« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Ron Paul is the Real Warmonger

In the last few weeks I’ve been called a neo-con, a Zionist, and a warmonger in various online forums. All by “liberty” supporting Ron Paul fans who insist that history is calling Ron Paul to step forward and rescue America from itself. While I’ve always been on the right I was at one time a Libertarian so I’ll accept the term neo-Con, and since I believe in the historical claim of the Jewish people to Israel I’m fine with being called a Zionist. But it is Ron Paul and his followers who are leading us down the path to world war, not people like me.

The philosophy of Ron Paul and his supporters is simple, straightforward, and ultimately anti-American. They say if we allow evil and depravity to flourish at home and abroad then evil and depraved men will respect us and leave us alone. During the cold war this philosophy was put forward by the left and called accommodation; now it’s been re-branded as “Constitutionalism” but it is no less destructive then it was when voices in our own country called for total surrender to the forces of communism.

Ron Paul believes if we abandoned Israel and let Islamists worldwide take over country after country that Jihadists would never again target America or its citizens. But why would this be? Does Muslim culture respect weakness? Do the mullahs of Iran look favorably on those that kneel before them? Did the Taliban treat women and children with respect? Are the cities of Europe that bowed to Islamist pressures free of Islamist violence?

Paul and his supporters tell us that we should be willing to accommodate Occupy Wall Street, that we can find common ground with the rank and file Occupiers. But what common ground is there between freedom and socialism? Where has accommodating this communist-led attempted coup gotten the cities that tried? How many businesses must be closed down before we stop accommodating them? How many people have to die at these encampments in the name of accommodation?

And when does our accommodation of violent radicals end? After their first murder? After the first riot? Or do we wait for a city to fall to them before drawing a line in the sand?

They say if only we legalized drugs gangs would lay down their arms, put on suits and ties, and become productive members of society. If we legalize prostitution pimps would throw up their hands and go work at K-Marts as women were “empowered” by the legal sex trade. After all, the Mafia all but disappeared after Prohibition, they will argue, ignoring the almost 100 years of murder and extortion the Mafia partook in after the repeal of Prohibition. During their still ongoing reign of terror the Mafia’s activities are partly funded by legal business interests they maintain. Why would today’s gangs do any differently?

Mexican cartels are feudal warlords who control entire sections of both Mexico and America. But if we allow them to sell their drugs legally they’ll give up that power? They’ll give up kingdoms they carved out themselves through murder, rape, and mayhem? Did the Mafia give up control of unions, nightclubs, and gambling?

A 19-year-old girl named Carina Saunders was found dismembered in Oklahoma. A prostitute came forward to tell police that she was kidnapped and taken to a warehouse where she was forced to watch as Saunders was tortured to death. This was a scheme by human traffickers to force the girl and some others to work as their prostitutes. According to the Ron Paul philosophy, legalizing prostitution would turn these animals into productive citizens and prostitutes would be safer. But that view accepts the Marxist theory that criminals are being victimized by an unjust society. In reality our laws don’t create criminals, criminals create the need for our laws.

For 5,000 years Western Civilization has understood that it is strength–strength of character, strength of culture, and strength of arms–that makes it possible for all our other virtues to flourish. It is our willingness to battle those forces that seek to extinguish the light of civilization burning a a world of darkness that has led to this moment in history where one country, America, embodies the highest ideals of the Western tradition. At this moment we stand at a crossroads where we choose for future generations the continuance of our most sacred traditions or surrender all that we are to criminals, communists, and militant Islamism–all in the name of peace.

But there is no peace in anarchy, class warfare, and theocracy. As Ronald Reagan said in his Rendezvous with Destiny speech, those voices of accommodation don’t speak for the rest of us. To avoid conflict with the Muslim world will you allow a second Holocaust? When the last Jew is dead in the middle east will the Islamists stop there? Or will they turn their eyes to us and our Jews? What then? What accommodations will Ron Paul and his followers be willing to make to avoid war then?

What demands will you accommodate from OWS? Will you allow changes to our election laws to suit their masters’ whims? Will you allow them to seize private property for their new society? Maybe they’ll just want to kill off 1% of us–isn’t that a small price to pay for peace?

Here lies is the path to war. War becomes inevitable if we adopt Paul’s philosophy because it promises the world that the rest of us will abandon our morality, our honor, and our patriotism in return for the illusion of peace. Americans will not sit idle while a second Holocaust plays out no matter what promises a craven government makes to the Islamists. We will not cede our streets to the radicals, the gangs, or the pimps. When the last barrier between the American family and the great night our enemies seek are torn down we will have two choices; fight or be overwhelmed. Americans will fight.

