Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, November 16, 2007
Mona Charen :: Townhall.com Columnist
Too Close to Kooky
by Mona Charen
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Memo to: Ron Paul supporters
Subject: Your e-mails

Okay, enough is enough. Like every other journalist in America, and who knows, maybe the world or even the universe, I've been deluged with your letters and e-mails. So I've done as you asked and taken a closer look at your candidate. Here is what I've found:

1. Ron Paul is inconsistent. Though he calls himself a man of principle and is apparently admired as such by his ardent fans, his principles seem somewhat elastic. He rails against the Bush administration for its supposed assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said no. "He doesn't deserve one because he was instrumental in leading the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn't need to be in." Notice that he didn't say it was because Libby was guilty of committing a crime. No, because Libby argued for a policy with which Paul disagreed, he deserved to serve time in prison. Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?

2. Ron Paul is historically challenged. He argues that by embracing isolationism, he fits within a Republican tradition stretching back to Eisenhower "who stopped the Korean War" and including Nixon "who stopped the war in Vietnam." Let's recap. Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against China. It was the Eisenhower administration that had a hand in toppling Iran's Mohammad Mossedegh (an intervention that Paul has elsewhere cited as causing the U.S. grief 25 years later when the Islamists took power). Eisenhower also intervened in Guatemala, Cuba (planning for the Bay of Pigs began during his tenure) and Lebanon.

Nixon, an isolationist? Most observers, whatever they may make of detente with the USSR and the opening to China, agree that Nixon was an emphatic internationalist. For the record, he intervened in many countries including Chili, Peru and Cambodia. And he saved Israel by resupplying her during the Yom Kippur war. Neither his successes nor failures grew out of a Paulesque policy of "minding our own business."

3. Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals.

4. Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists. As syndicated radio host Michael Medved has pointed out, Ron Paul's newspaper column was carried by the American Free Press (a parent publication of the Hitler-praising Barnes Review). Paul may not have been aware of this. But though invited by Medved to disavow any connection, Paul has so far failed to respond.

Paul has appeared on the Alex Jones radio program not once, not twice, but three times. Jones is the sort who believes that black helicopters are coming to impose a police state on America. He is quite concerned about the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderbergers, the federal election system (it's rigged, of course) and so on. Naturally, he believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Ron Paul has even appeared in a Jones film, "Endgame," the point of which is apparently that the Bilderbergers are plotting to control the world. They've already got Europe (through the European Union) and now are on the verge of securing America by means of a North American union that would unite Mexico, the United States and Canada.

Even if Paul says nothing insane in this film, his appearance alone calls his judgment into question. I have not seen "Endgame," but I have heard a tape of Paul on the Jones program just after the 2006 election. Jones asked the congressman whether the victory for the Democrats wasn't a "rejection of neo-fascist imperialism." Paul replied, "Yeah . . . This was a healthy election as far as I'm concerned."

Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of a number of racist, neo-Nazi and conspiracist websites. While Paul cannot be held accountable for the views of cranks and kooks, he can disavow their support and return their checks. He received $500 from Don Black, the proprietor of Stormfront.org and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He has not yet returned it.

Moreover, Paul seems to be playing a sly game with his conspiracy-minded fans. He does not explicitly endorse the crazier theories out there, but he hints at dark forces in the U.S. government threatening our liberties, he inveighs against the "neo-cons" (shorthand for Jews in some circles) and he gives aid and comfort to the paranoid by appearing on their favorite radio shows.

No, Ron Paul is not my candidate. Not for president. He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist, political analyst and author of Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Mona Charen's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Set of questions
You claim to have done your research on Paul. You claim he is an isolationist, despite the fact that he has stated countless times that he is exactly the opposite of an isolationist. He supports free trade and non-interventionism. So, my questions to you:

1) Are you intentionally lying about Dr. Paul being an isolationist in order to libel him? If not, then:
2) Are you lying about doing your research on Dr. Paul?

If you consider yourself to be a journalist, you see the problem with your answers to these questions. Please quit lying, whether it is to libel Dr. Paul or to cover up the fact that you haven't actually researched him.

Cut the smear
Please, please -- can we just talk civilly? If you actually knew Dr. Paul, you'd know that he would never speak this way about you, or anyone else. He is polite and accurate to a fault.

Your piece jumps to numerous conclusions, and shows a lack of research at a minimum. It also, as so many journalists do, seems to assume that you in a several hundred word piece, can tell us more about foreign policy, politics, and the world than a man who has been in the business for 30 years, and representing us in Congress for 20.

Instead of putting yourself up as an expert on Dr. Paul, why not talk with him, listen to him, and ask him questions? Interview him, give him time to respond to your questions, so you can learn and present him accurately -- instead of just blasting out something that is ill-considered and inaccurate.

I know about deadlines -- I'm a journalist myself. But you don't make yourself or our profession look credible when you print this sort of stuff.

Don't embarrass yourself
Mona,

Please don't embarrass yourself like this in front of everybody by writing an article like this. Somehow Ron Paul is now inconsistent after a comment about whether Scooter Libby should receive a pardon?

Ron Paul is not historically incorrect about the Eisenhower and Nixon campaigns. The voters voted for them because of their rhetoric for peace and ending those wars. What they actually did in office is irrelevant to the point that Ron Paul was making about why voters voted for them. He also points out that the voters voted for George Bush in 2000 because of his rhetoric about a humble foreign policy. He was very critical of Clinton's interventionism is Bosnia and Kosovo. It's irrelevent what Bush did once he was in office other that to explain why the voters are disgusted with him now.

You are unserious if you think the American people don't want to get rid of the IRS, CIA, FBI, etc.

Your insidious attempt to tarnish the impeccable reputation of Dr. Paul through association is disgraceful and does not stand up in the light of day.


"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - MG

I don't have a problem
with the "conspiracy" theory that there are dark forces in gov't, purposely harming this nation. How else would one explain the absurdity of many gov't decisions, open borders while we fight terrorism, 13 trillion dollars of debt, etc. We assume the gov't is just stupid, but no one can be that stupid. It has to be intentional.

"Unserious" journalism
Mona,

I am Ron Paul supporter, and as with most of his supporters, I enjoy reasoned criticism of his policies. But after spending a couple of sentences detailing your research efforts, you make a couple of statements that suggest your research was spotty at best.

The most glaring example is your labeling Paul an isolationist. Over and over, he differentiates between isolationism and non-interventionism, and they are vastly different positions. Some would say polar opposites. He details the philisophical differences in many of his writings, so for you to label him as an isolationist suggests that you did not read his policies very closely.

The second example is your labeling his policies as "unserious". This is the rhetorical equivalent of name-calling, especially since the evidence refutes your reckless labeling. He has stated often enough that he would not eliminate departments immediately and would work through Congress when appropriate, but more importantly, he has explained in detail how and why he would implement these changes. If you have an argument with the idea of eliminating the IRS, fair enough, discuss that, but don't take the easy rhetorical road by tossing his ideas aside as "unserious", when his analysis suggests he has done more thinking on the topics then most of the other candidates.



"Unserious" journalism #2
As for points #1 and #4, they are fair complaints, but to my ear, they are trivial. If #1 is the only example of inconsistency you can find, that's laughable. You are declaring him completely inconsistent based on a detail of a fairly minor political point. Look at any major political topic, and you will find his policies to be consistent. Moreover, he is SO consistent that most people who understand his philosophy can guess what his policy will be before he even offers it, because it almost always follows the same framework.

As for #4, perhaps he should return the money, if only for appearances and to avoid the wrath of the press, but as he has said himself, if extremists want to waste their money supporting him when he has clearly disvowed their platforms, that's their problem, not his.

The internal polls
must be looking good for Ron Paul. This is about the 5th hit piece on him I've read this week. Is anybody surprised?

isolationist , progressive, Is and other
Even though the true definition of isolationist does include protectionism, the modern meaning at least since before WWII has meant more of the military isolation, "there is a whole ocean" idea, we see how well that theory worked out. Calling Ron Paul the opposite of an isolationist is going way to far and to the modern meaning that everyone knows, he is a perfect isolationist. Just like Hillary is what she says a perfect progressive, because liberal pre Roosevelt meant individual not what we now know the word to mean, her little play with words is what politicians do, have you forgotten the meaning of “is”. What ever you call what Ron Paul is, it is hide under the covers and hope the boogieman will go away. Unfortunately some of your arguments here are true, he is just another politician trying to get elected like the rest of them from Washington to Bush. I personally don’t trust any of them and your right they all say one thing during the election and then do another when elected.

I was one of those anyone but Hillary people, but I might modify that to anyone but Ron Paul. As much appeal as dumping the IRS has, Ron Paul is still a kook, hiding behind a theory of constitutional government, that so many of us would like to have but frankly an impossible dream.

I am on my way out the door for the weekend. So if you want you can email me and I will get back to when I return, barrym@tds.net although be mindful I have had a lot people think they could change my mind about Ron Paul but I doubt that will ever happen.

OldRelayer
"As much appeal as dumping the IRS has, Ron Paul is still a kook, hiding behind a theory of constitutional government, that so many of us would like to have but frankly an impossible dream."

This sentence of yours says it all, doesn't it? For some reason, you have given up on our Constitutional form of government. It's no wonder why you'd consider voting for Hillary.

You claim Paul is an isolationist, when it is he who wants to have much more to do with foreign countries than does the big government Bush regime. Bush has made us more enemies than some of the worst leftists from the Democratic party *ever* have and he has similarly closed the door on talking with other nations.

Paul on the other hand, wants us to talk with other countries, conduct *real* free trade with them. Provide for our OWN national security, for a change. Paul is a non-interventionist, which means we should stop minding other countries' business; stop invading and overthrowing them if they have not attacked us nor pose any imminent threat.

Sounds a great deal like what our Founding Fathers told us to do. Now, doesn't it?

