« "What Iraq Tells Us About Ourselves" W. Patrick Lang | Main | Bad Treatment of Women »

26 December 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

wing4kl

Thanks for posting these. After reading few of the newsletters, I have decided to vote for him. No wonder the establishment hates him. This guy is the most dangerous man to rise in America since Barry Goldwater.

jr786

Wow, a Ron Paul dossier. Seems like he's getting a lot of people nervous.

eakens

He has my vote as well. I don't see much difference between what and who he is alleged to be, than the attitude that the neocons mother. Frankly, his voting record is all we need to look at. I'm a minority and I could care less if he hates me as long as he does what he says; he is the only one that has any credibility left in that regard.

The fact that this man has the ability to assure Obama victory were he to run as an independent and yet the GOP will not get behind him should tell you all you need to know about how anti-establishment he truly is. .

Rick Meitzler

Thankfully there is the smell of fear in the air of a real Ron Paul threat to the globalists stranglehold on the USA.

Ron Paul had my vote before this posting but i am pleased to see another attempt to make a strawman out of the good Dr.

let's see what the year ahead brings us.

Cato the Censor

Based on his campaign aide's reminiscences about him, Ron Paul may not be phobic, but he does sound like a Victorian relic. Just the sort of person needed to lead the U.S. in the 21st century.

JohnH

I plan to change registration to Republican just to vote for Paul in the primaries. A strong Paul run is essential, because it will force the other candidates to debate issues like foreign policy and the too big to fail banksters. If all goes well, Obama might even be faced with having to defend himself on these issues, which he desperately wants to avoid.

As for the general election, who knows? Definitely third party. Obama has been all too willing to destroy civil liberties and appease any interest with big money. And Republicans seem just as eager to destroy the Bill of Rights.

Matthew

I'm a single-issue voter: If the candidate believes in "preemptive" or "preventive" war, I will not vote for him.

BTW, neither concept actually exists. When we were hanging Field Marshal Keitel and General Jodl, we called these concepts "crimes against peace."

Tony Placencia

A nice little tit for tat going on here between Thomas DiLorenzo on Jonah Goldberg of the msm.

December 27, 2011
Jonah Goldberg Admits: Political Power Is All That Matters to Neocons (Shocker!!)
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on December 27, 2011 09:40 AM
In his latest syndicated column Jonah Goldberg comes up with a novel argument against the Ron Paul candidacy: Ron is (supposedly) not very persuasive! He says he agrees with a lot of what Ron says, but if he is elected president he won't be able to persuade enough members of Congress to cut back on government.

Therefore, Goldberg implies, conservatives should support one of the six Republican stooges who, unlike Ron Paul, don't actually believe in the core conservative principle of limited constitutional government but only talk about it — whenever Democrats are in power, not when they hold the White House.

Let's see now. Ron Paul has been persuasive enough to be reelected a dozen times in his rural Texas congressional district despite the fact that he is in favor of ending all farm welfare programs. He has been persuasive enough to be Number One in the Iowa polls less than a week from the Iowa Caucuses and near the top in national polls. He has been persuasive enough to incite thousands of people to volunteer endless hours working for his election. He has been persuasive enough to active-duty military personnel to be the top recipient of campaign donations from them, receiving more donations from active-duty military people than ALL THE OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES COMBINED. He has been persuasive enough to have authored several New York Times bestsellers. He has been persuasive enough to have become a YouTube sensation. He has been persuasive enough to shock the entire Washington establishment by collecting tens of millions of dollars in small, individual campaign donations in fundraising "money bombs" organized by strangers. And he is clearly more persuasive than Jonah Goldberg is when he argues that Ron Paul is not persuasive.

Of course, the real reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world busy themselves with dreaming up dumb articles like his latest is that they know that Ron Paul will not participate in the murder of thousands of innocent Iranians and Syrians, and the death of thousands more of American soldiers, with another trumped-up, phony war like the one in Iraq that has nothing whatsoever to do with defending Americans against anything.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/102272.html

securecare

too big to fail banksters

Saved for National Economic Security reasons. Where National Economic Security is a critical pillar of National Security.

Not saying one should "like it" but simply stating the algorithm/logic operating in the situation; "we" are "at war" after all etc. (no snark intended BTW)

Now we all head into 2012 which should be a real doozy given the various expectations floating around in our collective meme pool.

Sean McBride

One can easily compile a dossier of bigoted and hate-filled writings by neoconservatives and Christian Zionists which greatly exceed in volume and virulence these items.

One has trouble understanding how anyone would consider Ron Paul to be a greater threat to Americans than the neocons who engineered the Iraq and Afghan Wars, and who are now agitating at the tops of their lungs for an American war against Iran which would almost certainly collapse the American economy. The neocons have already dumped several trillion dollars down the drain on their failed wars. They have been applying a wrecking ball to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, undermining the most precious foundations of American democracy. And they are clamoring for an apocalyptic Clash of Civilizations with the entire Muslim world, using propaganda themes that could have been lifted out of Nazi anti-Semitic tracts, replacing Jews with Muslims as the world's arch demon bent on world domination.

Ron Paul has renounced and denounced the racist remarks instigated and penned by Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell in those newsletters. When are neoconservatives and Christian Zionists going to renounce and denounce the hate speech they continue to spew today in numerous media outlets, including mainstream media outlets like Fox News?

