Quote :

"We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature. "

good shit right there.

3/16/2007 2:17:07 PM

I kinda like his theory that government is serviant to it's master(the citizens)

not the other way around

3/16/2007 2:32:39 PM

Quote :

"I kinda like his theory that government is serviant to it's master(the citizens) not the other way around "

Amazing how this idea just got thrown out at some point.

3/16/2007 8:21:28 PM

^Not really, once government decided to be everybody's caretaker(mom) from the cradle to the grave it was inevitable that government would fill the other parental roles like "not when your under my roof with my money".

3/16/2007 9:47:35 PM

pretty much


the role has completely reversed

3/16/2007 11:13:42 PM

Quote :

"I kinda like his theory that government is serviant to it's master(the citizens) "

You are so right.

So simple a basis for our gov't has been lost. The key element of an interested and informed people is gradually disappearing amid the three main causes: a mass media of bread and circuses, an ever-growing welfare state mentality and a gov't education system that is destroying our desire for responsible liberty.

3/17/2007 12:20:00 AM

government education will destroy this country before the Jihadists do


anyway


VOTE RON PAUL

3/17/2007 10:34:53 PM

^thats hilarious. and its also the reason why no one will ever take your views on politics seriously.

Quote :

"12. Ron Paul Texas Congressman Last Ranking: 12 At a recent dog-and-pony show of activist-types, one of us actually got a serious question about his campaign. Nothing like a frustrated libertarian trying to attack us MSM types. Fundraising projection: $500,000 +/- $500,000. Iowa ranking: 13."

3/18/2007 8:11:28 AM

Quote :

"Nothing like a frustrated libertarian trying to attack us MSM types."

That's a bit arrogant. Let's not be attacking the MSM. All that blogging n stuff. Just let perky katie couric tell us what to think.

3/18/2007 9:30:24 AM

Quote :

"thats hilarious. and its also the reason why no one will ever take your views on politics seriously"

ok, so the jihadists are a danger?


and look, I'm shocked that a liberal has a love affair with public schools

3/18/2007 9:56:19 AM

http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008

http://www.myspace.com/congressmanronpaul

http://www.house.gov/paul

http://www.ronpaulexplore.com

http://www.ronpaulforcongress.org

http://www.ronpaul.org

http://www.dailypaul.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

http://www.groups.myspace.com/RonPaul08

http://www.youtube.com/ronpaul2008dotcom

Quote :

"Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against regulating the Internet. He voted against the Iraq war. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year. Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress."

3/19/2007 1:50:40 PM

Quote :

"government education will destroy this country before the Jihadists do anyway"

Neal Boortz couldn't have said it better himself.

3/19/2007 2:11:29 PM

well I guess I agree with him on that issue

3/19/2007 2:38:57 PM

Quote :

"Don't Blame the Market for the Housing Bubble by Ron Paul The U.S. housing market, long considered vulnerable by many economists, is now on the verge of suffering a serious collapse in many regions. Commodities guru and hedge fund manager Jim Rogers warns that real estate in expensive bubble areas will drop 40 or 50%. Mainstream media outlets like the New York Times are reporting breathlessly about the possibility of widespread defaults on subprime mortgages. When the bubble finally bursts completely, millions of Americans will be looking for someone to blame. Look for Congress to hold hearings into subprime lending practices and “predatory” mortgages. We’ll hear a lot of grandstanding about how unscrupulous lenders took advantage of poor people, and how rampant speculation caused real estate markets around the country to overheat. It will be reminiscent of the Enron hearings, and the message will be explicitly or implicitly the same: free-market capitalism, left unchecked, leads to greed, fraud, and unethical if not illegal business practices. But capitalism is not to blame for the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve is. Specifically, Fed intervention in the economy – through the manipulation of interest rates and the creation of money – caused the artificial boom in mortgage lending. The Fed has roughly tripled the amount of dollars and credit in circulation just since 1990. Housing prices have risen dramatically not because of simple supply and demand, but because the Fed literally created demand by making the cost of borrowing money artificially cheap. When credit is cheap, individuals tend to borrow too much and spend recklessly. This is not to say that all banks, lenders, and Wall Street firms are blameless. Many of them are politically connected, and benefited directly from the Fed’s easy money policies. And some lenders did make fraudulent or unethical loans. But every cent they loaned was first created by the Fed. The actions of lenders are directly attributable to the policies of the Fed: when credit is cheap, why not loan money more recklessly to individuals who normally would not qualify? Even with higher default rates, lenders could make huge profits simply through volume. Subprime lending is a symptom of the housing bubble, not the cause of it. Fed credit also distorts mortgage lending through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government schemes created by Congress supposedly to help poor people. Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit guarantee of a bailout by the federal government if their loans default, and thus are insulated from market forces. This insulation spurred investors to make funds available to Fannie and Freddie that otherwise would have been invested in other securities or more productive endeavors, thereby fueling the housing boom. The Federal Reserve provides the mother’s milk for the booms and busts wrongly associated with a mythical “business cycle.” Imagine a Brinks truck driving down a busy street with the doors wide open, and money flying out everywhere, and you’ll have a pretty good analogy for Fed policies over the last two decades. Unless and until we get the Federal Reserve out of the business of creating money at will and setting interest rates, we will remain vulnerable to market bubbles and painful corrections. If housing prices plummet and millions of Americans find themselves owing more than their homes are worth, the blame lies squarely with Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke. "

3/20/2007 12:09:27 AM

still no word about him with the mainstream media

3/21/2007 1:34:16 PM

A (Libertarian Party produced) history of the Libertarian Party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYQRzXd1UvQ

The South Park ad in the middle is hilarious.