Weakness encourages aggression from our enemies. Ron Paul’s fantasy will lead us on a collision course with those forces who have been waiting for the right moment to seize what they see as their destiny. America is the last stand for Western civilization and now is the time when we must be willing to fight every battle to keep our values and country strong. We cannot accommodate those who wish to destroy us anymore than we can accommodate those that seek to help them in the name of peace.

 

COMMENTS

  • mikeymike143

    well worth reading.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      their goals of conquest

      • mikeymike143

        In a lengthy telephone interview with the Spokane Conservative Examiner Monday evening, Eric Dondero, former staffer to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, said the GOP candidate is not telling the whole truth about his role in the newsletters that contain a number of controversial statements.

        According to Dondero, Ron Paul “absolutely read every single article” in the newsletters that bear his name.

        In fact, Dondero went so far as to say Paul was “obsessed with the newsletter.”

        “Of all the things he

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          to reject him on foreign policy alone.

  • znjs

    as RedState is giving him these days? I mean there comes a point when you’re either preaching to the choir or talking to a brick wall. If RP supporters could be argued away from him they would’ve been by now. And everyone else that reads redstate isn’t going to go over to him.

    Yes, I know, if I don’t like it don’t come here yada yada yada. But I come here because I enjoy reading talking about conservative issues. I miss that redstate. Right now you could rename the site Seeing Red about Ron Paul.

    • Bill S

      get picked up and linked/read via other channels. The reach of this reference and linkage is wide. The mission is simple: kill any slight possibility that Ron Paul could get any level of consideration for President. For some reason, normally rational people have concluded that he somehow represents them. But unless said people are stark raving lunatics, that is doubtful.

      So, until Ron Paul disappears from the 2012 POTUS race, we will continue to beat the living daylights out of him.

      Oh, and in case you hadn’t checked the Redstate mission, it is NOT just a “conservative issues” site. It is here to support Republican political candidates and to defeat their competition. Since Ron Paul clearly is no Republican, Redstate will work towards his defeat.

      • romansdaughter

        My family knows quite a few from our church who are very normal people who actually support Ron Paul. When we asked them why they support him..Well isn’t he the only candidate who stands up for the Constitution and wants to end Big Government. Most are clueless so it is best to clue these people in and not just say surely people can’t be that stupid. Our family has proceeded to tell them some interesting things about Ron Paul and I am happy to say they no longer think he is so wonderful.

        • wennejunk

          Most of the conversations I’ve had with supporters leave with me shaking my head and them convinced they are supporting a messiah of sorts.

      • lizzie

        Too bad they are not posted on YouTube! Here is Ron Paul saying in Dec 22 interview he would start saving that ONETRIL$ per year in Federal spending by pulling all US troops back from everywhere, not just Afghanistan, but EVERYWHERE, including Germany, Japan, and South Korea:
        http://www.kimt.com/content/localnews/story/Road-to-the-Caucuses-Meet-Ron-Paul/DJ-9XZbkNUetRQKsTtqRrQ.cspx

        What strikes me the most about Ron Paul is how he rambles, and always avoids any deep thought about the implications of his ‘ideas’. Notice how he avoids a direct answer to the question of realism re: cutting five agencies and ONETRIL, and immediately segues into immediately pulling back all US troops from everywhere. I can understand the appeal, but the USA HAS been reducing troops based in Germany, Japan, where Japan pays full cost, and South Korea – but we also have treaties with these countries, and it is naive to think that Ron Paul can wave his magic wand and they all magically appear at home without any repercussion.

        Hey Ron Paul: it is the House that appropriates all funding – so where has your leadership been on the House in which you sit?????

        KIMT did their interview with Rick Perry today:
        http://www.kimt.com/content/localnews/iowanews/story/Road-to-the-Caucuses-Meet-Rick-Perry/Yajb-lc4JEaU5gBMrG7Lsw.cspx
        You bet it is LEADERSHIP that really counts.

        I await insight as to why Perry is now wearing black in black – makes him look more sophisticated – instead of his Carhartt jacket – probably because Romney has switched to a $100 pair of Banana Republic (I am serious!) blue jeans? with flannel shirt – the only thing worse is Santorum’s fluorescent orange hunting jacket. KIMT interviews Santorum tomorrow)

        Wish there was a better way for the rest of us to really know what Iowans are seeing on their local news.

        • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

          …Germany and South Korea, and I absolutely think we should have them out of the Balkans.

          But a reduced foreign deployment is one thing – I see some value in such a stance. A thoroughly isolationist foreign policy is another. Even if you were to pursue such a direction you couldn’t do it even remotely close to overnight. And along the way it would be almost assured that someone would take a shot at us – meaning either we’re at war or we forfeit any credibility we might have.

