Why I Won’t Vote For Ron Paul

Today the top story on Ron Paul’s web site says that, according to a recent poll, Ron Paul would, if elections were held today, have a realistic chance of beating Barack Obama. Now, there are many people who would vote for a wet blanket over Barack Obama in 2012, so this isn’t saying too much, but it is the first time that Ron Paul seems to be being taken seriously as a presidential contender. And so it is necessary that I speak out against his candidacy.

The reason that he has so much appeal as a candidate for 2012 is, of course, because of the Tea Party. In fact, I believe someone during the first GOP/conservative/whatever debate that was conducted in South Carolina last week actually called him the “godfather” of the Tea Party. Ron Paul’s been around for years and there was no Tea Party until recently, so just using Mill’s Methods you can see that isn’t true. It was Rick Santelli who started the Tea Party movement and he credits Ayn Rand for inspiring him. “I’m an Ayn Rander,” he said. (He mentions Ayn Rand in this video, for example.)

Nonetheless, Ron Paul seems to be the candidate who has the longest track record with respect to supporting the drastic spending cuts and radical reforms in monetary policies that Tea Party members would like to see. For instance he has supported “open competition” in currency and the gold standard for years. He advocates abolishing the Income Tax and the IRS, and would instead finance the federal government via excise taxes and non-protectionist tariffs (which would be possible to do only because he also advocates massive cuts in spending). He has criticized race-based quotas and, while he at first seemed to be duped (like virtually everyone else) about the dangers of global warming, he has since described it as a “hoax.” Music to our ears, right?

In fact, if all one considered were the statements he made during the recent South Carolina debate, Paul sounded like the best candidate on the stage, on nearly every issue he discussed. But some important issues weren’t discussed, and I believe he somewhat misrepresented his view on foreign policy, which, to me, is the biggest reason not to vote for him.

First is Paul’s stand on abortion. Here on his site, Paul describes women’s rights with respect to the abortion debate to be a “secondary consideration,” and states that he believes life begins at conception. Why? Because he delivered 4,000 babies. He also recounts a “dramatic” experience of watching a late-term abortion and says that he thinks legalizing abortion puts us on a slippery slope that will lead to legalizing euthanasia. He doesn’t give an argument as to what’s wrong with euthanasia, I guess he just expects you to agree that it would be horrible to legalize it, regardless of the safeguards put in place to make sure it wasn’t abused, etc. I understand that many people agree with Paul on this issue, but I don’t, and I do not appreciate him describing women’s rights as “secondary.”

As for what Paul would do about abortion, if he were elected, he says he would not create a *federal* abortion police, but he makes it clear that he thinks the states should criminalize it and punish abortion doctors accordingly. That means, of course, overturning Roe v. Wade, and allowing the various states to fall where they may on the issue.

As for education, Paul is fine with public education, he just thinks the bureaucracy and control should be a smaller one, at the state and local level, rather than the federal:

[The Department of Education] is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington.

If it is wrong for the federal government to tax us and use the money to pay for government-controlled education, it is just as wrong for the states or local governments to do it. How is his position consistent with “liberty”?

These are just a couple examples. I’m sure if I dug deeper, I would find more about his domestic policy with which to disagree. Again, the biggest reason that I will not vote for Ron Paul in 2012 is his foreign policy.

During the debate in South Carolina, all that Ron Paul said, with respect to recent events in the Middle East, was that we should not be telling Israel what to do with its foreign policy, and that he advocates ceasing all foreign aid, to any country. As I recall, he added that this would not be bad for Israel, because we give more to Israel’s enemies right now anyway. Probably to most of the audience watching, Paul’s position didn’t sound too bad. Surely it sounds better than pressuring Israel to make “peace” with those who would like to destroy it, or than criticizing Israel for taking steps to defend itself, both of which we’ve been doing for years.

So, suppose you love everything about Ron Paul that I’ve told you so far, and you’re ready to vote for him now. If that describes you, you need to watch this short video (really, you need only listen to the audio because the video is just of Imus, who was interviewing Paul for his radio show):

In this interview, which took place in June of 2010, Paul states that he voted against imposing sanctions on Iran, and that he thought we should oppose Israel’s blockade of the flow of weapons into Gaza. If you listen (at some point I suspect that Ron Paul’s supporters will take this interview down — yes, *they* posted it — but maybe not), you will hear that at first Paul’s argument rests on how evil Israel is for blocking the flow of “humanitarian” supplies into Gaza. When Imus informs him that Israel was allowing food and medicine to pass, but was stopping only the flow of weapons, Paul replies that, since Hamas was democratically elected, they should have the right to get the weapons, too.

Hamas, who is out to destroy Israel, should be entitled to get weapons masquerading as humanitarian aid, simply because they were democratically elected. He went on to say that we should go ahead and “talk” to Hamas and the like, because it would likely do some good, as it has with China. Anyway, listen for yourself.

Given what Paul says in the interview, I suspect that he might defend his position here by reiterating the “context” that he alludes to in the clip: that the U.S. is currently giving aid and weapons to Israel, so what Israel does with those weapons reflects on us. He would say this in response to my charge that he misrepresented his view on Israel in last week’s debate. Last week he said we should leave Israel alone, last June he said we should oppose Israel’s attempt to defend itself.

In fact, both these positions are wrong. We should support Israel. In the context of the Middle East, Israel is the lone beacon representing the protection of individual rights. (True, it doesn’t do this perfectly — not by a longshot — but it does so far better than any other country in the region.) It is for this reason that Leonard Peikoff argues that every person who is anti-Israel is also anti-American. And, if that commonality is not enough, Israel has also proven itself to be a valuable ally against our enemies, contributing intelligence along with military expertise and capability to the war against Islamic Jihad.

(For a rational approach to today’s most pressing foreign policy issue, the war on Islamic Jihad, see generally this article.)

No, I will not vote for Ron Paul in 2012. I just hope that someone better emerges. And given that the debates already seem to be starting, I hope that he (or she) does so soon!

[UPDATE: Check out this story over on Hot Air. Apparently Ron Paul said, in an interview on Tuesday May 10, that Obama’s killing of Osama bin Laden was “absolutely unnecessary.”]

[UPDATE 2: To those commenters who would like to see more on why Paul’s non-interventionism is bad, check out this video clip, which Bosch Fawstin found on Hot Air.

If Paul thinks we are to blame for the terrorists’ behavior because we are “occupiers,” then could he think we’d be morally justified in retaliating against them (much less stopping them from getting nuclear weapons, etc.)? Of course, I thought that point was already made pretty clearly when Paul, in the other clip I posted, above, said that Hamas should have free access to weapons, even though it has repeatedly attacked Israel with same. But in case another piece of evidence might help…

On my view, both Obama and Bush lacked the moral certainty necessary to properly defend our country. (In fact, even Reagan wasn’t perfect in this regard.) And neither of them has come out explicitly and said that we’re to blame for terrorism, as Paul has. I assume that, if he were elected President, Paul’s actions (or his choice to refrain from acting) would follow from these ideas. And so I will vote accordingly.