“...in his heart and in his head, in his character and in his intellect, in what he has done and in what he will become, the Thomas Jefferson of our day, Ron Paul is one of us!" --Judge Andrew Napolitano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8

http://www.RonPaulLibrary.org
Boston Tea Party 2007 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/5866141

Medved's request
I've also publicly invited Ron Paul to distance himself from his neo-Nazi supporters. In my case, as in Medved's, I've yet to hear from Dr. Paul.

Paul Is the Republican Kucinich
As an Ayn Rand admirer, I might be expected to be a Ron Paul supporter, but Mona Charen has got it exactly right--Paul is from another planet, a little munchkin whose obsessions, particularly about the dollar, remind one of the crazy old aunt kept in the attic. He has about as much chance to capture the Republican nomination as any poster on Townhall.

Ron Paul is crazy
He makes Ross Perot look serious and sane. He is the Emo Phillips of politics; he flaps his hands and speaks in a voice that reminds me very much of the Wicked Witch of the West. And his platform sounds as if he thinks he is running for Student Council President on the Nerd Party Ticket.

I spent Carters term apologizing to the world for the public embarrassment of a wingnut president. Fortunately I believe the average American is much more intelligent today than the ones who voted that particular wingnut into office. Ron Paul will soon disappear into folk history.

Dr. Paul and the Amish
I really like and respect the Amish people. Their belief is that if something is not specifically mentioned in the Bible then we shouldn't use it. They remain PURE to what their forefathers thought and believed and live a life not all that changed from the 1600s or even the new Testament times.

While respecting their beliefs i kind of like my version of a mustang convertible, air-conditioning and indoor plumbing and of course the internet.

This brings us back to Dr. Paul. I respect him and his views but they seem "Amish like" For example why get rid of the FBI, one of the best crime fighting units ever? Just because they didnt have it in 1788? Same with the CIA.

While i hate the IRS and agree with Gov Huckabee on a Fair Tax only sound way to do it is ammendment to repeal the 16th amendment and that is not happening soon.
To be continued

So what?
I'm going to start by just assuming Charen is right (which I don't believe, btw). But just for the sake of argument, let's say that Ron Paul is inconsistent, fails to appreciate the nuances of history, has unrealistic ideas (we used to call those 'goals' and 'dreams') about limiting the size and scope of government, and is supported by conspiracy theorists and neo-nazis.

So what? Is he more inconsistent than Hillary Clinton, who changes her opinions the way other people change their socks? Human beings are complex and inconsistency is part of the package. Deal with it.

Does he have a worse grasp on history than the slew of candidates on both sides who don't even have a basic understanding of the powers our constitution mandates for the executive and legislative branches? Where in the Constitution is there any authorization for Congress to interfere in health care or education? And don't even get me started on the Bush Administration's executive power grab. Please.

And wow. Ron Paul isn't serious because he has specific ideas about returning to the type and style of government our founders envisioned and established for us? Sounds like Charen is the one who is historically challenged to me.

As to the neo-nazis and conspiracy theorists, well, they have the right to support whomever they want - just because they endorse and support Paul doesn't mean that he endorses and supports their ideology. Does Pat Robertson support abortion rights now because he's endorsed pro-choice Rudy? Obviously not.

The fact that Ron Paul, the one candidate advocating for true Constitutional government, is called a kook says a lot more about the state of our society today than it does about Paul. He's not perfect and I don't agree with him about everything, but I trust him to mean it when he swears to protect and defend the Constitution.

Can Charen say the same about the candidate of her choice?

Mona's article...
...is full of half truths, assumptions, and facts not in evidence. Even a modicum of research exposes her four points to undermining. The numerous Ron Paul supporters who have posted above did exactly that with reasoned and supported arguments. It is amazing that others such as Tinsldr2, AudiR10, and Jerseyvet don't get it. They and others present nothing but the same tired and disproved accusations against Paul and his positions, and then pretend to have based their decision not to support Paul on those same tired and disproved accusations. There has got to be a word for such blindness, but I just cannot think of it right now.

Dr paul and the Amish 2
Dr Paul would be wrong to recall troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and Kosovo and Everywhere else we are. It would not be in our interests.

Dr. Paul would be wrong to go back to a currency backed by gold. This was great in the 1790s but in the world today, with a 13 trillion dollar GDP it just isnt workable. The FED Reserve gives our economy more stability not less.

I am all for smaller Federal Gov. Lots of areas it is creeping into that it needs to get out of. However to return to a "founding Father" size gov is akin to becomming "Amish". It ignores the realities of life in the 21st Century of which the Founders never dreamed.

he is for HR300 seeking to limit an individuals right to redress through the Supreme Court how is that pro liberty?

he is against the patriot act and protect america act. Both of which were never dreamed of by the Founders but are sound security policy.

I could go on but will write a blog.

To steal a good idea if you want to email me you can at Tinsldr2@yahoo.com or hit me on my blog will have a Ron Paul one up tommorow (Saturday Iraq time).

Speaker--I mostly agree, but...
I wouldn't concede that Mona has "fair complaints" for points #1 and #4, even.

She charges that Paul is willing to deprive Libby of his liberty merely because of a "policy disagreement," her proof being that Paul didn't explicitly restate Libby's guilt.

Well, lame as the trial was, a court already found Libby guilty, so Paul didn't have to, and a pardon isn't an entitlement. Paul gave a reasonable explanation why he didn't think Libby should be excused from his conviction. Although Charen is free to disagree, she is laughable for claiming that withholding pardons shows Paul has "elastic" principles about liberty.

As for the tired claim that since a few of Paul's supporters are "kooky", he must somehow condone their beliefs since he hasn't returned their money-- what people like Mona Charen and Michael Medved know is that all kinds of people give to candidates, all the time. (Michael Moore even made a big demonstration of this in one of his propaganda films.) It's shocking to some, but being "kooky" doesn't deprive you of your right to vote any more than it deprives you of giving your money away where you choose.

Ron Paul has made far more appearances on reputable TV and radio shows (even Medved's!) than fringe ones, and he's the favorite candidate of many more non-racist websites than racist ones, but Charen fails to wonder why so many reputable, non-racist people support Paul.

One additional point--
By far the most disgusting thing in this wholly pathetic article is the way Charen, claiming that the term "neo-con" is "shorthand for Jews in some circles," not-so-subtly implies that Paul must really be putting down Jews when he criticizes neo-conservatives.

Who's really the one playing "sly games" and hinting at "dark forces?" Kooky Mona!

its the choice stupid
no one candidate has it all for everyone. we choose often the lessor of the bads, or hopefully, the one with our perceived most goods.

if the choice comes down to
1. the left and their vision of an economy being a sovereign state asset. private firms allowed concessions to operate as long their federal partner is pleased with the share they impose.
or 2. another tongue speaking christian wacko, but this one hates immigration, free trade, and thinks of the economy as "america's" jobs which will benefit from fence building and deporting the nation's hardest working worers.

well you know if those are the choices we get, well ron paul looks a lot better. the issue is not ron paul, the issue is do the choices we have represent enough of what we individually want as the electors. frankly i think the base of both the republicans and democrats are certified nutz loco insane. that is why paul gets funded, and receives support.

Ron Paul's Conservatism
Ron Paul represents a conservative tradition that stretches back long before Eisenhower to the early years of the 20th century, when statesmen like Charles Lindbergh, Sr and William E Borah fought against the Federal Reserve Act, the Internal Revenue Act and US intervention in foreign wars.
It's sad to see so many self-styled "conservatives" with no respect for history, tradition, custom or the rule of law.

Please Mrs. Charen,

What foolishness! I imagine you consider yourself to have some argumentative prowess as a high profile journalist, but really I am not impressed.

Re: #1, The question at the debate IMPLIED that Mr. Libby was guilty, hence the issue as to whether or not he should be pardoned. Since the charge was exposing a CIA operative to presumably discredit intel contrary to the aims of the administration, Dr. Paul's answer is in effect saying that Scooter Libby should not be pardoned since he was found guilty of the charges of outing an operative for the purpose of manipulating US intelligence and opinion toward war.

#2, Again as others have mentioned, Ron Paul speaks of the Traditional Republican Foreign Policy PLATFORM of Non-intervention, as well as the Foreign Policy of the Founding Fathers, which was also a non-interventionist foreign policy. Consider for a moment the relative success of Jefferson's unpopular refusal to enter the Napoleonic Wars and the resulting Louisiana Purchase. Maybe we could compare that with the US's stunning "success" in achieving ANYTHING with Iran over the last 50 years?


Please Mrs. Charen II

#3, Mrs Charen, why is it "unserious" to refuse to "take all the options off the table" when it comes to reducing government spending? The "nuclear option" of abolition is something we need to keep handy wouldn't you agree? In fact how could we be any more serious about our commitment to control government's wasteful spending?

#4, Mrs Charen, whose judgement should we question more? Ron Paul's for accepting donations from private individuals who choose for whatever their own reasons are to support his campaign even though some of those individuals have what, we can all agree, are repulsive personal views? Or, say, Rudy Giuliani who has consistently surrounded himself on a PERSONAL level with with men like Bernard Kerik who are then found to be embroiled in all manner of illegal and illicit activity? Whose judgment should we be more concerned about, or shows a more troubling lack of discernment?

Anyway, I look forward to your next piece where you take on what the Kerik affair says about Giuliani's judgment and where I would think you would be forced to recommend that he too is unfit to be president.

Cheers!

Constantinople

Please Mrs. Charen II

#3, Mrs Charen, why is it "unserious" to refuse to "take all the options off the table" when it comes to reducing government spending? The "nuclear option" of abolition is something we need to keep handy wouldn't you agree? In fact how could we be any more serious about our commitment to control government's wasteful spending?