      • heraklios

        He serves the useful purpose of providing a candidate for the anti-Mittens voter in states (like Virginia) where no one else is allowed to run. If the Paulites can power their candidate to 15-20% of the vote throughout the primaries it might give Paul enough delegates for us to have a brokered convention. This might allow us to substitute a conservative instead of us getting stuck with Romney.

        Remember, let’s all keep our eyes on the prize. Our first, second and third goal is to keep Willard Mittens Romney from getting the nomination. If supporting Ron Paul in a few states helps us reach this goal, then so be it.

        • snowshooze

          It would appear to be the biggest back-room deal of all time.
          It could be better, or it could be worse.
          All I know for certain is that I would have nothing to say about it.

          • heraklios

            We know we’re getting screwed with Willard Mittens who appears to be the only one right now who can win outright. At least with a brokered convention there’s a chance we might get a conservative. We could combine with the Paulites to stop the Establishment and at least get someone minimally acceptable, hopefully.

          • snowshooze

            Is that everyone can swap out favors, cut deals and pretty much go off radar… and Mittens is well set. He has money. With that, he can buy power.
            My concern being that he could win in that game too.

          • heraklios

            We know we’re getting screwed with Willard Mittens who appears to be the only one right now who can win outright. At least with a brokered convention there’s a chance we might get a conservative. We could combine with the Paulites to stop the Establishment and at least get someone minimally acceptable, hopefully.

        • Tavern Keeper

          Should be electing a legislature and executive that are right of center, not focusing on keeping an individual from receiving the democratically determined nomination of his or her party.

    • TSquared

      Ron Paul hasn’t received near the scrutiny that he deserves.

      • http://www.dirkworld.com dirkbelig

        I find it hilarious (read: pathetic) that our sitting Emperor STILL hasn’t received a fraction of the vetting the least viable Stupid Party candidate has after five years of running for and occupying the highest office in the land. We’re seeing Newt’s divorce papers from 1980, but still have no idea what the grades for Obama were. We’re just supposed to blindly accept that He’s the Smartest. President. Evar! and otherwise STFU with all the RAAAAAAACIST questions as to His bona fides.

        • romansdaughter

          nt

    • streiff

      A lot of folks in Louisiana thought David Duke was a non-entity. That’s why the GOP ended up with bumper stickers saying “Vote for the Crook. It’s Important.”

      The fact is we can’t be too careful in trying to excise this cretin from the body politic.

      We need to be sure that somewhere on the first page of any Google Search for Ron Paul is at least one article on his bizarre worldview.

      • lizzie

        I am serious. Paulbot cyber-war using news.google is their big secret weapon.
        at least the Paulbots sure did it with Rick Perry until I asked Mossad to counter-strike :)

        • streiff

          from the first page of a Google search for Ron Paul:

          Is Ron Paul a Racist?

          • lineholder

            for taking this one seriously. If you look at wennejunk’s comment above, and how Paul’s supporters often respond as if he is some sort of “messiah”…it’s uncannily similar to what we saw with Obama in 2008. And Paul does have the same ability Obama has to present things in a way that is very misleading to people.

            So, I’d rather play it safe than to be sorry.

            Now, if we can just convince Repubs not running as a candidate for President to get a solid message out to the American people about what they stand for and what their goals are (even if it isn’t perfect, streiff), maybe just maybe we can prevent Obama from playing on the vulnerabilities of the American people…again.

  • jakeofalltrades

    He deserves it!

  • mikeymike143

    “Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that

  • jasonv

    …who isn’t going to win anything, he sure get’s a lot of attention…

    I mean, almost 1100 words to say really nothing at all? Does it just make you feel better to write it down? Paulians are here and only the end of this political cycle wil make them go away. Stuff like this just eggs them on and keeps them relevant. When Paul wins, we will only have ourselves to blame. Oh, and smear bagging like this that drives otherwise logical people to vote their conscience instead of towing the same old tired party lines.

    • wennejunk

      Its about the GOP credibility.

      The GOP (minus its various moderate and Liberal members and unfortunate periodic policy failures) still stands for smaller, less intrusive government, personal freedom and responsibility.

      To have RP publicly associated with the GOP and not have its membership vociferously denounce, reject and otherwise separate ourselves from his brand of lunacy is to tacitly approve of it.

      He may or may not have written the crap spewed in his newsletter and may or may not be an anti-semite, racist neo-nazi sympathizer.

      However, because he tolerated that kind of garbage and did not immediately and unequivocally distance himself from those views, writers and people meant he tacitly approved it, regardless of his complaints in the present.