For those who are interested, I will have a little more to say about Ron Paul during today’s podcast, from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m., PST. Register to attend live here, or you can download the recorded podcast either here or on iTunes later this evening.]


Filed under Uncategorized

94 responses to “Why I Won’t Vote For Ron Paul

  1. Excellent post. Thanks for creating it!

    People need to read this. His faults, most troubling of which is his suicidal foreign policy, outweigh the good positions he may have. Too many people don’t know about it.

    • there are some things I agree with Ron Paul…but his foreign policy is wacko..

    • America is a great nation,… [b]ut honesty impels me to admit that our power has often made us arrogant. We feel that our money can do anything. We arrogantly feel that we have some divine, messianic mission to police the whole world. We are arrogant in not allowing young nations to go through the same growing pains, turbulence and revolution that characterizes our history…

      – a wise man once said this

  2. I’ll add this piece of information:

    According to Jihad Watch, this was Ron Paul’s reaction the Bin Laden’s death: “Muslims are killing people over here because we’re killing Muslims over there. I don’t see how one more death makes Americans any safer. It will only provoke more vengeance and acts of terrorism.”


  3. I already “liked” this on Facebook, but let me say again, great post. This needs to be said. We CANNOT sacrifice our ability to defend ourselves against Jihad for some domestic promises (like income tax) that Paul probably couldn’t deliver on anyway, without the help of Democrats and Republicans, who are hostile to those ideas.

    But while Paul could not deliver on much of his domestic agenda (without changing the political culture of the country), as Commander and Chief he could do much damage in the area of foreign policy, as you outline in your post. As far as I’m concerned, he can’t fade away soon enough!

    • joolyo

      Most people that are against Ron Paul, has no idea about the monetary problem in the USA. I cannot rightfully sit here and explain it to you because it is rather involve. I have to say, though, that the national debt, the income tax and the federal reserve is the greatest scam this world has ever seen. my email is jooly@gmail.com if you want to debate the issue. Thank You

    • David

      Ok, I’m know I’m not going to change anybody’s mind when it come to Ron Paul but just let me post what I think. I see now that it seems that those who aren’t going to support Ron Paul aren’t going to do so because of his foreign policy. I happen to think he is right. After seeing Robert Pape’s lecture on what motivates suicide terrorists, he came to the conclusion that after compiling the most complete database of suicide terrorists, their motivations and so forth, he found that 95% of those attacks were in reaction to foreign occupation. For example, following the Lebanon civil war, the US set up a military base in that region. There have been several attempted attacks on this base. One succeeded. 340 Americans were killed. The base was evacuated. After the removal the suicide attacks stopped. Why is that? Because the whole purpose of the attack was to get us out of that region, we did and no more further Americans were killed in that region. The research of Robert Pape deserves some looking into. He has tons of information to prove that if we were to evacuate our bases these terrorist groups would no longer have to attack us. They don’t enjoy blowing themselves up, they do this because they are desperate, the more we occupy the more we fuel the resistance. Sadly, most of the people who are for more occupations and sanctions and air strikes can’t realize that this is only going to make things worse. Can’t we just look for some peace or is more perpetal war going to make us safer. If Ron Paul isn’t elected, in 10 years this country is going to decay and you’ll all be ” Oh, I guess he was right”. Perhaps in 20 years we’ll be such a poor country that we just might be invaded and taken over. I’m not saying its likely but it is possible. All those countries that we have oppressed will finally have the chance to turn against us. I’ve seen both sides of the story and I would prefer to have peace with other nations than put them in a stranglehold and tell them what to do. And by the way, does anyone even remember when Israeli helicopters fired at the USS Liberty killing several American marines. If that was done by any other country we would’ve gone to war. But not Isreal, they’re our allies. WHat a double standard.

      • Three things, quickly, as I need to prepare for Thanksgiving:

        1. Sometimes the occupation or military operations are essential to our self-defense, sometimes not. If they are necessary (and not just for “nation-building”), then it doesn’t matter if we provoke them. It just goes with the territory.

        2. If you read the Koran, in the later verses it calls for/sanctions military conquest of foreign territories as a means to spread Islam. So, while there may be a temporary lull in violence after an evacuation, you know it’s only temporary. That is, if you take ideas seriously. They do.

        3. Finally, I truly wish we had a candidate that would promise the dramatic cuts in spending that Paul does, along with having a proper foreign policy. We need a Frankenstein monster. We should not be forced, at this late date, to choose between two threats to our existence.

        • joshINHB

          Sometimes the occupation or military operations are essential to our self-defense, sometimes not.

          What possible threat requires military bases in the Middle East?

          Or even Europe for that matter.

          If you read the Koran, in the later verses it calls for/sanctions military conquest of foreign territories as a means to spread Islam. So, while there may be a temporary lull in violence after an evacuation, you know it’s only temporary. That is, if you take ideas seriously. They do.

          Yes, and apparently the Koran was written sometime in the 90s.
          Because the Islamic threat to America did not exist before then.

          • David

            Its a shame Rick Santorum actually believes that radical Islam is derived from a religion, not as their reaction from our intervention overseas. Watching Bin Laden tapes and the tapes of the suicide terrorists they never mention their religion as the reason for their jihad. Yes, jihad can be interpreted to mean holy war but nowhere in the Koran does it say to wage war against Countries with western ideals only against infidels or people or societies that threaten their existence. If the United States had never set up military bases in that region, 9-11 would’ve never happened. The proof for that is in many places. Whenever we evacuate bases its always as a result of threatening retaliation against these bases. Because the public cannot rely on their government to call for the evacuation of these bases, some take matters in their own hands and blow themselves up, hoping they can kill enough people to prompt the US miltary to leave. Even in Italy, which has a similar culture to ours the citizens have rejected our building a base over there. The mayor held a public referendum on the favoribality of the base. 95% of the public voted for the evacuation of the base. The base remains to this day. That just shows the arrogance of those who influence our foreign affairs. Graned I’m sure we are doing some fine and splendid things around the world but it is overshadowed by our medddling in the affairs of others.

  4. David McBride

    As a local coordinator with the Tea Party Patriots I participate in the Local Coordinators Weekly Webinars and receive first hand information from them. Last Febuary was the Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit (the one that Yaron Brook gave a rousing speech on opening night). One of the politicians that was allowed to participate was Ron Paul. The deal TPP made with the all of the politicians was “on stage speech only, no campaigning”. When Ron Paul got on stage, his gang started handing out Buttons, Stickers, Brochures and other campaign materials to the audience. Naturally they were upset and decided that he would not be invited back to any future Summits.

  5. Turns out that Ron Paul reaction to OBL’s death is parody, but not that far from where he actually stands

  6. Mark Wallace

    Some comments on your post:

    1. Abortion – Here, Rep. Paul is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. He knows that his power base is split between libertarians (mostly “pro-choice”) and conservatives (mostly “pro-life”), and he isn’t quite sure what to do about that, so he settles for States Rights and a lot of equivocation.