#4, Mrs Charen, whose judgement should we question more? Ron Paul's for accepting donations from private individuals who choose for whatever their own reasons are to support his campaign even though some of those individuals have what, we can all agree, are repulsive personal views? Or, say, Rudy Giuliani who has consistently surrounded himself on a PERSONAL level with with men like Bernard Kerik who are then found to be embroiled in all manner of illegal and illicit activity? Whose judgment should we be more concerned about, or shows a more troubling lack of discernment?

Anyway, I look forward to your next piece where you take on what the Kerik affair says about Giuliani's judgment and where I would think you would be forced to recommend that he too is unfit to be president.

Cheers!

JackShiite writes:
In fact, in many ways Giuliani is the most conservative of the top three candidates for the Republican nomination.


Sorry, but you can not be conservative and NOT believe in the second amendment! And no matter how the press or he tries to spin it and say well, I have reconsidered and I do think you have the right to keep and bear arms, it just don’t work. In the time of our founding fathers, no one even thought of going around unarmed for hunting and self protection! So why would it cross their minds to put it into an amendment to make sure people stayed armed? It’s is because they knew they were creating a monster, and the peasants needed more than pitchforks and torches to carry around! No rudyary is no conservative!

Free Ramos and Compean
If we can’t have HOME SECURITY first, the rest just don’t matter!
HUNTER /Tancredo 2008!
http://www.gohunter08.com
http://www.ontheissues.org/Duncan_Hunter.htm
Hunter’s best quote: Move away from the Ted Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party. (Jun 2007)


Well I was reluctant
even to comment here. The last time I saw such a dogpile was when I went on to some lefty site -- Huffington Post I thing. To Paul's supports, you might consider yourself Confederates, pining after the Lost Cause. My thumbnail opinion, gleaned from these comments, is that you're not really all that in touch with mainstream opinion. Not every American, or most, or many, has such extreme views. This, from me, not a moderate at all. But come on -- conspiracies?

The presidency is a bully pulpit, like it or not. Whom a candidate associates with sends a message. That Paul is so foolish as to use such a shaky platform calls his judgment into question, regardless of the care with which he as formulated his arguments. Does anyone remember Lyndon LaRouche? Different bandwagon, same parade.

J
http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/

Thank you,Mona...
...for taking on the Paulys.

And BTW,Insighting Truth,the word you are looking for is "intelligent".

Becky writes:
Does Pat Robertson support abortion rights now because he's endorsed pro-choice Rudy? Obviously not.

Sorry but how does he NOT support it, if he endorses the candidate with his NAME? Just as I support Hunter/Tancredo because they know what a security hole we have in borders, and will do what they can to secure them!

Free Ramos and Compean
If we can’t have HOME SECURITY first, the rest just don’t matter!
HUNTER /Tancredo 2008!
http://www.gohunter08.com
http://www.ontheissues.org/Duncan_Hunter.htm
Hunter’s best quote: Move away from the Ted Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party. (Jun 2007)

Ron Paul for president...
...1789.

IMHO
Most hatchet jobs nowadays are to make mittary and rudyary look better, but I am not buying it. I do not support RP but I do know media bullspin when I see it! Wonder how it makes them feel to get the same support from the third estate that billary gets?

Free Ramos and Compean
If we can’t have HOME SECURITY first, the rest just don’t matter!
HUNTER /Tancredo 2008!
http://www.gohunter08.com
http://www.ontheissues.org/Duncan_Hunter.htm
Hunter’s best quote: Move away from the Ted Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party. (Jun 2007)

Thanks Nam65-66:
I appreciate your effort to help me expand my vocabulary. However, I fail to see how "intelligent" applies to people who are unable to incorporate knew knowledge into a functional paradigm. Falsehoods, misrepresentations, and spin notwithstanding I believe the word I am looking for is the exact opposite of intelligent.

sorry:
new not knew

Finally
Finally someone points out what a nut he really is. He and Kacinisch should form a third party, the Nuthouse Party, and run on that ticket.

The Scooter Libby Pardon
Scooter Libby was convicted in a court of law.

No new evidence has been offered disputing his guilt.

That means that there are no grounds for a pardon for Libby on the basis of innocence. The only grounds available for a pardon for Libby would be character-based. That makes all issues related to his character relevant to the question of whether or not he should receive a pardon. His participation in one of the most despicable Administrations in American history is therefore not only relevant to the question of his pardon; it's determinative.

You seem to want Ron Paul to engage in ritual denunciations of various persons to gain your acceptance as a serious candidate. That makes it fair for me to demand that Scooter Libby ritually denounce his former employers - in detail - before I will back you up in demanding that Paul support his pardon. Mr. Libby has to demonstrate that he has reformed himself; and any parole board in the country will tell you that the first item on the checklist to show that you've done that is to state that you accept your guilt, and that of your nefarious associates.

While we're on the subject of ritual denunciations, I will also only support your call for a return of the Black donation when Mr. Giuliani fires the various members of the Podhoretz family currently advising him, and denounces Pat Robertson and his endorsement. Mr. Black seems to be a truly repugnant person, but his views are only slightly more outrageous than Mr. Robertson's, and in terms of the harm he can actually do to the world he can't even begin to measure up to Norman.

Mona Mona Mona
Lets just get right to the heart of the subject. Mona and her fellow NeoCons don't like Ron Paul because he puts the interest of the United States first. He doesn't think Israel is the 51st State. Since the big Nov 5 fundraiser, NeoCons have been in panic mode. Ron Paul is really a Nazi, next we'll find out he has a long lost uncle that was a concentration camp guard. This reminds me of 1996. Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire and the next thing a man who worked for 3 Republican Presidents, been a Washington insider his entire adult life turned out to be the second coming of Hitler.

Ron Paul is an old school traditionalist Republican out of the TAFT, GOLDWATER, and REAGAN wing of the GOP. American Firsters.



Neocon lies...
From reading this column of Charen's it is obvious that for neocons like her it really is all about Israel and using the US to back up Israel no matter how much it might be against the real interests of the US. The rest of the complaints are mere filler. Scooter Libby out of the gate? I think he got off lightly for attempting to cover up a crime. In fact, I hope one day to see him tried as a war criminal. The same thing should be done to "journalists" who helped spread the lie knowingly should be tried as well under the provision used against Julius Streicher. The neocons have nothing on him.

So Paul got an unsolicited check from Don Black? So what. He doesn't have a warmongering Norman Podhoretz, the man who prays for Bush to bomb Iran, as the chief foreign policy advisor like Charen's man Guiliani does. It isn't hard to figure out what is more of a danger here. Black's check has little, if any influence while Norman's half baked ideas do.

Paul can return the check and Guiliani can fire the mad bomber Podhoretz.


Return the Money Mona....
Did you know that some members of hate groups may have read this column or others you've written and you may have received money based on their readership?

It's pretty amazing that you couldn't find anything positive to say about Paul. Makes you look like an unthinking establishment hack.

Karl
"I've also publicly invited Ron Paul to distance himself from his neo-Nazi supporters. In my case, as in Medved's, I've yet to hear from Dr. Paul."

LOL!!! So, you sent an email to Congressman Paul and are upset that you have not received a personal reply yet, eh? Give me a break, Karl. His campaign is inundated with Americans wanting information on how to support him. :)

As far as the few supposed "neo-Nazi" supporters go, Karl, what is it that you would have him do? Start doing background checks on each and every contributor? Is that it, Karl? Who is it that you would like to establish the criteria for who IS and who ISN'T worthy to donate money? YOU, Karl? I'd be interested to know what your plan is here.

You know what? As distasteful as I personally find these few to be, they too have the right to choose for whom they want to vote. Paul has made it abundantly clear that he denounces all forms of racism as the worst type of collectivism. If a few people such as this, want to donate money, it is their choice to do so. The campaign will use their money, just like they do mine (I'm a Goldwater-Republican), to spread Paul's message of peace and individual liberty, throughout the land.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Jack H
"To Paul's supports, you might consider yourself Confederates, pining after the Lost Cause. My thumbnail opinion, gleaned from these comments, is that you're not really all that in touch with mainstream opinion. Not every American, or most, or many, has such extreme views."

The Constitution is too extreme for you, eh? Is that what you're saying? Once upon a time, conservatives used to be all about this document. In fact, they still are.

Anyone remember these traditional conservative principles:
- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

“...the two American political figures Ron Paul strikes me as being the most similar to are Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater.” – Chuck Muth

“I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom” – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist

"If the framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they'd even talk to," said Mr. Williams, adding that most politicians have a "generalized contempt" for the values of the Constitution. – Walter Williams

“...in his heart and in his head, in his character and in his intellect, in what he has done and in what he will become, the Thomas Jefferson of our day, Ron Paul is one of us!" --Judge Andrew Napolitano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8

"Texas Congressman Ron Paul's pro-gun credentials are impeccable and he has been a leading proponent of rolling back the past 40 years of gun control." -- Gun Owners of America

Eliminate...
...the IRS, CIA, and FBI?

Him and what Congress?

I wouldn't call him "unserious", although that it apt, I would say he is a utopianist.

In case I hadn't mentioned it before, I despise anything possessing even a hint of utopianism.

Why spend even a fraction of a second talking about something you aren't going to accomplish, seeing as you will NEVER have 60 "Abolish the CIA" votes in the Senate?

But then, that begs the bigger question.

Why waste even a fraction of a second talking about a candidate who isn't going to win a single primary?

religion manipulating atheists not jews
Guide of the Perplexed by Maimonides
Translation: Schlomo Pines
Introduction: Leo Strauss

Pg 92-93
"The term [living] is often used also in the sense of acquisition of knowledge."

Pg 27-28
"Every mention of seeing, when referring to God, may He be exalted,
has this figurative meaning-as when Scripture says : I saw the Lord;
And the Lord became seen to him; And God saw that it was good; I
BESEECH THEE, LET ME SEE THY GLORY; And they saw the God of Israel.
All this refers to intellectual apprehension and in no way with the
eye's seeing..."