      The GOP and the right already is unjustly branded with the label of racism, compassion-less political views. To not reject RP in the most extreme of ways is to give credence to those labels.

      Disagree on the last comment. Logical people will always investigate the source of the smoke and see the fire.

      Emotional, detached and ‘otherwise logical (i.e. NOT logical) people may do as you have suggested.

      • http://www.dirkworld.com dirkbelig

        The media cheerleads for Paul. Why? Obviously because under all the faux libertarian blather, he’s an even more ideologically Leftist person than Obama. I wouldn’t be surprised if the treasonous JournoList Media was rooting for the Mad Doctor because he would simultaneously destroy the Stupid Party AND America with his insane isolationist policies.

        It’s hard to believe that was someone who hated America more and wanted to do her harm more than Obama, but Paul makes Barry look like Reagan in comparison.

  • beezle

    Well I am breaking my vow to never post here again. But it has been four years so…

    For a site that until a few weeks ago would not speak of Ron Paul, banished his supporters and would entertain no rational discussion of policy pro/con I find it hilarious.. no delicious.. the amount of froth, venom and attention you are now giving him.

    There is only one reason why he has been on your front page (and elsewhere) so much… because you are actually scared that those dumb people (aka voters) might actually.. gasp.. vote for him in numbers that rain on your Perry/Gingrich/Bachman/Santorum parade.

    What a nighmare! Not only does he now poll higher among Republicans (under age 50) than those others, he polls higher among independents nationally than any of the other “R” choices. The horror!

    I would include Mittens in the above, but you’ve done a good job of running his supporters out of town too….

    Have fun and please, by all means, keep spouting off and putting it on your front page – it only helps.

    See ya’ll in another four years.

    • jakeofalltrades

      n/t

    • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

      1) The reason we ignore rabid Paulbots is because they’re irrational, rude, and often potty-mouthed. If Ron Paul wants to be taken seriously then he needs to tell his more die-hard supporters to stop hanging out with Occupy Wall Street.

      2) The RedState editors and commentators are trying to educate the hordes of ignorant Americans (and believe me, there are hordes) who are fascinated with the idea of legalizing marijuana and prostitution–to put it bluntly, the idea of instituting anarchy.

      3) Willard’s supporters found a more comfortable home at National Review.

      4) See ya in 2016 when Lew Rockwell runs against incumbent President Perry.

      • jakeofalltrades

        is only slightly better than anarchy.

        • skorrent1

          Where you can be jailed/fired for SPEAKING OUT against a MINORITY’S lifestyle choices? Is that better?

          • jakeofalltrades

            or at least a precursor.

        • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

          It’s a question of right and wrong, Judeo-Christian values versus humanistic values and autonomy.

          I’m assuming you’ve taken issue with my 2nd point. I agree with many libertarian principles of smaller government but I also believe there’s a difference between liberty and license.

          • jakeofalltrades

            so why not throw everyone in a cage who doesn’t go along with your cultural norms? How is that not a theocratic fascist hellhole for everyone who disagrees with you?

            How do you as a Christian justify locking the Imago Dei in a cage for breaking your moral precepts that fellow Christians are free to disagree with anyway? (well, maybe not about prostitution)

            As the apostles might say, isn’t it better to accept evil? Than to lock people in cages who have not harmed anyone?

            I really hope you’re a nicer person than you seem…

          • JSobieski

            Or do you propose that all moral normas be backed by law>?

            If the answer to the first question is yes, I ask what is the test fir wgeb the law permits or “licenses” immorality?

            If the answer to the first question is no, why couldn’t the D’s simply call tax increases a “tithe”?

            All laws are based on morality, but that does not mean all morality should be reflected in law. Freedom is a value that must also be protected by law.

            It is impossible to agree to disagree (potentially the most important requirement for a civilized society) if ALL morality is reflected in law.

            The law must in some circumstances preserve the freedom to choose wrongly if we are to be free.

          • jakeofalltrades

            it is the right to live harmlessly as I please.

          • MikeG

            A lot of self-described “civil libertarians” like to present their disagreements with social conservatives as a conflict between liberty on the one hand and “legislating morality” on the other. What is actually at issue is whether or not a series of proscribed or controversial activities negatively impact people other than their willing consumers.

            It is readily apparent that the right to bear arms does not give one the right to drive down the Interstate, firing your gun wildly into the air. The danger this poses to others is obvious on its face, and thus non-controversial. What is not so clear is whether things like drug use, pornography, and prostitution have far-reaching effects akin to a gun being fired at random. Are drugs innocent enjoyments unfairly curtailed by latter-day temperance crusaders, or destructive chemicals that over time rob people of their free will, intellect, and basic dignity? Is pornography a normal and healthy part of human sexuality, or a vicious industry that preys on and does violence to vulnerable young women, all the while breeding a culture bereft of love and overrun with divorce and sexual assault. These are important questions that need to be addressed, and how you answer them in large part determines where you come down on the issue of their legality.