    2. Education – Paul’s position disappoints on multiple levels. The government, at all levels (not just Federal), should not be allowed to have anything to do with education. All schools should be made private, immediately, and taxpayer funding should be phased out (to zero) as quickly as can prudently be done. His position is some kind of weird combination of States Rights and a libertarian value-free focus on market efficiency. I suspect that lurking somewhere in there is a libertarian contempt for the power of ideas (other than political ones), because government schools are currently cranking out about 400,000 high school graduates a year, after thoroughly indoctrinating them in Marxism (so far, not by name, but even that is changing under the banner of Obama).

    3. Foreign Policy – Even given the informality of a radio interview, Paul’s comments were virtually incoherent. The first words out of his mouth were: “I think it’s [Israeli interception of weapons carriers] horrible.” But the very next thing he says is that it’s none of our business. But then he reverses himself one more time, saying that it is our business because “We finance Israel.” Excuse me?

    We are currently providing about $3 billion a year to Israel, mostly in the form of military hardware, which the U.S. government buys from its defense contractors (helping to keep their production lines running) and sends to the Israelis. To put this amount in context, the total annual budget of the Israeli government is about $70 billion, from a Gross National Product of almost three times that size. I don’t know how to square this with a claim that “we finance Israel.” (We also got them to halt development on their Lavi jet fighter, which would have been a serious competitor to the F-16, and a big boost to their industrial capacity, by promising them to pay for their acquisition of U.S. fighters.)

    Paul then goes on to confess that he voted against sanctions on Iraq and Iran(!), and disapproves of the Israeli action, because “embargoes, sanctions, boy… [presumably he meant to say ‘boycotts’ but stopped himself], are an “act of war.” I hate to go “Ivy League” on the guy (i.e., nitpick him on terminology), but there is only one name for the specific interference with the free movement of goods that is officially recognized as an act of war by international law, and that is a blockade. If he doesn’t know that word (and the associated concept) by this late time of his life, he can’t be taken seriously as a candidate. After listening to him, I guarantee you that, if he ever got into a serious debate with a foreign policy expert, of either party (think Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or even Hillary Clinton), they would carve him up like a Thanksgiving turkey.

    And, of course, you exposed the nonsense of his claim that Hamas is entitled to weapons because they were elected. The one grain of truth in what he said is that the reason why Hamas did get elected is that the U.S. (GOP and Democrats) backed Yasser Arafat for decades while he was siphoning off billions of dollars in foreign aid intended for the palestinians, and lining his own pockets. The people simply got tired of his corruption. But that doesn’t mean that we now should have to allow their freely chosen replacement thug leaders to arm themselves. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    • Pat Smith

      So, you’re going to totally discount someone for public office because they can’t recall a word? That makes no sense at all. Have you never had a mental lapse like this when you were stressed (like during an interview?) I agree that the office of POTUS is mainly one of PR, but to totally discount someone on this premise is just ludicrous. As far as Foreign Policy is concerned…The USA has screwed up the world by inflicting its “Foreign Policy” on the rest of the world for decades. Afghanistan (Osama v USSR), Iran (Shah), Iraq (Hussein), etc… Let the rest of the world learn like we did and let’s take a much less first person role in the affairs of others.

    • David

      Actually I would love to see him debate any of those people you just mentioned. I think that Ron Paul over-generalizes his positions on foreign policy. He never convinces people about why he is right. If he had the time to debate any of those corrupt politician who profiteer from sending our soldiers to die for them so they can make some money, he would, hopefully, cite some cold hard facts and get into an at length discussion about how this started. What would these three people say that between 1980 and 1990 there have been 30 attacks motivated against the US from 1991-2000 about 230 and from 2001- today the number keeps increasing. Keep in mind our foreign policy was less interventionist from 1980 than it is today.

  7. Scott

    Ron Paul is not an ideal candidate.

    His biggest flaws are abortion and Israel.

    The War on Jihad, with due respect to you and your father, is not the most pressing issue America faces. It is the size, scope and cost of government.

    Ron Paul has a higher profile and is a much better choice than anyone else. A GOP insider will not get the job done. An independent or third party candidate has no chance.

    I know what Ayn Rand said about compromise and whether it serves the good. Following that advice dooms the electoral process as a mean to bringing America back from the brink.

  8. Pleading the 5th

    Agree or disagree with RP on an issue, have to admit he is consistent. Thinks it’s a state’s right to allow or prohibit things like abortion or prostitution — how is one different from the other? where are all the feminists that are crying for the “right” to sell their body if they choose. How is that different from the “right” to an abortion because it’s a woman’s body?? I get Ron Paul — I don’t get the feminist mindset… (p.s. I’m a fairly liberal woman — regrettably speaking.)

  9. Slow Cheetah

    This whole piece reeks of propaganda which paints the same picture of Israel that we have been fed for years, as innocent settlers only trying to live peacefully. With the freedom of access to real news on line and social networking, this cliche will soon be a rhetoric of the past. If America has hopes and aspirations of becoming the country its founding fathers intended for it to be, Rep. Ron Paul should be elected.
    PS: anyone reading your article ought to dismiss it as nothing but nonsense as soon as they read that you need actual justification for euthanasia.
    Good luck!

  10. M. Stern

    I respectfully disagree. This attitude of Ron Paul, common for Objectivists, is flawed for many reasons.

    Right now, the country needs some type of fiscal conservative that will follow through on some level. Ron Paul more than any other candidate has a chance of doing that. Our foreign policy is not the most important issue right now. And even if Ron Paul brought all the troops home that would not be a bad thing as our current “wars” are altruistic welfare-state projects. They are doing nothing to help us.

    If the choice is between an anti-military Leftist like Obama (who nevertheless give the order to take out Osama) and an anti-military libertarian like Ron Paul, I would rather have Ron Paul. I really don’t look forward to 20$ a gallon gas. That is a possibility under Obama as well as other forms of economic hardship.

    Regarding abortion, I disagree with Paul’s stand but the social conservative issues are not of primary importance. I don’t understand Objectivists basing their political decisions on this issue. Plus, any attempt to ban abortion will be met with opposition from the Left; the one useful purpose that they serve. If Paul follows through on his domestic agenda to cut government and free up the economy, I will forgive him his religious views.

    Our culture right now will NOT produce a secular defender of free markets. Objectitivists that are holding out for that are living a PIPE DREAM. Not until Rand becomes a cultural force will you get secular laissez-faire advocates. Ron Paul is probably as good as you get in this culture.

    I say vote for him.

  11. Ron Paul treats all people outside of Americans as sub-human. They have no free will and can only react, like billiard balls, to whatever we do. Thus, according to his premises, they cannot be responsible for anything.

    • PEZ

      Quite the opposite. It’s the established US foreign policy that treats non-Americans as less capable. Needing you to police the world. To me it seems that the US has problems enough without helping the EU countries swell their welfare states by not having to spend on military. NATO is a big wealth transfer machine from the US tax payers and the US future to the EU.