Pg 31
"Man and Woman are terms that at first were given the meaning of a
human male and a human female. Afterwards they were used figuratively
to designate any male or female among THE OTHER SPECIES of living
things."

Pg 86
"In this sense it [the use of the term "face"] is also said: 'But My
Face shall not be seen'(Exodus 33:23), meaning the true reality of My
existence...The biblical expression, 'But My face shall not be seen',
is understood in the sense in the interpretation of Onqelos, who
translates: 'And those in front of Me shall not be seen'. He indicates
by this that there are likewise great created beings whom man cannot
apprehend as they really are. These are the separate intellects."

Exodus 33:20
And he [God] said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man
see me, and live.


Why not...
...strike at the heart of the problem. Eliminating the IRS is the single best step we can take toward a freer, more prosperous America.

The last time I checked the IRS was part of the treasury department. The treasury department operates under the auspices of the executive branch. I think that as chief executive Dr. Paul could eliminate the IRS with the stroke of a pen.

BTW Liberty, it's nice to see you back again.

religion manipulating atheists (contd)
Here are the books:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0226502309
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226502317

http://www.amazon.com/Persecution-Art-Writing-Leo-Strauss/d p/0226777111/
This book on the back cover states:

"It is [Strauss's] thesis that few, if any, of the Great Books in philosphy and political philosophy...can simply be 'read,' no matter
how vigorously....They have to be studied, and in a special way, for if they are truly great, it is probably their intention to conceal as
well as to reveal....The bulk of Persecution and the Art of Writing is devoted to three long essays on 'the art of reading' Maimonides' Guide
for the Perplexed, Judah Halevi's Kuzari, and Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus....[These essays] are so closely reasoned, so
brilliant in their analysis of details of style and argument, that it is impossible fairly to summarize them."-Irving Kristol, Commentary
(Father of the Weekly Standard's and FOXNEWS's William Kristol)

Citizen Carrier
"Why waste even a fraction of a second talking about a candidate who isn't going to win a single primary?"

Want to bet? ;)

Some of you people just make me laugh. It's not hard to tell what side you would have been on during the American Revolution. Just keep in mind, beds are lower to the ground now, so it's harder for one to crawl under them and cower in fear.

What scares some of you so much? Paul actually believes our government should adhere to their oaths of office to abide by the Constitution. If we did that, our federal government would be MUCH smaller and much of the power would be returned to the states and to the people. I have heard a lot of you on this site, gripe and moan about how much you believe in states' rights. Well, here you have someone right in front of your faces, who would work to do just that, and you seem to be afraid. Why? The man has a perfect Constitutional voting record, a 100% rating from Gun Owners' of America, has NEVER voted for a tax increase, is firmly against amnesty, and on and on. He's the real deal. Right here. Right now.

Are you going to choose to vote for the bald Hillary (Giuliani), the liberal Mitt or Huck, and continue down the road to socialism, or will you take a stand? Do you want your country back or were you just flapping your gums? It's your choice.

Mona Charen
If you take issue with the term "Neo-Con", perhaps you should take it up with Irving Kristol, Bill's father. Because it is he who coined the term, neo-conservative.

From what I have read, at the time, he wanted a way to distinguish those supposed former ex-Trotskyite Democrats, such as he, from traditional conservatives. Now that they have hijacked the conservative movement, it's not surprising that they would like the term to disappear.

C'mon Mona, you surely know this. Why take the low road and spew half-truths and innuendo? You used to be better than this.

Mona Charen
You might be interested in this group. It's called, Jews for Ron Paul.

http://www.jews4ronpaul.org/advisors.html

Liberty
Two issues ago Commentary Magazine had as their cover story, "Neoconservatism: Past, Present, and Future". Commentary is Podhoretz's rag and where Irving wrote the review of Strauss that I cited.

"big government conservatives".
"Once upon a time, conservatives used to be all about this document. In fact, they still are."

That was before the neocons came over from the Democrat party and trashed it with the sort of thinking expressed by Fred Barnes about being "big government conservatives". All they have done is to make it a 1960s style democrat party.

Paul is a throwback to the days when the Republicans used to stand for something other than supporting the positions on the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Weekly Standard.

Ignorance
The sheer ignorance of the Ron Paul lemmings is appalling. They remind me of the Lyndon LaRouche crowd. Ron Paul used to be a good congressman. He's in over his head at this point. Peter Principle.

Talk about kooky?
Any discussion about Ron Paul is unworthy of the paper or, in this case space, it is written on. Just too, too kooky!

Auntie
Complain to Mona. She's the one who wrote this dishonest column.

monticup:
Another unsupported attack on Paul's supporters, what's your point? And, may I remind you that LaRouche was a Democrat, and ran under that banner. Where is the parallel?

for c11bar
c11bar writes: "You are unserious if you think the American people don't want to get rid of the IRS, CIA, FBI, etc."

You really think the American people want to get rid of the FBI and these other organizations?

Give me a break. Even DEMOCRATS don't talk that way.

Kook City
He walks and talks like a Kook. He associates with Kooks. He is a Kook.

for Liberty
Liberty writes: "Paul on the other hand, wants us to talk with other countries, conduct *real* free trade with them."

Two words: ARMAND HAMMER

Did Ron Paul want to trade with the Communist bloc during the Cold War too?

"Where is the parallel?"
There isn't. This sort of thing, i.e., the sandwich smear, is something the Neocons brought over with them from their days as Democrats. Republicans used to not act in this childish way.

Serious Real World Concerns
I strongly support the elimination of the IRS, however to think that as Insighting truth says

"The last time I checked the IRS was part of the treasury department. The treasury department operates under the auspices of the executive branch. I think that as chief executive Dr. Paul could eliminate the IRS with the stroke of a pen."

What would you replace it with? The year is not 1790. Our Federal Gov needs a budget much bigger then we had then. It is not living in the Real world to think we can go back to that.

To be against electronic interception of terrorist phone calls and email? Ok the founding fathers never even thought of that or of terrorists. What is wrong with that?

I agree with Liberty when he writes:

- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

But live in the "real world" to think that we can do away with so many of our current gov programs is NOT going to happen. To think we can put the "spilt milk" back in the bottle is not going to happen.

Lets get back to cutting back and stopping the spread of the growth. Let's prune the waste in FED Gov.

Take a look at the fight over S-Chip expansion. Pres Bush (too little to late) temporarily blocked the EXPANSION of the program and had a tough fight. If he had tried to eliminate it he would have been overridden.

Rep. Paul has great absolutes. But Reality is a lot different in 2007 and 2008 then 1780. Reality is the art of the compromise and negotiation. I FULLY support the constitution. But Rep. Paul is not the only constitution candidate. He is the only 18th century candidate.




knight_of_baawa
"Your desire to murder Iraqis and Iranians as vengeance for 9/11 merely tags you as subhuman, Mona."

This tiresome charge? Again?

Hmm. A Ron Paul supporter using the term "subhuman".

You know, there were these guys once in Germany...

No. No, I won't go there. For me to make such an assumption about somebody without knowing them better would be just as groundless and ignorant as if I were claiming to know their motivations for our foreign policy right now.

And making an assumption like that would be just...stupid.

I believe this charge has been made about me in the past.

Strange, because unlike most posters here I actually had a hands on opportunity to murder Iraqis for 9/11. I was in Baghdad in 2005.

My favorite way to showcase my hatred of all things Iraqi? I liked giving toys and toothbrushes and candy to Iraqi children who clustered around my humvee. I had two Iraqi brothers who tag team operated a crane in our Class IV yard at Camp Liberty. The one next to the DeFluery dining facility, if any of you have been there.

They risked their lives to do that job.

My platoon and I showed our hatred for those Iraqis by loading up their car every day or so with cases of bottled water, food, and leftovers from care packages sent to us from our families.

Quit being a twit, Knight...

True Freedom - Nothing left to lose
I agree that Rep. Paul has some out-of-the-mainstream ideas and has no chance to win either the nomination or the election. That is precisely why I feel free to vote for him in the primary. I don't know any other way to send the message to all the other candidates how discontented I am with their big-government ideas. I realilze, of course, that ultimately I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Rudy, Mitt, etc. just to keep her highness out of the oral office.

Oh wow, now I support Guiliani (Not)
I do wonder if journalists recognize that it is these types of hit pieces that continue to bring more people to Ron Paul?

For me, it was being told more than 2 years before an election that the "only" choice to beat Hillary, was Rudi. I stopped believing right then.

If you would least discuss his positions a little bit, your article might be credible. I mean not one segment of this piece states a pro-or a con about his positions.

Wow - I guess the research consisted of finding somebody who would tell her that "some circles" mean jews when they refer to Neocons.

Brilliant.

Neocon Garbage
This is just neocon garbage, propaganda, nonsense and lies that has absolutely no intellectual depth whatsoever. It was a waste of my time reading it. It's obvious that the neocons are desperately looking for any way to hold onto power at any cost, and continue destroying our constitutional republic. Restore the Republic and vote for Ron Paul.

Neoconservative supporters
Why would you guys blindly follow people who think you are animals? That you should be classified as another species?

Just Kooky
Is it wishful thinking or just plain kooky to believe this country has no enemies, except those we created?

TS Hayes
First - why is it there can be no discussion of this man's ACTUAL positions without the use of ad hominen a.k.a. name-calling. Can't we rise to a higher level of discourse?

1) Libby was convicted for perjury and Paul was asked about a pardon. He said he would not grant one becuase Scooter lied(perjury). Simple. Consistent.

2) Non-interventionist. SAY IT. Non-in-ter-ven-tion-ist. It means don't mess around in the affairs of other nations, not isolating yourself in a closet. Simple. Consistent.

3) Paul knows that before 1913, America operated without the IRS and the Federal Reserve (which history shows have actually caused some financial collapses). We could do it again. I'd like to keep my earnings, thanks. Simple Consistent.