            But please don’t perpetuate the fiction that those on the other side are driven by nothing more than religious zealotry, nanny-state-ism, and/or simply a malicious drive to be a killjoy. It makes a constructive dialogue impossible.

          • jakeofalltrades

            She specifically said her motivation was religious. Please don’t perpetuate the fiction that I pulled that out of thin air.

          • jakeofalltrades

            It was just a shortcut. In society, we are allowed to politely harm each other all the time. I can lower my prices and drive my competitor out of business, for instance, sending all his employees to the unemployment line.

            The question is at what point does my enjoyment of rights trample yours? Where is the line drawn?

            I would argue that your right to throw me in a cage for harmlessly ingesting an herb greatly tramples my right to do what I please with my body. Whose right is more important – my right to own my body or your right to cage other people?

          • jakeofalltrades

            Would you support making the giving of a tatoo a felony? Would you ban mixed-material textiles?

            Would you execute homosexuals?

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            which provides a well-thought model for understanding some of the opposition you’ll receive from fellow conservatives when referring to “Judeo-Christian values”: Why Can’t I Own Canadians? Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (Michael Horton, Sept. 27, 2011, Out of the Horse’s Mouth: The White Horse Inn Blog).

            Horton’s summation:

            In the moral law that runs not only through the whole Bible but throughout the codes of so many civilizations across the ages, God reveals his righteous character. In the specific legislation that God attaches to this moral law for Israel alone, however, God

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    Excellent.

    The heart of Conservatism is respect for lessons of the past and the structures that society has put in place to heed those lessons. We learned the hard way in the 20th century that appeasement and isolationism mean that the crocodile eats you last, and that the only way to fight evil is to go “old school”. Conservatism is, by definition, old school.

    Si vis pacem para bellum.

    • jakeofalltrades

      Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  • edmundburkeconservative

    Listen here you boys, I admit I am scared. I haven’t been this scared in a long time.

    This “ron paul” punk is like an anti-christ come true and its time we stop all this nonsense and get behind ROMNEY the TRUE conservative who stands for freedom, small government, truth and honor.

    Hell, I don’t like Obama but he represents conservatism more than this ron paultard.

    • acat

      For how much of that time was slavery tolerated?
      How long was discrimination based on race or religion tolerated?
      (some would argue none of the above have actually ended)

      So what?

      This in no way means Ron Paul is right, nor does it mean Willard Romney is conservative.

      Mew

      • edmundburkeconservative

        Listen here young man. I’ve been voting R since Barry Goldwater and let me tell you something.

        Mitt Romney is a strong man, a hulk of a man with a good head on his soldiers.

        He is gonna stand up to Iran and taken em out. He is gonna cut Washington down to size. He ain’t afraid to get his hands dirty, to get down and wrestle with our enemies with sweat and toil and hard work.

        He is gonna pull us all up by the bootstraps and make real men out of us.

        Mitt for Commander In Chief!

        • acat

          Willard is not a conservative, he’s not even a successful republican – he left the Massachusetts GOP weaker than when he found it.

          Willard appointed more Democrats to the judiciary than Republicans.

          Willard raised government revenues by raising fees on companies, taxes by another name since the customers of said companies end up paying.

          Willard pushed big-government solutions (Romneycare) instead of personal responsibility.

          Willard has gone back and forth on gun control – first he was for removing our right to bear arms, now he’s against it. He’s not a man, he’s a weather vane. We can do better.

          Mew

        • heraklios

          Mittens is a first class WUSS. He’s going to make “real men” out of us and serve as CIC? What a joke. Willard Mittens is no conservative and would fall over if you brushed him with a feather….

          • tailfins1959

            Enduring hardship toughens you up! Say what you will about Romney, but he has sense enough to know the US is spending too much like the ENTIRE GOP field, including Paul.

          • heraklios

            That’s for sure….

          • tailfins1959

            But Obama’s illegality is plain to see. Just for Solyndra he should be sharing a prison cell with somebody.

          • heraklios

            That’s for sure….

        • heraklios

          Mittens is a first class WUSS. He’s going to make “real men” out of us and serve as CIC? What a joke. Willard Mittens is no conservative and would fall over if you brushed him with a feather….

        • aesthete

          I refuse to believe that anyone out there is this delusional.