      • My point is that the Ron Paul treats other people as if their international policy is the result of our policy. I was specifically thinking of Muslim states which he often refers to. I’m quite certain that there exist Muslim states who are working to dominate their region and beyond if they can. I don’t think their policy is determined by us. We could shrink back to our borders and they would continue their intention to expand and dominate.

    • Matt

      That is a proposterous notion. He feels quite the opposite. He thinks other countries should be able to do what’s in their best interest, just as we would (or one would think) do the same. For example, he wants to cut foreign aid to Israel. However, he also says he wants to cut foreign aid to ALL countries. It doesn’t take a student of economics like Dr. Paul to know that when you are $15 trillion in debt, we simply cannot afford to continue handing out money. Not to mention this money is coming out of our pockets. Sure there have been no raises in taxes, but instead they are just printing more and more money, which makes our money less valuable. This can be seen in the ridiculous prices of essential goods, like milk, bread, and even razor blades! Nonetheless, not only has he been criticized by the media for his foreign policy, but they have even gone as far as to accuse him of being anti-semetic! (How preposterous is that? That is like saying if you don’t give money to a black homeless man, you are a racist, even if you are simply too broke yourself to give him any.) If you guys are truly satisfied with our foreign policy, you should read this article: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/stauffer.html

      • Never said I was satisfied with our current foreign policy. And, given the conditions we place on our “aid” for Israel, they are probably better off without it at this point. But I could conceive of a proper, self-interested foreign policy in which we give aid to Israel, use preemptive strikes, kill Bin Laden in Pakistan, etc. I think such things must remain on the table for us to defend ourselves.

  12. Paul now seems determined to live up to the parody that was linked to above of his response to OBL’s death. Now he actually thinks the killing of OBL was “absolutely unnecessary” http://bit.ly/mDd6Cy

    • David

      Well if we kept him alive imagine the information we might’ve got out of him. This was the holy grail of insider information. There’s nothing he doesn’t know. Maybe its because he would have again stated that the only reason that he has this jihad against the US is to get us out of their holy land. While Bin LAden may ultimately want to see the fall of the American empire some within his circle are only interested in having our influence expelled from their countries and couldn’t care less how rich and prosperous we may be as long as we don’t wage a war against them first.

  13. Nwabudike Morgan

    Ron Paul voted for HJR 64 to invade Afghanistan. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml
    If we were to be attacked again, I would expect he would do the same, but without self-sacrificial nation building.

  14. Bryan

    Good luck with your drastically altered standard of living when America inflates away its currency!

    You’ll get to worry about foreign policy even more when America goes broke AND can’t borrow. lol

  15. Bryan

    I think Ron Paul’s foreign policy is better than George Bush’s. Did you vote for Bush?

    Bush’s policy was treasonous. He sent thousands upon thousands of young American men to be sacrificed for the sake of giving Iraqi people “elections.” He murdered more Americans than Al Qaeda did in 9/11.

    The US shouldn’t be supporting Israel (except in speech). I agree with Ron Paul that there should be no foreign aid to any country at all.

    • brad gillespie

      Libertarians don’t believe in Americans doing much of anything beyond their borders. I sure don’t totally understand or agree with the things the US has been doing the past decades in the Mideast, but for America to not take a stance in various regions around the world would be absolutely ruinous. YOu can’t really have any feasible notion of undertaking the presidency without believing in foreign intervention. It sounds fairytale — just leave others alone and take care of ourselves.
      And let’s face it, Ron Paul couldn’t possibly get elected, even though he does have some very solid individualist ideas. He just doesn’t have anything in his presence that gives off a presidential aura. He’s actually a bit ridiculous looking in some of his mannerisms…

  16. Bryan

    One last thing: When the impending economic crisis hits, foreign terrorism will be the last thing on everyone’s minds. You will be more likely to get shot by a fellow American than a terrorist. Think of the millions of rioting ghetto dwellers, the 50% of the population that doesn’t pay any taxes and only receives handouts, the 1/7 Americans fed by food stamps. When the money dries up these people will turn to crime and lawlessness.

    All disastrous political changes have happened a times of great inflation. Americans cheered as the state nationalized the banks and the auto companies, all as a result of a minor crisis. The next one will make the mortgage debt problem look like a drop in the bucket.

  17. Doug H.

    Ron Paul called bin Laden a “false prophet” recently, implying that violent Muslims are not true representatives of their religion. But why are those like bin Laden assumed to be the “false prophets”? Why not assume “peaceful” or “moderate” Muslims be the “false prophets”? I’d like to hear an explanation as to how this judgement is made.

    Of course we know Obama thinks the same way. But Bosch’s link seems to suggest the United States is safer under the watch of BHO. Quite scary.

  18. Thanks for tackling this issue, Ms. Peikoff. In the recent past, I’ve supported Ron Paul on the grounds that domestic-policy was more ambulatory in a “stop-the-statist-bleeding” sense while foreign-policy was less urgent in a “stop-the-jihadi-cancer” sense; plus, with Mr. Paul you know what you’re getting because he has a long track-record of bold-integrity even when wrong. However, I will now reconsider such support thanks to you. Maybe someone will emerge one day who’ll end the centralized banking-schemes and IRS-thuggery without insulting us Americans who aren’t naive about the real nature of our foreign-enemies; let us know when one such-candidate emerges…

    • David

      If you have to rethink you’re support of Dr. Paul you were never a real supporter in the first place. I’m not sure exactly where you’re disagreement with his foreign policy is in the first place since these central asian and african conflicts are more complicated than any of us can even imagine. But if you;re going to look at neo-con ways of thinking then you might as well take a closer look at non-interventionist ideals. However,I wouldn’t characterize non-interventionist foreign policy as isolationist, actually if you look at at our interventionist foreign policy you’ll find that it actually results in the worst possible way. Not only does it eliminate our exports and results in job loss here in the US. We have to please all the countries which surround Israel because all of Israel’s neighboring countries hate their guts. And that resentment is then turned toward us because without theUS backing of Israel this country would have had to return its property back to Palestine and Israel. And don’t forget about 1967 attack on the USS Liberty which resulted in over 200 Marine deaths. If it was any other country that would’ve been considered an act of war and they would have had to face the wrath of the mightiest army in the world, but instead President Johnson let them off the hook and to add further insult to injury gave the Israeli government more weapons and aid so they can further dominate their neighboring countries. Thats why I support Ron Paul’s position of no foregin aid, especially to Israel. Also, Robert Pape a researcher has concluded that our military bases around the world are antagonizing these terrorist groups and only a handful are actually extremely religious. He has a great lecture ” Robert Pape dying to win”. You can watch that on youtube. Also the website IfAmericansknew.org explains the vast history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back to the 1940’s and present and our role. You should compare this to the other research you might be doing.