3/21/2007 10:31:29 PM

^^^i lost a little respect for him with that article. but, he cant really say anything else and maintain his ideological purity.

^i love how they try to claim credit for TANSTAFL. What a great start to the video

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 12:42 AM. Reason : ^]

3/22/2007 12:39:06 AM

will we see him on a ballot in NC?

no

3/22/2007 9:04:25 AM

Quote :

"The Upcoming Iraq War Funding Bill by Ron Paul Statement Before the U.S. House of Representatives March 20, 2007 The $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will join me in voting against this measure. If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting no makes equally good sense. Voting no also makes the legitimate point that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the management of any military operation – the president clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief. But Congress just as clearly is responsible for making policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipping armies, funding military operations, and ending conflicts that do not serve our national interests. Congress failed to meet its responsibilities four years ago, unconstitutionally transferring its explicit war power to the executive branch. Even though the administration started the subsequent pre-emptive war in Iraq, Congress bears the greatest responsibility for its lack of courage in fulfilling its duties. Since then Congress has obediently provided the funds and troops required to pursue this illegitimate war. We won’t solve the problems in Iraq until we confront our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micromanaging the war while continuing to fund it won’t help our troops. Here’s a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing our troops home. If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen, and their families – many on their second or third tour in Iraq – feel about it. The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public. We’re so concerned about saving face, but whose face are we saving? A sensible policy would save American lives and follow the rules laid out for Congress in the Constitution – and avoid wars that have no purpose. The claim that it’s unpatriotic to oppose spending more money in Iraq must be laid to rest as fraudulent. We should pass a resolution that expresses congressional opposition to any more undeclared, unconstitutional, unnecessary, pre-emptive wars. We should be building a consensus for the future that makes it easier to end our current troubles in Iraq. It’s amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated by political propagandists and special interests than the American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about the war in November. The large majority of Americans now want us out of Iraq. Our leaders cannot grasp the tragic consequence of our policies toward Iraq for the past 25 years. It’s time we woke them up. We are still by far the greatest military power on earth. But since we stubbornly refuse to understand the nature of our foes, we are literally defeating ourselves. In 2004, bin Laden stated that Al Qaeda’s goal was to bankrupt the United States. His second in command, Zawahari, is quoted as saying that the 9/11 attack would cause Americans to, “come and fight the war personally on our sand where they are within rifle range.” Sadly, we are playing into their hands. This $124 billion appropriation is only part of the nearly $1 trillion in military spending for this year’s budget alone. We should be concerned about the coming bankruptcy and the crisis facing the U.S. dollar. We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We’re dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy – an enemy without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal determination, and motivated by our meddling in their regional affairs, to destroy us. And as we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it’s supposed to protect – for which it is claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places. Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a nation of pre-emptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the opposite is true. Surely we can do better than this supplemental authorization. I plan to vote no "

3/22/2007 9:56:28 AM

Quote :

"Dr. No for president Paul Mulshine, Star & Ledger, March 25, 2007 People ask me who I'm supporting for president in 2008. That's easy. As always, I'm supporting the guy who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. That would be Ron Paul. Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas. He is noteworthy for being the only member of Congress from either party who actually believes the words in the Constitution have meaning. He therefore votes against almost everything. Paul is a medical doctor, so this habit has won him the nickname "Doctor No." Paul recently announced that he is entering the GOP primary for the 2008 presidential nomination. I hereby offer my endorsement, for what that's worth. My reasoning is simple. All I ask of the two-party system is that it give the voter a choice. Ron Paul does. The rest of the GOP field doesn't. How do Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney differ from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the Iraq war? On immigration amnesty? On Social Security? On Medicare? Dr. No is different. I had a nice chat with him the other day on the phone. I asked a simple question: "Virtually everything the federal government does is unconstitutional, isn't it?" "Basically, that's pretty true," Paul replied. Indeed it is. But you won't find anyone else saying it. The other major candidates desire merely to tinker with "the welfare-warfare state," as Paul terms it. He wants to dismantle it in the name of liberty. Paul, who is 70, may have al most no chance, but his performance in the debates should be fun, particularly in New Hampshire, which is committed by law to hav ing the very first primary election in the nation. New Hampshire is known for its rugged individualism, and there has never been a candi date in recent history who so perfectly embodied the "Live Free or Die" slogan on that state's license plates. "I won't have to be bashful about telling the truth," said Paul One thing he expects to tell the truth about is the Iraq War. It goes directly counter to the non-interventionism of the founders, an approach that was a core belief of Republicans for most of the 20th century, said Paul. "I don't think it's the proper role of the federal government to straighten out foreign countries," he said. Paul said this even before the Iraq War. While the rest of the Republicans were, as he put it, "being frightened to death by a couple of thousand people who hit us," Paul was pointing out that the al Qaeda threat was tiny compared to the threat from the Soviet Union in the Cold War. He predicted the war would be a debacle and was one of just six House Republicans to vote against the war resolution. "A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East," he said at the time. You can say that again. And Paul is doing just that in a You Tube presentation. The speech amounts to a six-minute diatribe against his fellow Beltway politicians who "don't know how to run the economy, regulate our lives or manage a world empire," in his words. The video has generated more than 36,000 hits, according to the congressman. Given the nature of the Internet, many of these hits are no doubt from young people who have correctly deduced just how miserable a government they are inheriting from the current clowns in Washington. Today's college kids are destined to spend their lives paying off the lavish entitlements we Baby Boomers have voted our selves. None of that would have happened if Paul had had his way. "I was first motivated to run for office in the 1970s because of the breakdown of Bretton Woods," he said in reference to the U.S. decision to drop the gold standard in 1971. "The door was open to print as much money as you want." That led to the hyperinflation of the 1970s, said Paul. That was largely caused by the massive spending on the Vietnam War. We're heading that way again thanks to massive spending on Iraq, he said. If elected, he would begin to pull troops out immediately. In addition to ending the war in Iraq, he'd end the war on drugs, also not permitted by the Constitution. He promises to slice government drastically and restore the nation's financial condition before the upcoming Baby Boomer raid on the treasury. Such views are a welcome change from the carefully calcu lated spin coming out of the mouths of the major candidates. Paul may have little chance of win ning the nomination and less of winning the presidency, but it's refreshing to think that of all the candidates who will be prattling on about liberty over the next year or so, one will actually mean what he says. "