P.S. He never said he would eliminate CIA/FBI - just eliminate redundant services, thereby reducing government. Simple. Consistent.

4) He has stated the he does not believe the government was involved with 9/11. However, he does believe - rightly so - that the Bush administration and the neo-cons (yes, they exist) are concentrating powers and eliminating civil liberties. Habeus, torture, Pariot Act, terror watch list, wiretapping - all these are infringements on the privacy of individuals - and Paul agrees. Simple. Consistent.

For someone who has a national platform from which to espouse your ideas, it is a shame that you have not actually read Paul's own words about some of the very positions of his you have so horribly, intentionally and visciously misrepresented. As a seasoned veteran, you should hold journalistic responsibility and integrity to a higher standard than hearsay.

There is no other candidate as consistent in following the constitution. There is no other candidate who has written so much about his own positions. None of the other guys have written half as much.

Please go to ronpaul2008.com and read his own writings. Educate yourself and do some research before you write something else. Simple.

for Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson writes: "Ron Paul represents a conservative tradition that stretches back long before Eisenhower to the early years of the 20th century, when statesmen like Charles Lindbergh, Sr and William E Borah fought against the Federal Reserve Act, the Internal Revenue Act and US intervention in foreign wars."

Correct.
And that vision of American foreign policy nearly died at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, when Americans woke up to the idea that the invention of long-range bomber aircraft made American isolationism from the rest of the world impossible.

The final nail in the coffin of that view of American foreign policy came with the Cold War, and the realization that American national security depended on keeping hostile nations far from America's shores. Isolationists like Taft got repudiated when the Republicans embraced the George Kennan containment policy, NATO, and the rest of President Truman's foreign policy.

Actually, even before Pearl Harbor, there was always a glaring exception to that view of American foreign policy: the Monroe Doctrine, under which the United States constantly intervened in the Western Hemisphere to keep out potentially subversive foreign influence (such as the Spanish-American war).

The world has changed. We now realize how tiny our planet is. In an age of intercontinental missiles and the Internet, all nations are our neighbors. You can't ignore what your next-door neighbors are doing.

SteveL
Point taken. Its the policy translation that is lacking.

Pay attention to your neighbor. But if the policy is to set up shop in his living room to ensure he never discusses harming you - then you can bet that he will go down in the basement and discuss harming you.

Pay attention to your neighbor. Put your guns in a gunrack in the back of your pickup so your neigbor can see you have them, lead a good life, and go hang out with your neighbor every once in awhile (without invading his living room.) This was RR's strategy. This is RP's strategy.

It is a better strategy.

Insighting Truth
The parallel is the cult-like following. How are the Paulists different from the Lyndon LaRouche groupies?

By the way, I liked Paul as a congressman. No need to attack Mona because she disagrees with you. Would Paul approve of that?

Hi Tinsldr2:
Income taxes comprise only (aprox) 38% of federal revenue. Eliminating the IRS, and income tax, would role fed revenue levels back to the year 2000, not 1790 as you suggest.

Personally I think that the federal government was bid enough and spent enough in 2000. I would not be too concerned that our bureaucrats will starve.

Tinsldr2:
I too live in the real world. I recognize that utopia is NOT an option. But, reality is what one does. It is not what one says he will do. It is not what one pretends to do.

George Bush has neither the courage nor the moral will to follow The Constitution, because he does not believe in its efficacy. He see it as an obstacle to his personal exercise of power.

If Ron Paul accomplishes only the elimination of one major federal program he will have done more than any president in this or the entire last century. Giving him the chance to do that is worth a little risk. If he succeeds in eliminating the IRS he will have done more for us than any president ever.

I am missing something.
Wasn't Nixon the President opened the door to trading with China?

Isn't that the same thing we can assume Ron Paul would have done?


Barry Goldwater, Jr. endorses Ron Paul
November 16, 2007 10:16 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA—Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul today gained a public endorsement from Barry M. Goldwater, Jr.

“America is at a crossroads,” said Mr. Goldwater. “We have begun to stray from our traditions and must get back to what has made us the greatest nation on earth or we will lose much of the freedom we hold dear. Ron Paul stands above all of the other candidates in his commitment to liberty and to America.”

“Leading America is difficult, and I know Ron Paul is the man for the job,” he added.

Mr. Goldwater is the son of the late former Republican presidential candidate and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater, Jr. served in the House of Representatives for six terms with Texas Congressman Paul, and is currently on the Board of Directors of the Goldwater Institute. After representing northern Los Angeles County in Washington, D.C. for 14 years, Mr. Goldwater retired from politics in 1983 to pursue a successful career in business and humanitarian ventures.

“The Ron Paul campaign is exceptionally honored by Mr. Goldwater’s endorsement,” said Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. “Dr. Paul and Congressman Goldwater fought together in the Congress for the ideals of limited constitutional government that Mr. Goldwater’s father so tirelessly advocated. The Goldwaters have left an indelible mark on the Republican Party, and theirs is a legacy which Congressman Paul will certainly inherit as President.”

The late Barry M. Goldwater, Sr. sparked the modern conservative movement and was the Republican Party presidential nominee in 1964.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/45/ron-paul-endor sed-by-barry-goldwater-jr/

Dirty Money
If you want to know about dirty money, go to : http://www.peterpaul.com or check out peter paul on You Tube.
You want who ???????

monticup:
I believe you are misinformed as to the composition of Paul's support. I can understand your confusion if you are getting your information from the TH pundits. Go back and review the words and reasoned arguments of the early posts on this thread. Open your mind just a bit. Sure Paul has some wackos in his camp, but they are no more representative of the bulk of Paul's supporter's than LaRouche was of Democrats, or Duke was of Republicans.

BTW: I do not attack people. I do not believe I attacked Mona. I merely pointed out the errors in her article.

Easy
"The parallel is the cult-like following. How are the Paulists different from the Lyndon LaRouche groupies?"

Easy. Most people who support Paul tend use logic, reason and critical thinking skills that are all too lacking in most supporters of the neocon candidates. This can be discovered from listening to the typical Rush or Hannity caller, or reading some of the posts here on this board and "Free" Republic.

The cult smear can be thrown right back into your face.

Tinsldr2
"What would you replace it with? The year is not 1790. Our Federal Gov needs a budget much bigger then we had then. It is not living in the Real world to think we can go back to that."

No one is saying that. Do you realize that we would only have to roll back our expenses to 2000 levels? Don't you think that is possible?

Look, no one is saying that all government functions should be abolished. However, we have badly gotten away from the idea that most of these functions belong at the state and local levels and with the people, themselves. We, as a society, seem to now believe that everything needs to be done at the federal level. Why is that? Didn't we conservatives once believe that these functions were much better handled closer to us, where we had much more impact on them? It was not only our belief, it was laid out this way by our Founding Fathers. It's in the Constitution. Remember the enumerated powers? Have we forgotten?

retired06
"Dirty Money
If you want to know about dirty money, go to : http://www.peterpaul.com or check out peter paul on You Tube.
You want who ???????"

WHAT on earth are you talking about? I checked the website you listed and it sells selenoid valves. Whatever that is.

Then, I googled "peter paul" and youtube and found this. Is this what you are talking about?

"In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Los Angeles millionaire lawyer and businessman Peter Franklin Paul asserted Clinton failed to declare to the Federal Election Commission more than $2 million in contributions – a massive omission he believes prevented her 2000 senatorial campaign from going bankrupt in the crucial final weeks."

criticism is on such a different level
When looking to attack a politician we might go in this order (and stop when we find dirt):
1) What he says
2) What he does
3) Groups that pay him
4) Family members
5) Who he hires
6) Groups he associates with
7) Individuals who pay him
8) Individuals he associates with

So when we talk about most politicians, we're sticking with 1, 2, and 3 because that's all we need to attack them. With Ron Paul we have to get all the way down to 6, 7, and 8. Ron Paul is in an entirely different league compared to all these other clowns.

monticup
"The parallel is the cult-like following. How are the Paulists different from the Lyndon LaRouche groupies?"

Sorry but the Hagee-ites, as in Pastor Hagee, who think the world is going to end very soon, and that we will be visited by Rapture monsters that he diagrams and explains, are actually not supporting Paul. In fact they would be very against Paul.

Dirty Money
If you think that $500.00 from Don Black is dirty money, go to :www.peterpaul.com or check out peter paul on You Tube. Clinton thanked him for the contribution and then denied she knew anything about it.

monticup
"The parallel is the cult-like following. How are the Paulists different from the Lyndon LaRouche groupies?"

Well, let's see. I'm 51 years old and have been a Republican all my life. My mother was a delegate for Barry Goldwater, Sr. I worked hard to get Ronald Reagan elected and voted for him both times. I was not too fond of the Bush's, but I held my nose and voted for them. Note: I was not too fond of them, because they were from the big government, Rockefeller-Republican wing of the Party. Since I am, and always have been a conservative, that didn't sit too well with me.

But, now, after all these years, we finally have a true small government conservative in the race.

Aren't some of you tired of satisficing for the lesser of 2 evils. Choosing between which socialist is less bad? I AM! That is why I am supporting Ron Paul's campaign and I am a proud member of what we in the grassroots call, the $2300 club.

Don't let the media mislead you on Congressman Paul. Read his speeches and listen to his interviews. Decide for yourselves. And then, if you see what I see, join us. We are Americans from across the political spectrum, of all races and creeds, who know we have this chance, this ONE chance to maybe, just maybe, get our country back. I have not seen anything like it since the Reagan Revolution? Do any of you remember that? Well, it has a new name now. The Ron Paul Revolution.

http://www.RonPaulLibrary.org
http://www.RonPaul2008.com

PBS
I went to a meetup group in Chicago last night and PBS was there to film it for an up coming show on Dec. 14th. It is a national program, so unless they do a smear job, or paint the meeting in an inaccurate way, you will see that the room was filled with normal people. There were no Neo Nazis, there were no Anarchists, there were none of the people you describe. Just regular Americans that feel that the two parties are not offing anything of substance.