  19. Pingback: The Jihadist’s Candidate | NewsReal Blog

  20. gorgborg

    Thanks for the article. As a very disappointed independent and former Obama voter who will vote for anyone but him again, I’ve been trying to see how Ron Paul could be any worse. I am very much against the spread of Islam and very pro-Israel. I’ve lived in an Islamic nation and consider myself knowledgable on the subject. I am also pro-life (though not religiously litmus testing, obviously) and support the “tea party” ideas of limited government and ending “affirmative action” for special classes of citizens and companies. I suppose I want claims that Paul is “antisemite” to be substantiated, which is why I came to this article, but I am still not convinced. I still don’t see the bad you all are seeing in Paul; I get the sense that he would not stop Israel from crushing her enemies. I see the bad in Obama and groups like J-Street, NAACP, ADL, and CAIR. I see how Paul is perhaps the only Republican who can win some liberal votes, and that this is double-edged sword making his ride rough in GOP primaries. No candidate is perfect; I held my nose and voted for Obama! Very few people want to address Islam and would rather address the effects of “islamophobia” on Islamists. I can’t stand that nonsense, but that’s already the incumbent position. I can’t say I won’t vote for Paul if he is the choice against Obama. I need a lot more convincing and less speculation that Paul hates Jews or whatever you are trying to imply is so bad about his noninterventionism. Obama is actually acting on his naive views of Islamism and actively supporting the Moslem Brotherhood abroad and the proliferation of Islamic enclaves at home; isn’t that worse than somebody promising not to act on naive views of Islam abroad and who supports non-Islamic view of liberty at home?

    • I’m about to post an update which includes a clip of Paul himself saying that the terrorists act as they do because we’re “occupiers.”

      • gorgborg

        Ok, I’ll read that. I acknowledge that I do not appreciate Paul’s beliefs or lack thereof about the dangers of Islamism and what Israel represents to those of us who do know the dangers Islamism presents to free republics. I am just assuming Paul would be running against Obama who is not only two-faced on Israel’s interests, he actually values Islam, pushes “Islamophobia” to silence critics, believes that political Islam can be “moderate,” and has imams to the White House as if Islam were “only a religion” amongst many. Obama is just a hall of mirrors where we simultaneously see him “support Israel” and also be concerned about Moslems being “bullied” at home and abroad. Who are the “bullies?” I feel my own risk of being locked up for severely offending Islam (breaking Sharia law) is most heightened during an Obama presidency. From what I gather, Ron Paul is a champion of civil liberties. Containment of Islamism can be achieved by promoting civil liberties, including but not limited to the right to critique or parody Islam as equally as any other religion wishing to combine “church and state” in the USA, and the right to be free from any police power that would enforce laws relating to individualistic expression that offends, whether by effigy or symbol, flaunting promiscuity, attempting sorcery, idolatry, or by promoting individual conversions from Islam to other religions or irreligion. Our classical conception of liberty might not prevail in all lands but we can make sure it prevails in ours. I like Paul for this kind of “hope” over Obama. God will save Israel and the Jews will kick ass no matter what. I guess I need to be convinced that Paul’s proposal for complete inaction in foreign sovereigns has a consequence that somehow threatens Jews, Christians, and the Bill of Rights like Obama’s active policies. Both Paul and Obama are dead wrong about what “causes” violence in the name of Islam, but it seems to me that only Obama is a danger with this view. I’m pretty sure Obama is the best “Jihadist’s Candidate.”

    • I’ll go ahead and reply here as I did on the later thread. I do not recall calling Ron Paul an anti-semite. I don’t say that above, and I doubt whether I’d say that in my podcast. I disagree with the positions he takes, as outlined in the post, above, for the reasons I explain. Those positions of his may or may not be motivated by anti-semitism. I don’t know enough about him to know if he’s an anti-semite, and I can’t read his mind.

    • David

      Ron Paul can’t possibly be an anti-semite because both as an strict constitutionalist and libertarian, they both allow for freedom of religion and see an obstruction of any religion or belief system as inhibiting our civil liberties, including semitism. You say you live in Israel so you have an understanding of their relationswith other countries but I see Israel as a big bully with an even bigger bully (US) backing them. I know that sounds harsh and unfair and I can explain this position further. But even if I were to have an interventionist foreign policy I wouldn’t have decided to back Israel of all countries, especially after an Israeli helicopter shot at the USS liberty, killing over 200 marines. It seems totally silly and impractical to favor one country over another in this day and age, unless that country would help us capture terrorists but only after we got rid of our bases since that is the primary reason they attack us in the first place. If you could explain why you are so supportive of Israel since this country under their current and former prime inisters have committed such atrocities against the Palestinian people and have no problem taking Egyptian lands for themselves and even after they get what they want seem to have no desire to reoncile via peace talks ( the Oslo accords did nothing to improve their realationship with Palestine, in fact Israel have given up less than 20% of the Gaza Strip and 20% of the West Bank). Not to mention the exensice influence that AIPAC has on our congress here in America. Israel gets preety much whatever it wants, be it oil, forgiven loans aid of any kind infrastructure etc. and Netanyahu has ctually bragged about how easy we are to manipulate in one interview. Israel doesn’t seem to give the US anything in return except for more debt. I have souces that back up this information if you would like to take a look at it.
      Before you do I would like to know why you’re so supportive of Israel. Here in the US our media is very keen on asserting that we must blindly accept Israel’s wishes no matter what. After hearing just one point of view I decided to actually look into the history of Israel . So anyway here are some links to what I was referring to

  21. Pingback: The Jihadist’s Candidate | Blog on Fitness-Jewelry

  22. Those who are interested in discussing Paul’s ideas and candidacy further, feel free to join my live webcast today, from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm, PST. To register go here: https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/473877254

  23. morrel1

    I agree with your assessment of Paul’s problematic positions on Foreign Policy, Abortion and Education. However, I believe for the most part, Paul has articulated his positions in a manner more consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the principled use of Reason than any other candidate. If we take the position that a presidential candidate is unworthy of consideration because they have some particular views we disagree with despite having an otherwise fairly admirable position then no candidate will ever be worthy of consideration. Would you have opposed the efforts of the U.S. Founding Fathers on account of a particular policy decision despite having much common ground otherwise?
    Unfortunately, we have an imperfect political system in the U.S. We have to recognize that no Objectivist candidate for president will ever exist. While Ron Paul is imperfect he is the most suited candidate for president from among the contenders available. He consistently advocates positions of sound money, free-market capitalism, private property and personal freedom. For that reason, he has my vote but, unfortunately, will never win election.

    • David

      I can actually envision him winning the presidency this time. He has great support, a strong organization, crossover party support and more epople like his policy views the only thing that seems to eat away at him is his foreign policy views which some Republicans can’t agree with. They knowingly support some other Republican because of an interventionist foreign policy and their fear of terrorists. They either don’t realize or ignore the fact that he’s the only one who can solve our pending economic oblivion. Its an ignorance that will be deadly if he isn’t elected president.

  24. K Anderberg

    I agree with M. Stern and others who state that economic concerns are the prevailing issue in the upcoming election. We must undo Obama’s policies as well as other regulatory entities, reduce spending, and get a handle on medicare/medicaid, social security and the like. Objectivists who are waiting for a better candidate to emerge between now and 2012 are engaged in wishful thinking. If that was the case, they would already be known.

