

  35. Failure to engage in war and the indefinite occupation of nations that have not attacked the United States is now insanity. Good to know.

    War is peace, freedom is etc.

  36. my neighbor’s step-mother makes $78/hour on the internet. She has been without work for 8 months but last month her paycheck was $7228 just working on the internet for a few hours. Here is the site.. CashHard. c o m

  37. There is a Global movement for Peace happening now. It transcends the Democratic and Republican Partys. The whole world is looking at the free people of this country to bring Peace and to stop bombing in the name of freedom. The People here are tired of the unlimited spending of tax payer money. Tired of the unlimited printing of our dollar and its continued devaluation which effects the middle class and the poor. We want equal rights and equal justice for all the people. The one Man they are looking to who is carrying this banner of Truth and Freedom is Ronald Earnest Paul ! No one has been around like him for generations who has aspired people to research the law and define the role of government and the Constitution and learn a little about themselves and other in the process. The Revolution is here !

    Ron Paul 012 !

  38. Ron Paul is the man, period. Who will assume the mantle when he is gone. God help us.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.