The attacks are going to pick up and I hope so, because when people actually get the truth, they like Dr. Paul's message. See you at the polls.

SteveL
"Liberty writes: "Paul on the other hand, wants us to talk with other countries, conduct *real* free trade with them."

Two words: ARMAND HAMMER

Did Ron Paul want to trade with the Communist bloc during the Cold War too?"

Now, how did you derive THIS, from what I said? Of course not. By the way, Armand Hammer did much more than just trade and it is my personal belief that he was guilty of treason.

Federal Revenue Sources
Insighting truth a bit of a misstatement.

InsightingTruth writes: Friday, November, 16, 2007 10:44 AM
Hi Tinsldr2:
Income taxes comprise only (aprox) 38% of federal revenue. Eliminating the IRS, and income tax, would role fed revenue levels back to the year 2000

Well you didnt give me a source so I googled it and got this for Federal revenue sources:

47% individual income tax
12% Corporate income tax
34% Soc security and retirement reciepts
2 % excise tax
4% other

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=60&Itemid=107

Now to me that is 59% of revenue being collected by the IRS (corporate and personal) and 34% from Soc Security.

So I have to challenge Isightful on his FACTS. of course that is only one source so lets see another.

69% of all statistics are made up on the spot so I like to evaluate sources.

Again elimiante IRS is just unsustainable as a REAL world strategy. Same with FBI and CIA. Same with FED Reserve.

had an anthrax shot today (against my will grr,)and am tired so you all have a good weekend and am always open to polite debate at tinsldr2@yahoo.com

Mona, the stinkin' neoCON
So we are to believe that Ron Paul is a Nazi (as stated by Medved) because he received a $500 campaign contribution from a self described Nazi out of the approx $16 million that he has raised. If he is expected to denounce this contributor does he then have to vet every one of his over 100,000 contributors? Do you think that this small amount of money will influence Ron Paul to adopt the ideology of the donor?

Tinsldr2 :
Again elimiante IRS is just unsustainable as a REAL world strategy. Same with FBI and CIA. Same with FED Reserve.

had an anthrax shot today (against my will grr,)and
****************************************
Thats not a coherent belief system.

What are you going to replace the FBI with? Do you not believe in the prosecution of criminals who cross state lines? Do you not believe in stopping interstate kidnapping, (one of the reasons the FBI was originally formed) money laundering, murder etc. etc. Who argues this nonsense? The Mob?

Same to same for the CIA. What are you going to replace it with or would you prefer we be blind in a world where nukes can be launched and kill us in two minutes? Have no desire to know if Chinese intend to actually invade Taiwan or are just bluffing? Not really interested in where those poor misunderstood militants are meeting-aka Al Qaeda are?

And as an aside whats your problem with vaccines?

The "Disavow Nazis" Smear
The smear of requesting the disavowal of Nazi supporters is just like asking if you've stopped beating your wife yet.

Would Medved, who is Jewish, respond to a request to disavow the "Jewish" practice of killing Christian babies to use their blood to make pastries for Passover?

That would be a vile smear, and he should never respond. Unfortunately, there are whackjobs out there who believe this calumny based upon its inclusion in the well-discredited "Protocols of Zion."

This type of smear seeks to manufacture controversy where none exists, and people should be above this practice.

But while we're on the subject, please assure us, Ms. Charen, that you in no way advanced your journalistic career through a "casting couch" method of interviews and reciprocations...

Who should I support Mona?
I agree that there are a few things about Paul that give me some pause (like the donations from Stormfront). His campaign should be doing more to distance themselves from those types of people.

Still, I see no other candidate in the Republican primary who is even TRYING to represent the small government wing of the GOP. I've had more than enough of "compassionate conservatism", and I don't see any condidate other than Ron Paul who would reverse this disastrous policy. Yes, I doubt that he would be able to disband the FBI, IRS, etc; but at least his heart is in the right place.

If you want me to support another candidate, you have to prove to me that they are serious as Dr. Paul about upholding the principles of limited government.

Ron Paul.
So, we are to take your Crap about Ron Paul over what we, the citizens , Now know about our Government. What we have now are a bunch of Neo-Cons in both partys. Selling our Country. Ron Paul is a refreshing change from what we have now. Go peddle your crap to to the Obama and Clinton pushers.

Tinsldr2:
My source in that instance was my memory. The original source is lost to that same memory, but I assure you it was a reliable non-partisan source. I did however google "federal revenue sources" and found a site that puts '07 revenue from income tax at 43%. That is just about in the middle between our two numbers.

I visited the source you cited. Upon only cursory inspection, it struck me as a liberal leaning site. I would not impugn their numbers just because of that, but I would rather see stats from a non-partisan source.

I have your email address, if I come across reliable contemporary figures I will forward them to you. I apologize to everyone if anything I type here is inaccurate. I try very hard not to mislead.

Nero Republicans fiddle while....
YOUR and our freedoms evaporate/are rendered unto Caesar/burn under the smoky haze of "war" "security" "temporary expediency" "indifference" "stopping the liberals/Democrats" and the usual strawman "patriotism".

Ms Charen I have been in the fight for our freedom for over 2 decades..and have followed your work over the years....

you are NOT stupid but you should/ought to/might consider the fact that CONGRESSMAN(elected to represent OTHER Americans!! and Doctor Ron Paul is NOT the Candidate(in the proper context of course).His MESSAGE is..and it is NOT just a message it is a stark WARNING.

Whilst the GOP fight amongst themselves on who gets to wield the CLUB of Government(POWER)at the same time they are rearranging the deckchairs(and the sycophants?? blindly defer more and more legitimacy to Caesar and the State), the rest(growing in appearance and effect) of us who are sick of the mobmentality and the "We have ALWAYS been at war with "___"! groupthink have said NO! and are supporting the NOT "lesser of 2(or 9!) evils” but the good and honest and principled choice for stemming the megalomania of the State and its Empire - Dr. Paul.

You and your increasingly uncivil and PROWAR!!/Anti RonPaul posters keep up your emotive diatribes/Ponzi scheme of "conservatism" and "Republican" FhuererPrinzip statism, “cards”, invective and lies....and keep NOT JUST shooting the Messenger but the Message(of freedom, liberty and soveriegnty)itself...

Shills for the Big Brother, his State and his EMPIRE.

Thanks for your shilling.

Chris Bieber in Lake Elsinore
chris_bieber@yahoo.com
Fmr CA YAF State Director in 80s-90s

Ha Ha Ha
I'm getting lots of laughs watching all the Paulettes squeal with objection now that their man has had a spotlight shone on him by a serious journalists.

Read it and weep, Paulettes.

Typical Mona article
My local newspaper prints her weekly column and it is usually trash. I'm not terribly surprised her article on Ron Paul is in the same boat.

I think she did the best she could
Clownhall has been in decline these last few years and this opinion piece really shows that talent is lacking.

I dont doubt she did her homework, it looks like she made an attempt at research and it doesnt surprise me that this is what she came up with. She is an incompetent journalist...why do you think she can only write opinion pieces?

The article is so far off base, without any substantiated follows ups just biased personal opinion.

Mona, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a really helpful link of endless resources on Dr. Ron Paul's positions.

http://ronpaullibrary.com

Dont worry, with the decline in education and now led poisoning in our children would mean a decline in intellectual people as well, your writing skills wont be lost.


Oooohhh wiseone:
Please enlighten us! Explain what the light reveals?

The positive comments are Mona herself
Its gets pretty bad when Mona herself has to comment on our comments. This is a new low for Clownhall and the Neo Cons.


and rudy's not?
If Mona feels Ron Paul is too close to kooks I suggest she take a closer look at some of the other Republicans in the field. Rudy keeps company with a priest accused of molestation and defends him. Rudy also likes to dress up in drag. Its Kooky! You can always tell when the other side is desperate. It usually starts with calling you a Nazi or a fascist pig. Ron Paul is neither. I would also point out, Ron Paul attended Travis Smiley's debate and has a higher approval rating among African Americans than any other Republican. He also polls well among muslim Americans. Personally I hope the Black Panthers, The KKK, CAIR, the Socialist Workers, the Democrats, John Birchers, NAACP, ACLU, UAW, AARP, Baptists, Catholics, hispanic Americans and Republicans all send Ron Paul a couple bucks. Isn't nice that such a wide variety of people can agree on the message of liberty!

Where does Rudy stand on child molesters
http://lonestartimes.com/2007/11/16/rudy-return-the-money/

He befriends, hires them, and accepts their 2300 dollar donations. I am sure this is Medved's and Mona's next articles.

jersey vet
Ditto's to you. I totally agree -- and to borrow a phrase "Let not your heart be troubled" because after the election, if not before, Ron Paul and Dennis K. will once again go away.

wiseone...
...are you really Mona?

Mona's article made for points. All of them opinion, not fact. The only person she made look bad was herself. And, perhaps now you.

Wiseone's
Point is that for a good chunk of the population, baseless name calling is considered argument. Therefore the article appears brilliant to the them and to wiseone.

While not one to be wise, he does have a point. With so many condidtioned to accept nonsense as argument, will there being enough intelligent open-minded people to support Ron Paul?

Oh by the way, some in some circles told my brother's friend who heard if first hand from someone that was there - that "wiseone" is code for islamofacist.

Wiseone's
Point is that for a good chunk of the population, baseless name calling is considered argument. Therefore the article appears brilliant to the them and to wiseone.

While not one to be wise, he does have a point. With so many condidtioned to accept nonsense as argument, will there being enough intelligent open-minded people to support Ron Paul?

Oh by the way, some in some circles told my brother's friend who heard if first hand from someone that was there - that "wiseone" is code for islamofacist.

1 Year From Now
Runt Paul and his ALCOAettes will be answers on JEOPARDY, in Trivial Pursuit and fodder for Stand-Up Comedians.

wiseone's point
wiseone's point is this.