    Another thought: these types of transformations in gov’t happen over time. You’re not going to get it all at once. Foreign policy will be tempered if Paul is elected. We will not get out of all of our ‘wars’ at once. This again is a process. He simply stands for non-intervention like our founding fathers did. However, to get to this point, again happens over time.

    I will vote for Ron Paul and I hope Objectivists will see that incremental steps is the only way we are going to get from point A to B. Anything less will take us back to the Bush type of gov’t powered by the political/religious right.

    • What do you think of Ron Paul’s stand on abortion? He has made it clear that he wants the states to criminalize it, and that the federal government shouldn’t stand in their way.

      • morrel1

        I regret Paul’s position on abortion. Similarly, I disagree with Paul on education, some foreign policy positions and a few other issues. However, in a presidential election you can choose to vote or not to vote. A vote for a candidate is not necessarily the same thing as an endorsement of a candidate. I will vote for Paul because I want my vote to count against the reigning Leftist in Washington while simultaneously denying my vote to the religious Right. The anti-abortionist voting block has not been a major contributor to Ron Paul’s campaign efforts. Ron Paul attracts voters primarily due to his (mostly) principled stand for Liberty. I believe that supporting Ron Paul today is somewhat like supporting Thomas Jefferson during his fights with Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson had his problems such as owning slaves and a few other issues. Yet, you wouldn’t write off Jefferson’s positive contributions to the U.S. on account of his vices. History would likely have been very different had Hamilton’s views prevailed. I support Ron Paul because he is the only candidate that seems to understand there is no dichotomy between economic freedom and political freedom. While he’s no Objectivist I cannot find other presidential candidates with positions more logical and consistent with my own views than Ron Paul. My goal is to swing the cultural and political pendulum in America toward a rational, Capitalist society. If you know of an alternate candidate more likely to meet this goal please let me know!

      • David

        Whats the matter with you. Who cares about abortion. If Ron Paul is the only one that can solve the economic mess we’re in what difference does his stance on abortion make. I’m only saying this because he doesn’t want the states to criminalize it he just says its a state issue, which it is. I mean he wouldn’t want a state to criminalize as much as he would want the federal government to quit funding abortions. And besides if you witnessed a baby being aborted and thrown in a trash bin you’de probably be against abortion too even more if you went through medical school to give life to babies and wound up having to witness newborn babies wasted in such a manner. I understand it may be a womans right to choose but technically you’re still ending a life and that baby didn’t commit any crime, if anything it was the crime of two irresponsible or just unlucky consenting adults or some dumb piece of you know what forcing himself on another woman. He doesn’t oppose the day after pill or contraceptive or tube tying or vasectomies for that matter. In other words he’s all for preventing unwanted pregnancies to prevent the death of an unwanted unborn child

  25. A quick further thought:

    A number of commenters have said that we shouldn’t object to isolationism, because, after all, many of the Founding Fathers subscribed to it. I would argue that, due to changes in travel, technology, and weapons capability (missiles), here it would be best to depart from a policy position held by the Founding Fathers. Non-intervention isn’t a principle anyway, it’s a conclusion one might arrive at after applying a principle (one of pursuing national self-interest). Thoughts?

    • Tom Martin

      //A number of commenters have said that we shouldn’t object to isolationism, because,//

      Non interventionism – what Ron Paul correctly supports is different then Isolationism — the difference is not trivial.

      To mix the two as the same is to pretend that wanting to trade with the world is equal to building a wall to keep the world out and us in.

      • Paul’s position is that citizens should trade with anyone; in fact he thinks that trade embargoes are an act of war (he said this in the Imus interview, but I’ve read it elsewhere, too). So the government should be isolationist, not the citizens, I guess? He also believes it’s wrong to get involved in defending our allies, such as Israel, and believes that preemptive strikes are wrong. While these policies may have sufficed to keep us safe during the time of our nation’s founding, they won’t work today. There is a false-alternative between “being the world’s policeman”/nation-building on the one hand, and isolationism/non-interventionism on the other. A proper foreign policy is one of national self-interest, which would reject both of those.

  26. Given what Obama just said during his speech, calling for Israel to return to indefensible 1967 borders, I guess if the choice was between Ron Paul, who supposedly would leave Israel alone and not make such pronouncements, and Obama, then I might have to hold my nose and vote for Paul.

    I would still rather see someone better win, but if it were only those two….

    • morrel1

      As a citizen of the United State I find Obama’s statement appalling and embarassing. As an analogy this would be like the U.S. surrendering Texas to Mexico in an effort to quell border unrest. If the Palestinians want greater freedom and prosperity they should look at their primary enemy – Hamas.

      • Check out this post where I explain why I find Obama’s remarks particularly inexcusable today.

        If Ron Paul would actually stick to what he said in S.C. and agree to not tell Israel what it should or should not be doing (which Paul may not, given what he said in the Imus interview I posted, above), he would be better than Obama, I guess. Unfortunately that’s not saying much.

      • David

        Yes Hamas is an enemy of the Palestinians but does anyone even remember the minority extremist Jewish population push to take over the Palestinian state after WW II. After Israel was founded the Israeli government committed atrocities against the Palestinian people thousands of Palestinians have been killed for no other reason than their origins. This still continues and this is another reason that Turkey is now siding with Palestine.

    • David

      Actually non-interventionism would work in our national self-interest if our interest would be to create more jobs. That can be accomplished through means of exports, whether it be oil or any other good. This demand for American goods, perhaps corn or even pianos ( since we make some of the world’s best pianos) would be boosted during times of peace which can be accomplished in my view if we either acted as a true unbiased moderator between Israel and the neighborhing countries or if we got out of the way which may take more time and perhaps some warring if Israel did not want to negotiate. May I also add that our policy has been disastrous to all nations in that region. Our debt increases, Anti-Israel countries no longer want to trade with us and the Israeli government and lobbying groups such as AIPAC keeping shacking at the US piggy bank.

  27. Pingback: Happy Blogversary to Me! | Don't Let It Go

  28. April

    Great post. I always knew Ron Paul and his “followers” (who also seem “off) are way off when it comes to what Americans want. He’s a fiscal conservative, but other than that, forget it. He doesn’t support Israel, taking out terrorists, etc. You can’t be an isolationist in 2011. Ron Paul had a 5% favorability rating in the last election. Does he somehow think it’s going to be different in 2012? So many in the GOP field — too crowded. Time for the GOP candidates to get real and the Newt’s, Ron Paul’s, Donald Trumps need to sit down and shut up and let the real candidates gain some traction so Obama can be ousted from office. The US will barely survive four years of that clown; the US cannot survive another four years of Obama!

    • David

      Again what is so great about Israel. Need I remind you people that it was an Israeli miltary helicopter which attacked the USS liberty killing over 200 marines back in 1967. Who in their right mind would want to forgive Israel and in turn give them many time over more aid than we give to all the other countries combined. Well, Ron Paul did vote for the authority to hunt Osama Bin Laden. He doesn’t assert himself that he would want to defend America if threatened, not enough to those who ahve neo-conic way of thinking at least. He’s for a strong defense and getting rid of our bases would in fact enhance our national security just look at Robert Pape’s dying to win lecture on Youtube for ironclad proof of that.