3/26/2007 9:46:41 AM

and still no mention by much of the MSM

3/26/2007 3:42:54 PM

He was on Lou Dobbs once and he was on Fox News' "Because You Asked." There's been other small mentions, but I'm sure he'll gain a lot of ground after the first debate on May 3rd (or 4th)... as long as people don't view his words as too boring and factual.

In the first week or two of April, people around the nation are going to plaster their towns with Ron Pul fliers to get people intrigued and investigating. Like, "Who is Ron Paul? http://www.ronpaul.org" or "Ron Paul Revolution '08" etc etc. If anyone feels like helping me out, shoot me a PM. He's not going to get much attention just by postings on the Internet.

3/26/2007 5:45:51 PM

I'll help

I've already told you that though

I just wish the standard "conservative media" types would help him out, like Rush, Sean, etc

but as far as I know they don't/won't mention him probably because he doesn't cater to the church crowd about abortion, the war, religion, etc


I'm looking forward to the debates so he can get his message out

dems and pubs could potentially embrace him

3/26/2007 5:51:00 PM

there is no way rush or hannity would support Ron Paul. he voted against the war, and has actually dont things like question the administration. you can complain about the big budgets passed by delay, bush et al, but you cant actually do something to stop the spending. that is treason.

Face it. he is fucked.

Its too bad really. Granted, I would never vote for him in a million years, because I disagree with most of his core beliefs. But, he is far and above the most trustworthy Republican running. And the least likely to institute a theocracy or to kick every brown person out of the country.

3/26/2007 10:11:19 PM

I think Ron Paul has a lot of things just right, going the old school Conservatism route...

Unfortunately he gives the "9-11 truth movement" more attention than it deserves.

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 8:14 AM. Reason : .]

3/27/2007 8:14:30 AM

yeah, you're correct


I'm still looking forward to debates


maybe a MSM candidate will pick up on some of his ideas

3/27/2007 12:26:10 PM

Ron Paul will appear on MSNBC Thursday, March 29th, at 12:20 pm. The show is doing a special on lesser known candidates and having one appear each day.

Edit: Just wondering what you mean by saying Paul gives too much credit to the 9/11 Truth Movement? As far as I know, all he's really said is that he would support a new independant investigation. There were some bizarre occurences that should be cleared up. If there isn't investigation into such things, it only gives conspiracy theorists more ground to stand on.

[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 9:58 PM. Reason : .]

3/27/2007 9:54:33 PM

Quote :

"But, he is far and above the most trustworthy Republican politician running."

unfortunatly his own party is avoiding him.

3/27/2007 10:02:51 PM

Quote :