Supporters of Ron Paul (apparently) have been asking Mona Charen to take a closer look at Ron Paul and seriously consider him as a candidate for President. So she did. And when she did she found him to be thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Now that she has done what Paul's supporters asked and it didn't turn out the way they hoped they are criticizing her for various specific reasons that all stem from the same source: they don't want her to have credibility if she's going to oppose Ron Paul.

But if Charen had come out in support of Paul every Paul supporter on this board would be hounding the rest of us with Charen's endorsement. And you know it.

The old saying is this. "Be careful what you wish for. You may get it." OK, you wanted Charen to take a close, serious look at Paul and you got it. Now quit whining and live with it.


Lets just take a look at Libby
Never mind that he is a lawyer and should of known better than to perjury himself. Noone makes someone lie. He was indicted on five federal felony counts of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury in the CIA leak grand jury investigation into the "Plame affair". (he choose to be the fall guy ok get that straight, you think his buddy Dick Cheney was going down?)
Libby was found guilty on four of the five counts and sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.
Scooter Libby's sick novel, The Apprentice, after Libby's grand jury indictment, his publisher (St. Martin's Press [Griffin]) reprinted the novel, described as "an everyday tale of bestiality and paedophilia in 1903 Japan...[and] packed with sexual perversion, dwelling on prepubescent girls and their training as prostitutes": "One passage describes a girl being thrown into a cage 'with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons....They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest. Groups of men paid to watch.'"
One of Libby's clients in his work as a private litigator was fugitive billionaire commodities trader Marc Rich, who had been convicted of illegal trading with Iran, and who was pardoned by President Bill Clinton: Libby "represented Rich dating back to 1985 but stopped working for him in the spring of 2000. According to Stephen Smith, in the previously-cited CBS News report of October 28, 2005, "Along with Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Wolfowitz, Libby became part of a network of neo-conservatives who[m] many know as the 'Vulcans' – Mr. Bush's core national security team." He has been on the advisory board of the RAND Corporation's Center for Russia and Eurasia (that benign little Corporation - not)
I guess you think its ok that Scooter Libby was a PNAC signer.



Forget Libby
and let's get back to Ron Paul. To me, he comes across as an angry old man. Somehow, in spite of ideas many of you support, he seems like a poor choice to convince the vast number of American voters.

Akennas
"My money (literally) is on Romney vs. Clinton."

Does this mean you have donated to both of these campaigns? Seriously? Well, I guess I do understand. There isn't much difference between the two, after all.

wiseone...
...please. I don't know anything about Paul's supporters asking Mona to look at Paul's candidacy, but I do know an unsubstantiated opinion piece when I see one. You mean to tell me, in all the material that's out there explaining Paul's positions, she couldn't find one thing to address specifically. I think I could find something good about Edward Kennedy if I took an objective look at his entire record. I mean he must have had some friends that he didn't abandon for dead. C'mon Mona's effort was not objective in any sense of the word! Well, then again, maybe smearing Paul was her objective.

Loco:
Have you ever seen Paul, other than in the debates? He is affable to a fault. He comes across as avuncular, and very approachable. You may want to take another look.

Ron Paul
He may have some personal views - but not as
kooky as Charen's last paragraph.

Insighting Truth
The smearing of Dr. Paul seems to be the cause du jour on Townhall lately. Could it be that his campaign's recent successes are stirring up some angst among the Republican Party elites and their minions?

As for his demeanor and oratorical abilities, loco, I heard him interviewed several times recently on cable news shows and he came across as very intelligent, humble and sincere.

He, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are the only real conservatives in this race. We saw what the other type of Republican is like in the scamnesty battle last summer. Remember how frustrating it was to be totally ignored until they finally realized it was going to mean their precious Senate seats if they didn't listen to the base? Remember how El Presidente Jorge never did listen and, in fact, ridiculed those who opposed "comprehensive immigration"? If you elect the "top-tier" candidates, prepare for more of the same. And you'll deserve it.

Insighting Truth
"You mean to tell me, in all the material that's out there explaining Paul's positions, she couldn't find one thing to address specifically."

Charen says, right at the top of the piece, that she has been "deluged" with emails from Paul supporters.

And her column has as many specifics as you can expect in article this short.

When she points out that Paul wants Libby in jail because he (Paul) disagrees with the Iraq war, that's a "specific".

When she says Paul described himself as an isolationist, that's a "specific".

When she says Paul wants to eliminate the FBI, the CIA, and the IRS, those are "specifics".

Paul's refusal to renounce the American Free Press and his appearances on the Alex Jones radio show are "specifics".

His appearance in (and, so far, his neglect to renounce the message of) the movie "Endgame" is a "specific".

His support from (and refusal to renounce) racists and neo-nazi websites are "specifics" when one of the racists (Don Black) and the wesites (Stormfront) are identified.

Your inability to recognize specifics when they are right in fron tof your eyes makes me wonder about your objectivity, not Charens.

Just because Charen did more than just read the one-sided info at Paul's own website (or websites that support him) doesn't mean she couldn't find any "specifics". It means that the Paul supporters who "deluged" her with emails(and apparently you) don't really understand what it means to ask a professional journalist to take a serious look at their candidtate.

Like I said, read it and weep.

Ms. Charen is part of the elite,
so what else would you expect of her. Whether or not you support Ron Paul, one thing is clear, the elites do not want someone in power who they do not control. That includes both parties.

Ms. Charen doesn't think the system is rigged? Of course its rigged, set up to not allow anyone other than the anointed ones to share in the actual power that resides among the hypocrites in Washington! The DEM/GOP/MSM propaganda machines are working full time to see to it that one of their own gets elected.

The question we need to ask ourselves is, do we continue to listen to these political machines, of which Ms. Charen is a part? Are you already set in your mind that after the primaries are over, you will once again accept the offerings they give you and vote the lesser of two evils?


I urge all of you to visit my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG and find out exactly how the elites have pulled off the greatest scam ever, how they have stolen our birthright and duped us into believing we have no other choice, nowhere else to go! It's what you currently believe, isn't it? Of course it is and the only way to get out of this stupor is to do something totally different, the only way to actually produce a different result.

Check out the website, why not? Or, are we just going to allow the theft of our inheritance to continue, and behave like the good little sheep the elites want? Serious questions, and a need for serious answers, not Ms. Charen's condescension! Thanks, Joe

Ron Paul
Requires a person to think in terms of principle, economics, money and banking and the material sustainability of current social policies. Goes a little beyond White Hat Good (grunt, grunt) Black Hat Bad (bounce on knuckles, bare canines). Leaves the Hannity wing of the GOP lost in a fog.

Does Ms. Charen appreciate the connection between our policing of the world and the collapse of our currency, or the collapse of our currency and its import to our future policing of the world? We are saddled with a debt-based, interesty bearing monetary unit, issued and managed by an unelected central bank. How do any but the politically connected benefit from middle America's constant loss of real wealth and purchasing power? Awww shucks, we'll just print more money . . .

Perhaps the Country Club GOP candidates and their shrill shills are jealous of Ron Paul's ability to connect with the peaceful, productive American, as evidenced by the source and volume of his campaign donations.

What are the consequences for Massachusetts residents who decide they'd rather not participate in Mitt Romney's mandatory health insurance program?

One thing is certain...

I heard an interview with a pundit on the radio yesterday morning who was asked which candidates were the best at drumming up support on the internet.

His answer - Hillary for the Dems, and Ron Paul for the Reps.

Judging by the comments above and on other threads - it is clear to me that Ron Paul has recruited quite a little "internet-army" to do battle for his candidacy.

Question
If Runt Paul and The ALCOAettes SCREECH in the woods and nobody hears them, are they still NUTS?!

Why get rid of the FBI?
Can someone supporting this Paul give a reason as to why they want to get rid of the CIA and FBI? Please, try to be coherent and remember, not all of us look up at a cloud and see a black helicopter.

Okay wiseone:
Let's look at Mona's specifics.
1. She says she was inundated with email; I don't know if that is true.
2. I read Paul's statement regarding Libby; Mona appears to be taking liberties with the truth.
3. I have never, in the more than two decades that I have been watching Dr. Paul's political career, heard him refer to himself as isolationist. Is Mona just more attentive to subtlety than I?
4. I want to eliminate the IRS too. I'd like to see the FBI's & CIA's respective roles in law enforcement and espionage diminished, dowered, or something. I'm willing to listen to Paul's argument for abolishing them though. I'll give Mona partial credit for this one, Paul has made statements regarding those organizations. She just oversimplified and attempts to give the ideas negative spin.
5. The next three items you list are just so-much-nonsense. Mona is being ingenuous. There is no evidence that Paul is racist, antisemitic, or any other form of bigoted hobgoblin you choose to see in the image of his supporters.

Sorry Pal, there just ain't much substance to her article.

PS. Are you related to her?

You Ron Paulians Are Making Mona's Case
Any normal US Citizen that reads the long list of frightening commentary from this string would scratch his head and say, "Whaaaaaat". You are a bunch of nutcases! No right thinking American is going to listen to this nonsense. I am embarrassed for you all.

JF:
I cannot speak for Paul, but I'll tell you what I know.

The Federal government has overstepped its Constitutional authority empowering the FBI.

The CIA has been caught repeatedly abusing its mandate.

Those are reasons enough for me. If you look into it you will find many unlawful and morally reprehensible acts perpetrated in our names by both of those organizations.

ditto danbar
ditto that

He could dump the Sec. of Education
I'd vote for that. It was a sop to the NEA from Carter.

But Paul won't get a delegate and he could never carry national election.

Danbar has a point...
When I read many of the Paul supporters on these threads, I get the same kind of reaction I get when I read some of our more "enthusiastic" liberals that come here and post.

There is just something "harsh" and challenging that comes across. It is almost as if - if one is not a supporter, then one is somehow unpatriotic or anti-Constitutional. It just doesn't sound reasoned and sound.