        • snowshooze

          I was laughing and then I started to think you were serious or something…

        • veritaseequitas

          Ick, double ick, triple ick.

          • jakeofalltrades

            j/k

    • heraklios

      .

    • heraklios

      .

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    Although I’m not thrilled with Dick Morris*, he spent today discussing whether The Newt is being abused by the negative-ads, and tomorrow he plans to explain why the above-quote is accurate. His review of the ads:

    #1 – supports abortion funding…true [rape/incest/life-of-mother]
    #2 – supported Freddie which led to crash…true [and this was true origin]
    #3 – supported Individual Mandate…true [note today's WSJ]

    The problem here is that Morris said #1 is tangential, #2 is meaningful and #3 was only technically-true.

    * – Morris is one of the FNC-folk who are continuing to diss Perry, despite his rise in the polls [above, specifically, Santorum/Bachmann]; indeed, both on FNC and Politico, Santorum is being touted despite his 4% ranking.

    WE NEED TO COMPILE DATA on the “Conservative” Pundits, eh?

    • circlegranch

      Morris tries to find relevancy and create a niche market for a progressive turncoat, increasingly disregarded, if not despised by both sides of the aisle. He’s rather pathetic and appears washed up, much like his former boss.

      On finding a conservative pundit, I think leaving Fox and turning to EE on CNN is a good start. Other suggestions would be welcomed as its getting quite tiresome listening to formerly trusted voices shape this election with their arrogant assumption they are smarter than the rest of us in the herd. As we old-timers sometime say, “I wasn’t born yesterday and even if I were, I didn’t live the whole day for nothin’ “.

  • edmundburkeconservative

    Listen to me, son.

    Mitt is a man’s man. He knows how to pull both parties together to make desisions.

    He is strong, with a square jawbone, he knows real grit, how to work with both parties and be bi-partisan.

    • heraklios

      I would think a “real man’s man” would know the difference. But I guess not.

  • aesthete

    1) He’s a terrible candidate who makes sane libertarians look bad by association.

    2) Many of the “conservative” attacks levied levied against him are embarrassingly detached from reality, and make sane conservatives look bad by association.

    Realistically, there is no chance whatsoever of a world war between us and the patchwork of Islamic states in the next 8 years. Prohibition was repealed in the 30s, and only a fool would compare the Mafia of the 80s to the Mafia that existed in the 30s. Undefined terms and non-sequiter further make a botch of the argument attempted in this article: there is no attempt to characterize Ron Paul’s views, or to rebut them logically — merely a random assortment of assertions, with dubious connection to reality. The “argument” in the article is the equivalent of liberal “arguments” to the effect that Republicans just want to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and serve their wealthy masters.

    • taxpayer1234

      “Realistically, there is no chance whatsoever of a world war between us and the patchwork of Islamic states in the next 8 years.”

      Yeah, and there was no chance that same patchwork would attack us on our own soil in 1993 and 2001, either.

      “Prohibition was repealed in the 30s, and only a fool would compare the Mafia of the 80s to the Mafia that existed in the 30s.”

      Yes, you’re totally correct. There is no comparison. The Mafia of the 80s, and 90s, and the 21st century, is WORSE than that in the 30s. Why? Because the old-school Italian and Irish mafias have largely been displaced by the Russians, Greeks, and the home-grown gangs like the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, etc. These guys make the old guard look like freakin’ Boy Scouts.

      • aesthete

        is worse and better-connected than the Mafia during Prohibition? I must have missed all those open-air shootouts between swarthy Sicilians and cops lately. And dude, if you spent any time reading about the pro- or anti- drug war arguments, you would know that one of the biggest anti- arguments is that drug prohibition enables cartels in a manner similar to how the Italian Mafia was enabled in the 30s.

        As to the world war saber-rattling nonsense, tell me how the Islamic nations would develop the capacity to attack us, or even our allies, in such a way as to precipitate a worldwide conflict. For that matter, I’d love to hear how Al-Qaeda or any other group is on the verge of worldwide caliphate in the next 8 years in any meaningful sense, given that Al-Qaeda’s leadership and capabilities have been absolutely decimated as a result of our actions in Afghanistan, Yemen and other places.

        • http://www.greenvilledragnet.com Rob Taylor

          The mob hits people all the time. Rudy was elected mayor of NY largly based on his prosecution of mobsters – which was basically all he had time for.

          You don’t think the mob is out there and as violent as ever? Open up a night club and refuse to pay for “insurance” some time then tell me the mob isn’t a problem.