  29. April

    Once last thought: BACHMANN/WEST 2012!!!!! Michele Bachmann and Allen West are true American Patriots and won’t sell out their country!

    • David

      MIchelle Bachmann and Allen West are among my least favorable choices for President. I would prefer them over Obama but only by a hair. I wouldn’t vote for either. We’ve already been stuck with different versions of these people for years, if you haven’t taken notice.

  30. This link was recently brought to my attention. If the June 2010 interview that I posted, above, is indicative, he has not changed his tune since, either: http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=1526

  31. Joseph C. Carbone III

    Late-term abortion is nothing less than murder. Take a living human being out of the womb of another person, and kill it.

    Joseph C. Carbone III

  32. Tom Martin

    So we are supposed to be the worlds policeman… NOT.

  33. Tom Martin

    FALSE statement
    “Last week he said we should leave Israel alone, last June he said we should oppose Israel’s attempt to defend itself.”

    Ron Paul, part of leaving Israel alone is we should NOT interfere with Israels right to self defense.

    Get it right… unless your agenda is not about honesty.

    • David

      The best way to defend that is that Israel has added trillions of dollars to our defict ( financial terrorism) and they have on several occasions attacked and killed US citizens. The most deadly being the Israeli military attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. So it would be a long overdue retaliation but their have been recent killings such as the Israeli police murder of American missionaries attempted to aid Palestinian refugees. I would say if we were to use our miltary for something it would be to right some of our wrongs but it’d be best to leave our miltary alone. Too much war has been waged by our miltary. Time to give it a break.

  34. Pingback: Originalism is Ron Paul’s Undoing. Will It Also Be Ours? | Don't Let It Go

  35. vik

    I’m not saying Ron Paul is perfect but opposed to your views I agree with him on foreign policy. He uses the bibles golden rule here “do unto others what you what you would have them do unto you.” Which in my opinion is pretty much the best advice the book has to offer. Warmongering makes you feared I’m not an American and I must say I get frighten when I read stuff like this.

    The only real way to get rid of all terrorist using US current foreign policy would be to kill every single civilian who has had a loss in their family due to war. When an innocent gets killed they get angry and if I were in their shoes I’d probably commit a terrorist attack too if someone killed my family, what would you do in their shoes?

    It is true that US already IMO screwed up over seas and I don’t really see how they can mend the problem at this point, but getting the troops out would be a good start unless you are going for the annihilate them all approach in the name of democracy, then by all mean continue.

    As for Israel let them do their business don’t interfere with either side. If Israel has a blockade let them its their business but don’t support them.

    • So, for example, should we just sit idly by and allow Iran to get nuclear weapons? Also, in the video I posted, Ron Paul says he’s opposed to Israel stopping the flow of weapons to Hamas. I agree that we are currently involved in wars that we should not be, but Ron Paul goes too far.

      • Matt

        In the SC debate from May of this year, he says “Israel should do what’s in their best interest” and that he wouldnt try to “Tell them what to do, or what not to do”. It’s up to them! Here is a good example of how US relations work in the middle east: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/391148/june-30-2011/colbert-report–formidable-opponent—pakistan

        • Yes, he did say that during the debate, but it contradicts what he said in the interview with Imus in June 2010 (the video clip I posted). So are we to believe that a politician of his experience flip-flopped on this issue? I’m not a fan of our current foreign policy, either. But I think Paul goes too far in the non-interventionist direction.

      • Matt

        Where is the contradiction? Not only is he making the same exact points as he did in that debate, but they are ALL true. He is absolutely right about us doing things in “the name of democracy”, then removing elected democratic leaders of other countries that we may not agree with. From 0:34-1:00 he is talking about our CURRENT foreign policy, not his foreign policy if he were to be elected. And if you listen right after, he said hed be opposed to embargos and sanctions, then later he says that these are war-time actions, or actions that generally lead to war, which is why we SHOULD NOT be involved. There is no flip flop, and I’m not sure how you could percieve that as a flip flop, even if you had a really biased perspective.

      • David

        Why don’t you adress the main issue that was raised which is we are hated around the world for supporting Israel and hundreds of thousands if not millions have been killed in our name. To have you just brush that aside and go to the nuclear bomb assertion just shows that you are not considering all the facts and wouldn’t care about all those who ahve been killed. And by the way, If Iran got a nuclear weapon they wouldn’t attack the US. They would attack Israel. And you know what else, Everu neighboring country would attack Israel if they knew that America wasn’t there to protect them. You know why, it isn’t because of anti-semitism or anything silly like that. It is because countless civilians have been killed and lands seized through acys of war. And by the way one nuclear wepons is about 300 times less deadly than 300 nuclear weapons which is around the same amount of weapons that Israel has to defend themselves. And by the way Israel has been noted of stealing our miltary intelligence from us and taking advantage of our allegiance in which we ask for nothing in return. And also, sanctions, blocakdes and fly restriction zones always lead to war, they’ve led to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria and several other countries. Do yu want to go to war with Iran as well. How obvious does it have to be to you that this isn’t the right way to go about these things. Can’ you see who’s really profiting from these things. Do you realize that our Active miltary overseas are overwhelmingly supportive of Ron Paul. Do you know something they don’t or is it the other way around? Address these concerns and we might have some stability in the region, ignore these concerns and nothing good will result.

  36. Matt

    And as far as his stance on abortion, he does say he thinks life begins with conception. But he ALSO says that that is simply HIS viewpoint, and he has no right to push his opinions onto others, which is why, if anything, abortion should be left up to the states, and NOT the federal government. He also feels the same way about gay marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9yMxIldwCc

    • He did sign the “2012 Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge,” which commits him to taking actions at the federal level which will, at the very least, make it more difficult to have abortion. And I remember reading, perhaps on his web site in the discussion of the abortion issue, that he was in favor of banning abortion at the state level.

      • Matt

        Here is a copy of the pledge he signed: http://www.sba-list.org/sites/default/files/content/shared/ron_paul_signed_pledge.jpg

        It says he will uphold the original meaning of the constitution, but that he WOULD sign the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”. However, all this act is saying is that you can’t have an abortion once the child can feel pain, or 16 weeks after fertilization. While most pro-choice activists agree that it should be their choice, most would NOT agree that it is ok to have an abortion once that baby can feel pain. I’d say having over 3 months is plenty of time to have an abortion, but once it can feel pain, it’s just WRONG.

  37. Matt

    “That government is best which governs least.” Thomas Paine

  38. Matt

    BTW, I myself am Pro-choice…

  39. Ron Paul’s foreign policy views will prevail for economic reasons. But as usual when he talks about our intervention in other nations affairs causing unintended consequences that come back to haunt us he is exactly right. If the aim of the U.S. government is to provide security for its citizens a non-interventionist ( not isolationist ) policy would be followed. This is coming from a member of the United States Army deploying to Afghanistan soon. There is a reason Ron Paul collects more money from military members than all over Republican candidates combined and yes even Obama. This statement was accurate in 2008 and it’s accurate as of the 2nd quarter fundraising totals.