"Momentous Trifles by Paul Hein, March 31, 2007 I haven’t conducted a survey, but I think that if I were to ask people if they believed there was some sort of significant difference between Republicans and Democrats, many, if not most of them, would answer "Yes." In a sense, they’re right. The ultimate political difference is: We’re out; they’re in. Or vice versa. Getting into office and staying there is the ultimate political question before which all others fade into insignificance. But once elected, what are the differences? Well, there are the stereotypes: the Republicans favor big business; the Democrats, labor. The Republicans frown on abortion; the Democrats think it utterly acceptable. The Democrats never hesitate to raise the minimum wage; the Republicans express misgivings. But note: the Republicans may not want to raise the minimum wage as fast or as high as the Democrats, but they do raise it. No Republican, to my knowledge (Ron Paul being an exception) ever suggests doing away with it altogether. Similarly, in other areas of "disagreement," the question is never whether to do away with a certain big-government program or not, but only how much to reduce the increase in its budget, or some other minor modification. This quibbling is important; it sustains the illusion of a difference between the parties, which, in turn, encourages voting. And voting is the measure by which the people’s belief in government, and its inevitability and necessity, is gauged. But the real proof of the essential identity of the two parties is shown in the issues that most seriously challenge the powers currently in office. The current flap involves the government firing of eight federal prosecutors. This is a matter of such substantial insignificance that it can safely be raised by the Democrats against the Republicans without risking the possibility of anything of substance coming to light. Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the administration. To my knowledge, no one has alleged that the firing of the prosecutors was unlawful. Rather, it is charged that their firings were politically motivated: some of them were investigating possible improprieties by Republicans. Gosh – politics in government! Could it be? When the attorneys were hired originally, do you suppose it could have been because the administration considered their political philosophy congruent with its own? Why would a "conservative" president take on more than a few token "liberal" federal prosecutors? And why would he retain those who appeared hostile to his policies? Those who express surprise or outrage that the administration would fire prosecutors for political reasons are at least as disingenuous as the president himself. Fired for political reasons? Of course! Everybody knows it, and were it not an election year, with political gain to be reaped by the show of outraged indignation, it would hardly merit a mention in the evening news. Or consider the other administration-threatening affair: Watergate. A trivial bungled burglary, for no good reason, since it appeared that Nixon would carry the day anyway. Plus, tape recordings of President Nixon – admittedly a shrewd man – conspiring with his colleagues about the break-in! I’ve never understood why a person as smart as Nixon would make recordings of himself planning a crime – albeit a rather minor one. Nonetheless, this silly affair was blown into such importance that it drove Nixon out of the White House. The Republicans had their chance with Clinton’s sexual pecadillos, but failed to oust the President. They succeeded in demonstrating his appalling moral character, but that was pretty well known before. Now if you really wanted to hound a president from office, you could find serious and weighty things to support your attack. President Bush, for example, has committed so many crimes during his term in office (warrantless spying, torture of prisoners, for examples) that, by any rational standard, he could be impeached and convicted several times over. But who could accuse him? Whose hands are clean enough to cast the first stone? When he wasn’t making a record of himself plotting a robbery, Nixon gave us such monstrosities as the EPA, and affirmative action. These unconstitutional acts provided plenty of grounds for impeachment, but, again, who would bring the charge? His political enemies, who also supported such programs? Political divisions are real, all right, but as mentioned above, they do not involve any principles save: get power and keep it, and involve your cronies in the resulting plunder and loot. When we see a serious threat to presidential power, as, we’re told, is now happening re the firing of the prosecutors, we can be sure that the matter is trivial. Any challenge to government action based upon fundamental principles is not going to happen, because it would reveal the antagonists as essentially the same. It’s like voting for the candidate who is the lesser of two evils. If you wait for a candidate who isn’t evil at all, it’ll be a long wait! And it’ll be an even longer wait before one party challenges the policies of the other on anything but trivial grounds. Both parties live in glass houses."

4/1/2007 11:48:23 PM

the glass houses comment is very fitting

4/2/2007 3:11:59 AM

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr040506.htm

Quote :

"HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS Before the U.S. House of Representatives April 5, 2006 Iran: The Next Neocon Target It’s been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course now almost everybody knows there were no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They’re also funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world. The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars. Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities would not have occurred. My guess is that 99% of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today. Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rising clamor for “democratizing” Iran, even though their current president, Mahmoud Almadinejad, is an elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never complain. Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had. It’s amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It’s frightening to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq. Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion, and occupied two Muslim nations--Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly not safer for it. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ring leader behind 9/11. This effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban’s arch enemy, more than our own. The longtime Neo-con goal to remake Iraq prompted us to abandon the search for Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was hyped as a noble mission, justified by misrepresentations of intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein and his ability to attack us and his neighbors. This failed policy has created the current chaos in Iraq-- chaos that many describe as a civil war. Saddam Hussein is out of power and most people are pleased. Yet some Iraqis, who dream of stability, long for his authoritarian rule. But once again, Saddam Hussein’s removal benefited the Iranians, who consider Saddam Hussein an arch enemy. Our obsession with democracy-- which is clearly conditional, when one looks at our response to the recent Palestinian elections-- will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia. Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies and placed power in Iraq with Iran’s best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures?..."

4/13/2007 7:57:18 PM

Quote :