You all just might want to think about toning it down a notch or two.

Point 2
"2. Ron Paul is historically challenged. He argues that by embracing isolationism, he fits within a Republican tradition stretching back to Eisenhower"

He was talking about election politics and getting out of undeclared wars that seem to end in stalemates. Eisenhower was elected because the people wanted a more "Humble" Foreign Policy regarding Korea. They wanted the war to end, he was not talking about everything that Ike did, it just goes to show that while backstabbing politicians seem to be eternal, the will of the people is pretty clear once the hypnosis of the drum beat wears off.

There is a difference between "advocating" and "doing", Mona. Let me break it down into something a Neocon can understand. Your buddy Hegel did a great book on Art. He talked about the difference between a representation of an object and the actual object itself, like a painting. So advocating(painting) a humble foreign policy and actually carrying it out(actual object represented in painting) are two different things. Also the voters were not aware that we installed the Iranian Despot until well after Ike because it was covert. Just like how Republicans "advocate" or represent themselves as being fiscally responsible when in reality that representation is false.

advocate:preach: speak, plead, or argue in favour of

He has also used "taken the position" which also doesn't describe "doing".

Wow
You must be the most uneducated political commentator ever. Atleast all the other commentators that bash ron has SOME sort of basis in the real world and get atleast ONE point is a fraction of the truth. Nothing of which you posted had even a shred of truth in it.

Go back in your cave and stay away from the sunlight and garlic.

Thats nonsense
The Federal government has overstepped its Constitutional authority empowering the FBI.
**********************************************
1. How? I don't know the exact action but could see an easy argument made here. Congress has the ability to set up courts as are necessary and regulate them. The FBI is an arm of the Justice Department which itself is the arm of those same courts in a similar manner to Federal Marshalls.

2. So what are you going to replace it with or are you just going to let the terrorists and criminals run free? Thats just not logical in anything but an agrarian 18th century state. '
Even then it didn't work as we had to have a minor tiff to settle those disagreements.

On the CIA side. What are you going to replace it with?

For tim_cuchullaine
"Does Ms. Charen appreciate the connection between our policing of the world and the collapse of our currency...?"

The "collapse" of our currency is a result of overspending by the federal government.

Right now we spend 20% of our budget on Defense, or, as you call it, "policing the world." We spend 63% of it on entitlements. The remianing 17% consists of the traditional functional role of government (transportation, infrastructure, OSHA, FDA, etc., etc.) and pork.

So how do Paul and his supporters want to reduce the budget? Eliminate the FBI, the CIA and Defense. Forget about the pork, the entitlements, the coming train-wreck known as Social Security.

You guys make the dhimmicrats look almost sane.

Point 1
I really don't see how he flip flopped on civil liberties. If a man lies to get a country into war or is part of a group that lies a country into war, why should Ron believe Scooter's statement that he was absent minded and had a faulty memory. That is not a flip flop on civil liberties, that is judging whether the man's character is sufficient to believe his alibi. Obviously due to Scooter lying past, how could he believe his future excuses?

Please inform me why the Neocons or Straussians, since you don't like that word, have flip flopped on perjury? Why did they fight so hard to stop Clinton's "PATRIOT Act" after OKC, but now they tell you to give up warrants or die?

JF...don't get over excited!
There is no provision in the Constitution for a Federal police force. It is because of that the FBI was named the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and its officers are called "special agents." Please, look it up. The history of the founding of the FBI is well documented, with many arguing both pro and con.

The problem with the CIA is similar. Their authorizing legislation specifically limits their activities to outside the U.S. They have violated that limitation. There are many examples in various exposes regarding their nefarious activities.

Again, I do not know that I am completely in favor of eliminating either organization, but I do want their quasi-legal activities more carefully scrutinized.

Lev Strauss
People like you have told the "Big Lie" so often you've talked yourselves into believing it.

Nobody "lied us" into a war. It wasn't true when the far left-wing kooks first started telling it and it isn't any more true four years later - even when constant repetition and support from willing MSM accomplices have convinced a greater number of dupes today.

You need to get new talking points.

Point 3
"3. Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals."

That is because you and the rest of the Neocons are fiscally liberal, you will never cut down spending, and the Dems aren't going to either, so it is incomprehensible to you.

Put foreign intelligence under the umbrella of DoD. The CIA is too rogue to be trusted, even by the President.

The vast majority of Federal "Law" Enforcement needs to go, the US Gestapo has no use. Police matters are for the states, the FBI is a political organization that engages in political prosecutions like the exploitation of gun laws during Clinton. The problem is not that they really want to go after law breakers, the problem is that Federal "Law" Enforcement says that a church has a methlab run by a child molestor and that apparently gives them the green light to burn people alive with no punishment. ATF especially needs to go.

Mona is a necon
Mona, you don't like Ron Paul because he believes that American lives are not worth sparing for the protection of israel.

Isn't that why you are so bitter? What's next? Will you refer to Ron Paul as Herr Paul?

Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate we've had in 20 years.

Why don't you just move to israel and join the idf and fight for your real cause?

neocons like you make me sick!

israel is our misfortune.

israel is a liability to the American tax payer.

Primus54
BS, they have been wanting to do this since 1992.

How many people and organizations need to come out and say they wanted the war before they even had the intelligence to argue the case for war? Just how damn gullible are you? They knowingly used unreliable raw data to make their case. Hell even Cheney knew damn well how it was going to pan out years ago, but he lied like the others talking about this cakewalk we were supposed to have.

Downing Street Memo
The Woodward tape with Scowcroft
Paul Oneil
Rumsfeld's own statements
Powell's people

The list goes on..."But Hannity says"

Lev Strauss wrote
Lev Strauss wrote
The vast majority of Federal "Law" Enforcement needs to go, the US Gestapo has no use. Police matters are for the states, the FBI is a political organization that engages in political prosecutions like the exploitation of gun laws during Clinton. The problem is not that they really want to go after law breakers, the problem is that Federal "Law" Enforcement says that a church has a methlab run by a child molestor and that apparently gives them the green light to burn people alive with no punishment. ATF especially needs to go.
*********************************************
That is, how do I put this gently, not sane. Do you not even see what you're saying?

US Gestapo? Are you really comparing our law enforcement personnel to Nazis? Did I stumble upon some hidden clavern of Chavez followers?

Here's a nice nuetral example of why you need the FBI and federal law enforcement:

A thief walks up and shoots you in the face. Thief then crosses the state line. No crime has been committed within the state so that criminal is safe. Lets further state that that criminal operates a roving gang that travels from state to state, committing felonies (John Dillinger is a colorful example). What are you going to do boyo?

What, er, political prosecutions has the FBI completed?



Saul wrote:
Saul Wrote:
Mona, you don't like Ron Paul because he believes that American lives are not worth sparing for the protection of israel.

Isn't that why you are so bitter? What's next? Will you refer to Ron Paul as Herr Paul?

Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate we've had in 20 years.

Why don't you just move to israel and join the idf and fight for your real cause?

neocons like you make me sick!

israel is our misfortune.

israel is a liability to the American tax payer.
***********************************************

So are you going home tonight or directly to the cross burning?

FBI Picked Today to Take Out Liberty
Dollar. I guess they did not like the Ron Paul dollar.

http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/legal/raid.htm

http://www.libertydollar.org/

THE ONLY THING WORSE

.....Than electing Ron Paul President would be to elect a Quaker ...

.....Paul only wants to turn the clock back 270 years to the original Constitution ...A Quaker would turn us back 2,000 years to the Scriptures ...

.....A Quaker would be a big hit with the Green-goons and eco-freaks ...no more nasty electricity and carbon polluting cars ...no more airplanes and missles ...Ah! the simple life ...just like Green Acres without the frills ...

.....We saw how well their pacifism worked when that pervert invaded a schoolhouse of children and killed several girls he intended to rape ...they prayed for him ...No thanks ...I don't want to pray for my enemies ...I want them to pray that they don't get me p*ssed off .....COLOSSUS

JF
I did say that it is needed in some cases of course you try to make it sound like they do nothing but Dillingers. The ATF is not needed, prohibition is over.

Well gun cases have been political over the years, Waco and Ruby Ridge are the KNOWN cases. I really don't think they should be wasting federal funds on dog fighting. This recent arrest of the company that sells gold and silver coins is pretty suspicious. Arresting cancer patients in California is pretty political if you ask me. Of course if we actually had real investigative journalism in this country we would know the exact number. It seems we only hear about these things when a celebrity is involved or someone dies. To me the Weaver arrest itself was an overstep. Also when the FBI informants themself organize, stage, and more importantly SIGN THE REGISTRATION PAPERS FOR Neo Nazi rallies we are creating crime, not fighting it.

Federal "Law" Enforcement lives off of funding. Funding is based on politics. Like again in Waco where they planned the raid right before a funding hearing and had plenty of cameras on hand for that purpose, unfortunately something happened to the tapes after the raid was botched. Which leads me to the final part, if we cannot trust a Republican congress or a Democratic congress to prosecute these people when they murder innocent people, instead they are promoted, the system in unenforceable and we should then always err on the side of liberty and delegate as much to the states as we can.

Also State Law Enforcement should cooperate with Law Enforcement in other states either.

nice try JF
jf writes:
"So are you going home tonight or directly to the cross burning? "

------------------
Why would I want to burn a cross? Your ignorance is exposed.

Will you be moving to israel and fighting for it yourself or would you be happier that other Americans are doing it for you in iraq and afghanistan?

you are the ultimate keyboard coward. shame on you and shame on America for letting aipac drive our foreign policy.

Ron Paul is an America Firster and you are your ilk are clearly not.

Lev Strauss
Doesn't matter how vehemently you protest - you have bought into the "conspiracy" hook, line & sinker.

Wait! I think I hear the approach of black helicopters coming now...