    Unlike other candidates he has actually read books and spoken with members of the intelligence community.
    I encourage all of you to read
    Blowback ( CIA teachings )
    Dying to Win- University of Chicago professor analyzed every recorded case of suicide terrorism to determine that indisputably the #1 reason for suicide terrorism is U.S. LAND OCCUPATION.
    Marching Towards Hell, Imperial Hubris, Osama Bin Laden, Through the eyes of our enemies- Authored by the head of the OBL unit. Who yes backed Ron Paul in the dispute between him and Rudy Giuliani.

    OBL even mentioned his book to get Americans to understand why they are so upset. Watch the interview here.

    He is even asked if we would be attacked if we left the region which he replies no.

    I encourage anyone interested in making a informed vote to simply google ron paul and do some research on your own as this article like most others is anything but accurate.

    For instance the beginning rant attempting to take credit away from Ron Paul being the godfather of the teaparty is laughably inaccurate. The tea party was created by followers like me in what we called the Ron Paul Revolution or rLOVElution as the red letters and LOVE is symbolic of this being a movement of a peaceful revolution of ideas for real change. Ron Paul wins 99% of internet polls, txt polls, and actual straw polls. The media attempted to explain this by proclaiming that only a small group of crazies supported him. Our solution was to have everyone donate on a single day not just for money but to illustrate our numbers. The result was a moneybomb which is a single day fundraiser. On December, 16, 2007 we had one on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. The result was a new record in single day fundraising of over 6 million dollars. The coverage can be seen here:

    Yes your man Rick went on a wild rant against the government a whopping two years later. Did he say anything new or did he simply re state what Dr. Paul has been screaming for 30 years? And he didn’t even get it “right.” Rick felt the fed’s “heart was in the right place.”

    The truth is Dr. Paul is the true tea party. The unfortunate reality today is people like Palin and Bachman have attempted take control of the Tea Party and have been largely successful because Ron Paul, consistent with his principles, refuses to act as a central planner and take credit for this movement. The result is a movement that began as standing up for true liberty has now been reduced to a extreme form of fiscal conservatism. The don’t tread on me signs seem to only say don’t tread on me financially but feel free to grope my grandma and kids at the airport.

    Abortion- You seem to fail to appreciate the greatest thing about RP. Even when faced with something he personally disagrees with like abortion ( and yes it was a traumatic event you should read his book! It’s chapter 1 It involves watching a baby die in a bucket. ) prostitution, drugs, etc his answer is still it’s not his role as president to force it on you through the federal government. Besides it’s not constitutional so the simple answer is to leave it to the people and the states.

    Education- Umm did you even make a point? Paul is a constitutionalist first meaning he recognizes he doesn’t have the power/jurisdiction to remove public schooling from states. Sure he may advocate it at the state level but that’s not the same thing. And even then I think you would find Paul would favor a transition stage the same way he answers criticisms of social programs. It’s ironic that if someone really cared about these programs he would be the best candidate. Why? Because he would actually fund them to support people who are dependent on them while at the same time allowing others ( mostly young people ) to opt out and keep their pay checks. What’s wrong with that?

  40. wallypockets

    Thank you, you and all the other “why not to vote for ron paul” blogs continue to confirm my decision of why I WILL VOTE FOR RON PAUL!

  41. you dumb ass war mongers are gana get what you deserve more wars that the natzi neo-cons start and kenyen born comunist barry satoro will keep going. wen the dollar collapes your all toat. i cant wait to see all you fucking war mongers get whats coming for you enjoy what you call freedom cause after the dollar crashes the natzi united nations is takeing over and hello war here in amerika. and ill shoot the first oboma lover i see,(with my water gun ) cause there coming for your guns, and to the auther of this dis info artical. what are you gana do wen a real red blooded american(Ron Paul) wins the we the people,hang your self and pull that dilldoe out of your ass fag (cigeret)

  42. oh yea i spell bad i have dislexia and i went to the goverment schools. so im sorry to all you engish magers it must hurt real bad.the thing is im street smart and im not broke and i have plenty of gold and silver. and (water guns)Long live Ron Paul oh angd if any sheeple that want the real news Alex Jones infowars com . the guys a little nuts but real as obomas a lier. and to all who believe fox,cnn,msmbc. you all are doomed ha,ha,ha

  43. I won’t defend Ron Paul’s foreign policy, but I’m CERTAIN that he does not support public education at the state level. He is a devoted advocate of the Austrian school of economics and believes that the only role of government in the economy should be to uphold individual rights. He does not believe that state or local governments have the right to intervene in the economy.

    • Craig

      It needs to be understood that there is a difference between acknowledging the nature of the American system of government set up by the Constitution and personally advocating particular results of it. That system (altho it is now largely ignored) places strict limits the federal government but few limits on state governments (eg. prohibiting them to coin money) beyond those that may be in their own state constitutions. According to the Constitution the states may have a great deal of power to do evil things.

      I, like Ron Paul, am firmly opposed to public education. Nevertheless, I know that according the the American system of government (1) the federal government has no authority to be involved in education and (2) state governments may have such authority (eg. the Oregon state constitution requires the state to provide free education). I don’t like the later but it is a fact.

  44. morrel1

    As we review the Ron Paul’s pronouncements I think its worth considering that Ron Paul (and other candidates) often give spontaneous responses to a question that involves serious contemplation rather than a media sound bite. Unfortunately, the American public seems to savor the sound bite rather than more substantial thinking. Answering a foreign policy question pertaining to Iran really needs to consider a number of issues involving security and economic interests. While I do not speak for Paul I have no doubt that he opposes the idealogy of the mullahs in Iran. There are cases where military action is less effective at regime change than other methods of subversion, e.g., witness the Arab Spring. A nuclear armed Iran would present a clear and present danger to the United States due to Iran’s proximity to the oil rich nations of the middle east. That is reason enough to oppose Iran irrespective of one’s view toward Israel. The question is whether Paul would act to defend the threat Iran poses to the free trade of nations with the United States. In the context of a nuclear armed Iran I believe he would but I would like to hear him say so. Aside from a few other issues (such as abortion) I think Paul presents a more intellectual and thought provoking case for his positions than most other candidates who tend to appeal to folksy traditionalism. For that reason he will not be be elected as a Republican candidate for president.

    • David

      Even if Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon they would never use it because to do so would guarantee the destruction of their regime. Take Israel, if Iran nuclear bombed Israel, then the retaliation from the western countries would just be brutal. If they did obtain a nuclear weapon it s to Iran’s advantage becuase then other countries would think twice before just trying to invade or threaten their sovereignty. Its a fact that countries without nuclear weapons are just easier to influence than those that don’t. The United States could learn something from this.

  45. Pingback: Philosophy in Action: NoodleFood : NoodleCast #109: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

  46. Pingback: Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor? | Capitalism MagazineCapitalism Magazine