"... common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran-- whether planned or accidental-- will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3. All the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten. Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, well planned propaganda, or a major incident will override the skepticism and heartache of our frustrating fight. Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran’s radicals. Instead of capitulating to these charges, we should point out that those who maneuver us into war do so with little concern for our young people serving in the military, and theoretically think little of their own children if they have any. It’s hard to conceive that political supporters of the war would consciously claim that a pre-emptive war for regime change, where young people are sacrificed, is only worth it if the deaths and injuries are limited to other people’s children. This, I’m sure, would be denied-- which means their own children are technically available for this sacrifice that is so often praised and glorified for the benefit of the families who have lost so much. If so, they should think more of their own children. If this is not so, and their children are not available for such sacrifice, the hypocrisy is apparent. Remember, most Neo-con planners fall into the category of chicken-hawks. For the past 3 years it’s been inferred that if one is not in support of the current policy, one is against the troops and supports the enemy. Lack of support for the war in Iraq was said to be supportive of Saddam Hussein and his evil policies. This is an insulting and preposterous argument. Those who argued for the containment of the Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to Stalin or Khrushchev. Lack of support for the Iraq war should never be used as an argument that one was sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Containment and diplomacy are far superior to confronting a potential enemy, and are less costly and far less dangerous-- especially when there’s no evidence that our national security is being threatened. Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various arguments for the Iraq war, 3 years ago they were easily persuaded by the politicians and media to fully support the invasion. Now, after 3 years of terrible pain for so many, even the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the fruitlessness of our failing effort. Seventy-two percent of our troops now serving in Iraq say it’s time to come home, yet the majority still cling to the propaganda that we’re there because of 9/11 attacks, something even the administration has ceased to claim. Propaganda is pushed on our troops to exploit their need to believe in a cause that’s worth the risk to life and limb. I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I’m wrong. I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and cost. Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must support Israel, support patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom. The public too often only smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop the war. I worry that before we can finish the war we’re in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, “enough already!” The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to attack us have already begun. It’s too bad we can’t learn from our mistakes. This time there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by the UN before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been forewarned that “all options” remain on the table. And there’s little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there’s less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq. It’s astonishing that after three years of bad results and tremendous expense there’s little indication we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation building, policing the world, and protecting “our oil” still constitute an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties. It’s already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious about obtaining a nuclear weapon, and is a much more formidable opponent than Iraq. Besides, Mahmoud Almadinjad threatened to destroy Israel and that cannot stand. Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat that cannot be ignored. Iran’s history is being ignored, just as we ignored Iraq’s history. This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative than those towards Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran started a long time before this president took office. In 1953 our CIA, with help of the British, participated in overthrowing the democratic elected leader, Mohamed Mossedech. We placed the Shah in power. He ruled ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that we protected him-- that is until 1979. We even provided him with Iran’s first nuclear reactor. Evidently we didn’t buy the argument that his oil supplies precluded a need for civilian nuclear energy. From 1953 to 1979 his authoritarian rule served to incite a radical Muslim opposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who overthrew the Shah and took our hostages in 1979. This blowback event was slow in coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage crisis and overthrow of the Shah by the Ayatollah was a major victory for the radical Islamists. Most Americans either never knew about or easily forgot our unwise meddling in the internal affairs of Iran in 1953. During the 1980s we further antagonized Iran by supporting the Iraqis in their invasion of Iran. This made our relationship with Iran worse, while sending a message to Saddam Hussein that invading a neighboring country is not all that bad. When Hussein got the message from our State Department that his plan to invade Kuwait was not of much concern to the United States he immediately proceeded to do so. We in a way encouraged him to do it almost like we encouraged him to go into Iran. Of course this time our reaction was quite different, and all of a sudden our friendly ally Saddam Hussein became our arch enemy. The American people may forget this flip-flop, but those who suffered from it never forget. And the Iranians remember well our meddling in their affairs. Labeling the Iranians part of the axis of evil further alienated them and contributed to the animosity directed toward us. For whatever reasons the Neo-conservatives might give, they are bound and determined to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in its leadership. This policy will further spread our military presence and undermine our security. The sad truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no more real than those claimed about Iraq. The charges made against Iran are unsubstantiated, and amazingly sound very similar to the false charges made against Iraq. One would think promoters of the war against Iraq would be a little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward Iran. The American people and Congress should be more cautious in accepting these charges at face value. Yet it seems the propaganda is working, since few in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking for UN sanctions against her. There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so, however. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence that she is working on one--only conjecture. If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries? If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group..."

[Edited on April 13, 2007 at 8:03 PM. Reason : ...]

4/13/2007 7:59:02 PM

Quote :

"...Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons. But we reward them just as we reward India. We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran even though they have no nuclear weapons. But listen to what a leading Israeli historian, Martin Van Creveld, had to say about this: “Obviously, we don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I don’t know if they’re developing them, but if they’re not developing them, they’re crazy.” There’s been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran’s nuclear program. This distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass resolutions condemning her and promoting UN sanctions. IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradi has never reported any evidence of “undeclared” sources or special nuclear material in Iran, or any diversion of nuclear material. We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is asking them impossibly to prove a negative. El Baradi states Iran is in compliance with the nuclear NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement. We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were supplied to him by the U.S., and we refused to believe UN inspectors and the CIA that he no longer had them. Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us. Now we’re hysterically wondering if someday she might decide to build a bomb in self interest. Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort the agreement made in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation. Iran has an absolute right under the NPT to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT. It’s the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the NPT. Likewise our provision of nuclear materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT. The demand for UN sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by Congress. The “Iran Freedom Support Act,” HR 282, passed in the International Relations Committee; and recently the House passed H Con Res 341, which inaccurately condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations. At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is minimal. Let there be no doubt: The Neo-conservative warriors are still in charge, and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a pre-emptive attack on Iran. Never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq is in civil war: serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which will further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications experienced in the three-year occupation of Iraq. Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance. Imagine how American citizens would respond if China supported similar efforts here in the United States to bring about regime change! How many of us would remain complacent if someone like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the Iranian people resent us and the attitude of our leaders? Even though El Baradi and his IAEA investigations have found no violations of the NPT-required IAEA safeguards agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove they have no nuclear weapons-- refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative is impossible. Let there be no doubt, though the words “regime change” are not found in the bill-- that’s precisely what they are talking about. Neo-conservative Michael Ledeen, one of the architects of the Iraq fiasco, testifying before the International Relations Committee in favor of the IFSA, stated it plainly: “I know some Members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the language and context of the IFSA and its close relative in the Senate, can clearly see that this is in fact the essence of the matter. You can’t have freedom in Iran without bringing down the Mullahs.” Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons and groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, are acts of war. Once again we’re unilaterally declaring a pre-emptive war against a country and a people that have not harmed us and do not have the capacity to do so. And don’t expect Congress to seriously debate a declaration of war resolution. For the past 56 years Congress has transferred to the executive branch the power to go to war as it pleases, regardless of the tragic results and costs. Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift towards confrontation in Iran policy as she insisted on $75 million to finance propaganda, through TV and radio broadcasts into Iran. She expressed this need because of the so-called “aggressive” policies of the Iranian government. We’re seven thousand miles from home, telling the Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will have, backed up by the use of our military force, and we call them the aggressors. We fail to realize the Iranian people, for whatever faults they may have, have not in modern times aggressed against any neighbor. This provocation is so unnecessary, costly, and dangerous. Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians, military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences. The successful alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shia will prove a formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads. Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted by the Iranians in retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would be incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that some might resort to a terrorist attack on us. They will not passively lie down, nor can they be destroyed easily..."