          As for Muslim countries – what planet are you on that Muslims don’t have armies? It’s Paulnut bigotry to claim they don’t have modern arms and armor – Iran just shut down the Straight of Hormuz with their modern navy. Even Hezbollah has artillery sections that have kept Israeli on alert for years. I suppose when you hear Muslim you think of someone riding a camel but I assure you Muslims fly planes, drive tanks and have access to modern military arms.

          Here’s how they could start a world war – cut off oil to the west, invade Europe through Spain and use the Iranina backed Hezbollah agents embedded with the Narco-gangs to create a low intensity conflict on our southern border, opening us up to attacks from their communist allies like Chavez who has been building a vast army for years with the express purpose of fighting America.

          • aesthete

            Or of the technology and logistics of these armies? Comparing any of the nations in the Middle East to any Western nation, including Israel, is a farce. Saddam Hussein’s army (probably one of the most, if not the most, modern in the region) was crushed by our forces in two separate conflicts in the space of weeks. Israel has won or stalemated every conflict it’s found itself in — its stalemates being a result of political incompetence, rather than military inferiority. Your scenario above of a possible world war is certainly creative, but has nothing to do with reality — where there exist neither the funds, ingenuity, military forces or political will to make any part of what you describe a reality. Even if such a scenario did come to pass, it would be shut down by Western forces in the space of days, or weeks.

            As far as the Mafia goes, you’re still either not getting it, or doing a good job of pretending that you don’t.

          • JSobieski

            The Hormuz issue is serious because of potential escalation and because of all the oil.

            It is not a serious issue because of anything related to Iran’s navy.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            of the Straights of Hormuz about five minutes after the initial encounter. Their “submarines” would never get a shot off.

            Keep in mind that the Iraqi Army was rated as either the third or fourth largest and best equipped in the world.

            In terms of them cutting off oil, that’s an exercise in “nose meet face”. They don’t have refinery capacity. It would take about two hours to shut down their entire power grid. Armies march on gasoline. They don’t have it. NATO forces, not the sharpest tool in the shed, would take out an Iranian “invasion” in a matter of days.

        • taxpayer1234

          among the mafioso. All of those groups have become increasingly savvy at hiding their networks and their crimes.

          Just because they don’t ride around with shotguns hanging out of their cars doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

      • honeybadger

        It doesn’t matter which time period had the worst gang violence (modern cartels imho) the cause of the mafia/gangs/cartels is the same, the prohibition of drugs. This should be obvious but when something that is in high demand is made illegal a black market will be formed to supply it. Black markets are usually violent because the drug suppliers and distributors cannot rely on the police or courts to resolve conflicts. If anyone thinks that legalizing drugs wouldn’t put an end to the cartels answer this. How can the cartels compete with legitimate companies in producing and distributing drugs? Or if the cartels get out of the drug trade how will they finance their operations and what would be the reason for any future violent acts?

        • taxpayer1234

          If illicit drugs are made legal, so what? Once their profit margin drops, gangs will look for other stuff to steal/sell/buy/control. If you look at the history of organized crime, there is no preference for anything but profit. Gangs have dealt in just about everything of value: spices, silk, gems, gold, fabric, glassware, concrete, stone–and yes, drugs. Also, they’ve dealt in just about any kind of service they can control: police, fire, garbage, gambling, transportation, municipal works, politics.

          If we make illicit drugs legal, the only thing that will change is organized crime’s profit targets.

          • honeybadger

            Of course gangs can find other goods to sell but they must be ones that the government has prohibited, placed severe taxes on, overegulated, or restricted entry to the industry. It is no coincidence that markets that are free are also safe and ones that are not free are often dangerous. This is just basic economics. I challenge anyone to come up with a good that has been profitable for gangs to sell that the government has not prohibited or restricted the entry of legitimate businesses to enter the market.

            Organized crime is the result of a big government that thinks that it can defy basic economics if the intent of the policy is good (this is the same type of thinking that got us obamacare).

          • taxpayer1234

            Thieves are thieves. They don’t give a flying f**k about free markets or restricted markets. They want what they want, and they’ll do what it takes to muscle their way into illicit profitability.

            Back in the 1940s, My grandfather and his brother started a shipmasters’ union. It became quite successful–so successful that it attracted the attention of the mafia, which infiltrated then took over the union by force. They literally knocked at my uncle’s door one night and demanded he give them control of the union, or our entire family would be obliterated.

            There was nothing that prevented the mafia from starting their own shipmasters’ union. The Great Lakes is a big place, and the shipping industry in the 1940s was booming. There were plenty of non-union fleets which could have been unionized with a little effort. Only the mafia didn’t want to do the work. They just wanted what belonged to someone else, and took it.

            Blaming the government for gangs is as illogical as blaming America for 9/11. Your argument doesn’t wash.