4/13/2007 8:00:16 PM

Quote :

"...One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure “our” oil supply. This backfired badly: Production in Iraq is down 50%, and world oil prices have more than doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a similar result. We could see oil over $120 a barrel and, and $6 gas at the pump. The obsession the Neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to understand. One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who planned these wars expect to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in some IED explosion. Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been forewarned more than once that all options remain on the table. The sequence of events now occurring with regards to Iran are eerily reminiscent of the hype prior to our pre-emptive strike against Iraq. We should remember the saying: “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” It looks to me like the Congress and the country is open to being fooled once again. Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq war are now highly critical of the President, having been misled as to reasons for the invasion and occupation. But these same people are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for our need to undermine the Iranian government. The President’s 2006 National Security Strategy, just released, is every bit as frightening as the one released in 2002 endorsing pre-emptive war. In it he claims: “We face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.” He claims the Iranians have for 20 years hidden key nuclear activities-- though the IAEA makes no such assumptions nor has the Security Council in these 20 years ever sanctioned Iran. The clincher in the National Security Strategy document is if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will follow. The problem is the diplomatic effort-- if one wants to use that term-- is designed to fail by demanding the Iranians prove an unproveable negative. The West-- led by the U.S.-- is in greater violation by demanding Iran not pursue any nuclear technology, even peaceful, that the NPT guarantees is their right. The President states: Iran’s “desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” A “desire” is purely subjective, and cannot be substantiated nor disproved. Therefore all that is necessary to justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove it doesn’t have a “desire” to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, Pakistan, India, and Israel—whose nuclear missiles surround Iran. Logic like this to justify a new war, without the least consideration for a congressional declaration of war, is indeed frightening. Common sense tells us Congress, especially given the civil war in Iraq and the mess in Afghanistan, should move with great caution in condoning a military confrontation with Iran. ..."

4/13/2007 8:01:19 PM

Quote :

"...Cause for Concern Most Americans are uninterested in foreign affairs until we get mired down in a war that costs too much, last too long, and kills too many U.S. troops. Getting out of a lengthy war is difficult, as I remember all too well with Vietnam while serving in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. Getting into war is much easier. Unfortunately the Legislative branch of our government too often defers to the Executive branch, and offers little resistance to war plans even with no significant threat to our security. The need to go to war is always couched in patriotic terms and falsehoods regarding an imaginary eminent danger. Not supporting the effort is painted as unpatriotic and wimpish against some evil that’s about to engulf us. The real reason for our militarism is rarely revealed and hidden from the public. Even Congress is deceived into supporting adventurism they would not accept if fully informed. If we accepted the traditional American and constitutional foreign policy of non-intervention across the board, there would be no temptation to go along with these unnecessary military operations. A foreign policy of intervention invites all kinds of excuses for spreading ourselves around the world. The debate shifts from non-intervention versus interventionism, to where and for what particular reason should we involve ourselves. Most of the time it’s for less than honorable reasons. Even when cloaked in honorable slogans-- like making the world safe for democracy-- the unintended consequences and the ultimate costs cancel out the good intentions. One of the greatest losses suffered these past 60 years from interventionism becoming an acceptable policy of both major parties is respect for the Constitution. Congress flatly has reneged on its huge responsibility to declare war. Going to war was never meant to be an Executive decision, used indiscriminately with no resistance from Congress. The strongest attempt by Congress in the past 60 years to properly exert itself over foreign policy was the passage of the Foley Amendment, demanding no assistance be given to the Nicaraguan contras. Even this explicit prohibition was flaunted by an earlier administration. Arguing over the relative merits of each intervention is not a true debate, because it assumes that intervention per se is both moral and constitutional. Arguing for a Granada-type intervention because of its “success,” and against the Iraq war because of its failure and cost, is not enough. We must once again understand the wisdom of rejecting entangling alliances and rejecting nation building. We must stop trying to police the world and instead embrace non-interventionism as the proper, moral, and constitutional foreign policy. The best reason to oppose interventionism is that people die, needlessly, on both sides. We have suffered over 20,000 American casualties in Iraq already, and Iraq civilian deaths probably number over 100,000 by all reasonable accounts. The next best reason is that the rule of law is undermined, especially when military interventions are carried out without a declaration of war. Whenever a war is ongoing, civil liberties are under attack at home. The current war in Iraq and the misnamed war on terror have created an environment here at home that affords little constitutional protection of our citizen’s rights. Extreme nationalism is common during wars. Signs of this are now apparent. Prolonged wars, as this one has become, have profound consequences. No matter how much positive spin is put on it, war never makes a society wealthier. World War II was not a solution to the Depression as many claim. If a billion dollars is spent on weapons of war, the GDP records positive growth in that amount. But the expenditure is consumed by destruction of the weapons or bombs it bought, and the real economy is denied $1 billion to produce products that would have raised someone’s standard of living. Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to explode. There are never enough tax dollars available to pay the bills, and since there are not enough willing lenders and dollars available, the Federal Reserve must create enough new money and credit for buying Treasury Bills to prevent interest rates from rising too rapidly. Rising rates would tip off everyone that there are not enough savings or taxes to finance the war. This willingness to print whatever amount of money the government needs to pursue the war is literally inflation. Without a fiat monetary system wars would be very difficult to finance, since the people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay for it. Inflation of the money supply delays and hides the real cost of war. The result of the excessive creation of new money leads to the higher cost of living everyone decries and the Fed denies. Since taxes are not levied, the increase in prices that results from printing too much money is technically the tax required to pay for the war. The tragedy is that the inflation tax is borne more by the poor and the middle class than the rich. Meanwhile, the well-connected rich, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the bankers, the military industrialists, and the international corporations reap the benefits of war profits. A sound economic process is disrupted with a war economy and monetary inflation. Strong voices emerge blaming the wrong policies for our problems, prompting an outcry for protectionist legislation. It’s always easier to blame foreign producers and savers for our inflation, lack of savings, excess debt, and loss of industrial jobs. Protectionist measures only make economic conditions worse. Inevitably these conditions, if not corrected, lead to a lower standard of living for most of our citizens. Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance that results. The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while the Vietnam War raged, aggravated by the draft, was an example of domestic strife caused by an ill-advised unconstitutional war that could not be won. The early signs of civil discord are now present. Hopefully we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and avoid a conflict in Iran before our streets explode as they did in the 60s. ..."

4/13/2007 8:02:13 PM

Quote :

"... In a way it’s amazing there’s not a lot more outrage expressed by the American people. There’s plenty of complaining but no outrage over policies that are not part of our American tradition. War based on false pretenses, 20,000 American casualties, torture policies, thousands jailed without due process, illegal surveillance of citizens, warrantless searches, and yet no outrage. When the issues come before Congress, Executive authority is maintained or even strengthened while real oversight is ignored. Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of paying for this war through inflation, the real pain has not yet arrived. We generally remain fat and happy, with a system of money and borrowing that postpones the day of reckoning. Foreigners, in particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly participate in the charade. We print the money and they take it, as do the OPEC nations, and provide us with consumer goods and oil. Then they loan the money back to us at low interest rates, which we use to finance the war and our housing bubble and excessive consumption. This recycling and perpetual borrowing of inflated dollars allows us to avoid the pain of high taxes to pay for our war and welfare spending. It’s fine until the music stops and the real costs are realized, with much higher interest rates and significant price inflation. That’s when outrage will be heard, and the people will realize we can’t afford the “humanitarianism” of the Neo-conservatives. The notion that our economic problems are principally due to the Chinese is nonsense. If the protectionists were to have their way, the problem of financing the war would become readily apparent and have immediate ramifications-- none good. Today’s economic problems, caused largely by our funny money system, won’t be solved by altering exchange rates to favor us in the short run, or by imposing high tariffs. Only sound money with real value will solve the problems of competing currency devaluations and protectionist measures. Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars being fought. Noble and patriotic causes are easier to sell to a public who must pay and provide cannon fodder to defend the financial interests of a privileged class. The fact that Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for oil in an attempt to undermine the U.S. dollar is believed by many to be one of the ulterior motives for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Similarly, the Iranian oil burse now about to open may be seen as a threat to those who depend on maintaining the current monetary system with the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The theory and significance of “peak oil” is believed to be an additional motivating factor for the U.S. and Great Britain wanting to maintain firm control over the oil supplies in the Middle East. The two nations have been protecting “our” oil interests in the Middle East for nearly a hundred years. With diminishing supplies and expanding demands, the incentive to maintain a military presence in the Middle East is quite strong. Fear of China and Russia moving into this region to assume more control alarms those who don’t understand how a free market can develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources. Supporters of the military effort to maintain control over large regions of the world to protect oil fail to count the real costs once the DOD budget is factored in. Remember, invading Iraq was costly and oil prices doubled. Confrontation in Iran may evolve differently, but we can be sure it will be costly and oil prices will rise. There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini’s success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadech in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security. There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead believe the propaganda: Iran and her President, Mahmoud Almadinjad, are thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures must be taken to prevent Iran from getting nukes-- thus the campaign to intimidate and confront Iran. First, Iran doesn’t have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you’re looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance-- though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it’s a very costly and dangerous policy. The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It’s in our best interest to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business. The principle of self-determination should be respected. Strict non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence our policies overseas. We can’t afford the cost that intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral arguments against intervention don’t suffice for some, the practical arguments should. Intervention just doesn’t work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner. Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today’s liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy. There’s no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the case for a pro-American, non-militant, non-interventionist foreign policy dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years. It’s time for a change."

[Edited on April 13, 2007 at 8:04 PM. Reason : ...]

4/13/2007 8:02:36 PM

wtf happened to my RuPaul pics!!!!

4/13/2007 8:37:58 PM

Quote :

"Intervention just doesn’t work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American citizens both at home and abroad."

Boy ain't that the truth.

Going to war is tough enough on a representative republic. Most everybody needs to get on board. If we go to war, we should go ready to be as brutal to the enemy as we can to break their will to fight. Soon, we will pull our troops out without much after-sense....I'm afraid Iraq is headed for a bloodbath ala Cambodia.

4/13/2007 11:02:02 PM

Quote :

"Ron Paul, 4-10-07: Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general. But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them. Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued. The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch – Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference – that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars. "

4/14/2007 11:37:30 PM

the man aint wrong. too bad nobody in power actually wants to fix it

4/14/2007 11:40:14 PM

yeah, no shit

4/15/2007 11:20:08 PM

Quote :

"Government and Racism by Ron Paul The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities. The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism. It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, “Congress shall make NO law.” Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations. In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us. The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies. Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty. "

4/18/2007 9:42:17 PM

4/18/2007 10:07:02 PM

From REASON 4-20-07...