  • taxpayer1234

    nt

  • veritaseequitas

    mercy. No waitin’, no hemmin’ and hawin’ around – annihilate him now. In the line up of candidates, RP is the biggest Joker in the deck and he makes Romney look like a viable choice to some folks. Once RP has been disposed of, Romney will be spotlighted for the disaster that he is and it just might give Rick Perry some room to overcome his difficult start and move up to compete with Newt.
    I know Newt has the gift of gab, knowledge of history, etc., etc., but Newt has some real issues of his own that are going to be tough to reconcile once the press really focuses more on him, and ultimately, I get the feeling this is just a big game for Newt; to prove to himself that he still has the juice.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      He is not going to be elected to anything, and after this run he is retiring.

      Might I suggest to you that by piling on, all you will succeed in doing is make him a sympathetic figure.

      • veritaseequitas

        normal, coherent person, you might have a point. But sadly, we are not.

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          Paul is a nutjob, which means that all of this sturm and drang I have been reading here is out of place. Or perhaps the real problem is that you do not trust your fellow republicans will have enough sense not to nominate him?

          • veritaseequitas

            Just look who is sitting in the Oval Office and then let’s talk about trusting a voter’s instincts.

          • streiff

            nt

  • marktx

    While RP is a controversial guy, most people realize that he won’t be the nominee. Yet RS has been overcome with threads about him, while ignoring the real issue, which should be the defeat of socialism in America.

  • jameseisenhower

    Where are the candidates that represent fiscal sanity and less governmental programs? To me, there is no real conservative choice in the party this year. It is almost a guarantee that the country will stay the same course no matter who is elected. I don’t know what being conservative even means anymore nor does the republican party I think.

    • taxpayer1234

      who have a record of fiscal sanity on the national level. Bachmann is a great Tea Party cheerleader, but her results are as thin as Paul’s. Perry has a record of fiscal sanity at the state level. And Mittens has Romneycare–stone cold proof of fiscal INsanity.

      So, based on actual proof of fiscal sanity, I’d go with Newt, Perry, or Santorum.

  • republicanequalsdemocrat

    It’s bad enough it staffs people who have been forced to resign from previous positions for plagirism, but really, this is the trash you come up with? Notice how the evil scary muslims never attack a country that doesn’t consitantly mess with them? The Swiss? The Swedes? ETC…

    • Bill S

      Try The Daily Paul instead.

    • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

      Or what about the evil Balinese in Indonesia? No? Didn’t think so. Are you aware that the mods have a shoot on sight rule about Paultards?

  • logcabin4newt
    Ron Paultards are super homophibic and old fashioned. I don’t like them at all.

    As a gay man I feel very comfortable here at Redstate, not only as a physical conservative but as a guy, too.

  • justagrunt11b
    Nice to see how eager an admitted zionist is to throw American lives away for their own ends.

    Look at the dual Israeli citizens in our government deciding how to waste American lives and money all in the name of zionism.. Keep lying to yourself if you want but a person of any credible level of intelligence should ask themselves why jews are despised the world over. I mean seriously, how likely is it that everyone is racist and hates jews or that they take action to alienate themselves from every branch of society. What’s the common factor here people. The ways of the jew are.

    The jews say it’s anti-semitism,, their invented term to make you afraid of even speaking about the truth. Think about it, status quo is everything in American society, if you’re openly labeled as an anti-semite it will cause you problems with the jews in power and the ignorant American jew-slaves who stand up against their own countrymen in the name of political correctness sown by dual Israeli citizen jewish controlled American government. The government and the country are not one in the same. Our government is not our country and it’s no longer our government, it’s Israel’s proxy.

    Educate yourself beyond the public schools indoctrination. Read about the German government in the Treaty of Versailles, read about the Jewish boycott of Germany before Hitler ever opressed a single jew.

    Only we can awaken our countrymen to the blight of the jew because our government and media is controlled by them.. The truth will always remain hidden but thanks to the unexpected invention of the internet the truth is slowly slipping through the cracks as the jews can’t buy up every website like they have done with public media broadcasts.

    Violence is a part of nature. Power belongs to those who take it. Living a life in fear is not living a life at all. Don’t be afraid of the truth. Don’t be afraid of the jew, systemic collapse is coming to America like in Germany, that’s when we will awaken from our slumber of ignorance and our wrath will be so mighty, our vengeance so voracious, there won’t be enough jew lovers to stop the purging!

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      .

      • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

        Well, at least I got in the white-out.

        • pttx333

          wallpaper hangers these days! Thanks for zapping the nutjobs for us – they seem to be out in full force! LOL

    • jakeofalltrades

      Thank God for our Inglorious Moderators!