Quote :

"Just talked to Ron Paul 2008 press secretary Jesse Benton to confirm that the libertarian congressman raised the second-biggest sum of money from GOP donors in New Hampshire. The campaign raised $16,950 with a large pool of donors; less than 10 of them gave more than $200. Mitt Romney (who has a house in the state) easily topped Paul with more than $100,000. But Rudy Giuliani and McCain lagged around $4000 behind the congressman. "We're just getting our campaign operations moving up there," Benton said. "Ron's only been there once. So the sky's the limit there in support and excitement." Worth pointing out: Paul's still fighting the margin of error in New Hampshire polls. "

4/20/2007 10:30:00 AM

i almost made a contribution to his campaign yesterday but then was like "wait, what's the point?"

4/23/2007 9:58:22 AM

^
The point is you're making a personal statement in favor of liberty.

4/23/2007 10:15:33 AM

you think i could get a free tshirt out of this?

4/23/2007 10:18:46 AM

Quote :

"Will Ron Paul Be the Candidate of the Christian Right? by Laurence M. Vance, 4-25-2007 In the typical presidential election, conservative Christians who have some understanding of the benefits of liberty and limited government and don’t blindly follow the Republican Party do one of three things: they don’t vote, they "waste" their vote on a third party, or else they hold their nose, close their eyes, stop their ears, and fight a gag reflex as they vote for the Republican candidate because they consider him to be the lesser of two evils. But most of these Christians have short memories, for when the lesser evil turns out to be just as evil as the greater evil, or sometimes even worse, they generally repeat the process all over again. The newest individual to announce that he is seeking the Republican nomination for president is Ron Paul. He formally declared his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on March 12, 2007, when he appeared as a guest on C-SPAN. Ron Paul is a veteran. He is a physician. He currently represents the 14th district in Texas (south of Houston) in the U.S. House of Representatives, a seat which he has held since 1997. He previously represented Texas’s 22nd district in 1976 and again from 1979 to 1985. Dr. Paul was the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988. He is the former national chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He consistently scores a perfect 100 on The New American magazine’s "Conservative Index." He has received many awards and honors during his career in Congress from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Council for a Competitive Economy, and Young Americans for Freedom. But will he be the candidate of the Christian Right? By the Christian Right’s own criteria, their candidate ought to be Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a man of faith. He is a Protestant Christian and a regular churchgoer. Ron Paul is pro-life. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, he has delivered more than 4,000 babies. Dr. Paul is not just an opponent of partial-birth abortion; he is an opponent of abortion itself. He is also opposed to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Ron Paul is a believer in family values. Unlike many Christian "leaders" and Republican politicians who have admitted to adulterous affairs and/or been married multiple times, Dr. Paul has been married to the same woman for fifty years. He and his wife have been blessed with five children and seventeen grandchildren. Ron Paul is opposed to same-sex marriage. Although he doesn’t want to strip homosexuals of their civil rights, he has voted to prohibit federal funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage. Ron Paul is a patriot. He served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1967. He opposes federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase "under God" should be included in the pledge of allegiance. Ron Paul is opposed to unrestricted immigration. Because he believes that true citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States, he favors an end to birthright citizenship. And because he believes that it insults legal immigrants, he does not favor amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. He opposes welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants that alienate taxpayers and breed suspicion of immigrants. Dr. Paul also believes that all federal government business should be conducted in English. Ron Paul is opposed to gun control. Not only does he believe that gun control makes people demonstrably less safe, he also thinks it’s a myth that gun control reduces crime. Representative Paul introduced legislation in Congress that would have repealed waiting periods and instant background checks. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. He never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. He has consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation. Congressman Paul was recently recognized, for the tenth year in a row, as a "Taxpayer’s Friend" by the National Taxpayers Union. Ron Paul is opposed to the United Nations. He has introduced legislation to withdraw the United States from the UN. Dr. Paul believes that the UN is rife with corruption. It serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. Instead of being reformed, the UN needs to be renounced. Dr. Paul is against any kind of world government or new world order. Ron Paul is the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. He believes in absolute religious and political liberty for all Americans. He strongly supports private property rights. He believes that government exists to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. But even though he appears to live up to the usual criteria of the Christian Right, the question still remains: Will Ron Paul be the candidate of the Christian Right? As a Christian, I admire Dr. Paul’s principled stand on many issues, but I don’t believe the leadership of the Christian Right will embrace him. I think they love centralization more than federalism. I think they love political power more than liberty. I think they love war more than peace. I think they love politicians more than principles. I think they love faith-based socialism more than the free market. And I think they love the state more than God Almighty. "

4/26/2007 1:21:27 AM

http://tinyurl.com/2a9bo4

Yeah, yeah, tinyurl and all.

Anyway, traffic on Ron Paul's website spiked like crazy, and not just for a couple hours, around the debate.

The same effect did not occur for any of the big three.

[Edited on June 5, 2007 at 11:18 AM. Reason : tinyurl'd it for you--theduke866]

5/7/2007 5:21:08 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjQwIcy4OTU

Nice down to earth interview with a college student in his dorm room. In parts, with links to the other parts in the info. About 30 min total. Shortened (and edited) version at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQi7PaYKqTU

5/7/2007 6:53:31 PM