Compared to neoconservatives and Christian Zionists, Ron Paul comes across as a paragon of sanity, reason, tolerance and vibrant Americanism.

JohnH

"Ron Paul comes across as a paragon of sanity, reason, tolerance and vibrant Americanism."

And we really don't know where Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stand. Whatever they say is for public consumption, not what they say behind closed doors. For all we know, they could be as loony as Christian Zionists and neocons.

We do know, however, that Hillary attended Wednesday prayer breakfasts of The Fellowship, AKA the Family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29

Norbert Salamon

Thanks to Dr Silverman for complying these aarticles in one place.


as a Canadian I will not have any actual input to the nomination/election of the next President of the USA.

However, as a Canadian I have a strong preference for Dr. Paul, as he is the only perons in the pres3ent lineup [including the sitting Presidenmt] who plans to call all troops home and END all wars - a great safety valve to the whole world since the Bush years.

Without doubt some of Dr. Pauls extreme libertanian views on the Economy can and will be modertated by Congress - if he gets the post, but Congress would have great difficulty in srarting new wars if the C-in-C is opposed to it. Voila!

Good luk to USA in the next elections!

William R. Cumming

I have stirred quite a ruckus up among liberal and conservative friends by asking who among all the candidates is anti-war! When I say Ron Paul continue to get both amazed and dirty looks. Looks like a winning issue for Paul to me but also means huge expenditures by those feeding at the trough of the military/industrial/academic complex to make sure he is defeated. The really odd thing of course is that virtually all others have promised more war and/or new wars.

Oddly that is not the reason I would vote for or against Paul. Just not certain who he would bring to power with him? There is still time brother!

Byron Raum

I would suggest one further. Were Ron Paul to run as the Republican candidate, he would win: all of us RINOs who were thrown out of the Republican party (or left) over the last decade or so would go back in droves. Obama wouldn't stand a chance.

Jane

"powerful elites" who "want to completely erase our borders with Canada and Mexico. These special interests threaten us with a total loss of sovereignty. The NAFTA superhighway, a part of this scheme, has threatened to force thousands off their land. Some believe the highway's path will go right through Iowa. As your president, I will stop all efforts to take away America's freedom. I have always opposed and will continue to fight against NAFTA and the North American Union."

This is from Paul's 2007 campaign. I demand a certain level of reality testing before I will even consider a candidate.

Matthew

This is why all the criticisms of Ron Paul are meaningless. Contrast him with this Washingtonian. See http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136917/matthew-kroenig/time-to-attack-iran

My favorite quote: "Attacking Iran is hardly an attractive prospect. But the United States can anticipate and reduce many of the feared consequences of such an attack. If it does so successfully, it can remove the incentive for other nations in the region to start their own atomic programs and, more broadly, strengthen global nonproliferation by demonstrating that it will use military force to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. It can also head off a possible Israeli operation against Iran, which, given Israel’s limited capability to mitigate a potential battle and inflict lasting damage, would likely result in far more devastating consequences and carry a far lower probability of success than a U.S. attack."

Norbert Salamon

Jane this issue of the "superhighway" was promoted in Canada as a step towards more complete integration with the USA by certain mebers of the elites, who still promote greater effort to unoify Northe America, at lest Canada and USA. This effort has no traction by the populance, but the elites persist.

eakens

Reconcile your demands with the reality of the other candidates understanding of where Iran's nuclear weapons program is at.

James ben Goy

If anyone thinks the DC power structure will allow Paul to upset their apple cart, better think it through again. It will never happen. Regarding his bigotry, even if his statements disavowing knowledge of the content of his newsletters were true, it still should raise questions about how a man as smart as he is could not know one of his top aides was producing them and that they would affect his legacy negatively. While one could speculate they may have been a reliable source of funding, given the peculiarities of his constituency, his lack of judgement & poor executive skills are enough to reject his candidacy for POTUS. I won't vote for him because, despite his intellectual gifts, he's nothing but an anti-government crank. Brilliant, successful, but a crank.

rick

I think America deserves physician Dr. Ron Paul.

William R. Cumming

NS! The riches of the Arctic will drive the conquest of Canada later this century.

Of course the USA has NO operating icebreakers. Guess US counting on Global Warming.

Personally I believe water not oil and gas will drive the US to try and fully co-opt the Canadians. The Canadian TV series "Intelligence" is quite prescient on that score.

Norbert Salamon

Sir:

I do believe that the USA might have some imperialistic notions re Canada as oil/water resources are depleted in the 48 states [the Colonel alluded to this once in reply to me!].

I am of the opinion that by the time they formalize this plan, the USA will be too short of Capital and energy to do much about it - to build something like the Great Man Made River of Lybia in post peak oil, without capital is non-starter [and the need is probably for 4 or 5 times the size].

Happy New Year for all at SST!

turcopolier

NMS

Yes. you would be a pushover and unlike Iraq it would pay for itself. pl

Norbert Salamon

if China does not buy Canada first, else ???

Fred

WRC,

what are you talking about? This took less than 1 minute to find on google:
http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/cgcHealy/

Here's an article on icebreakers on the Great Lakes:
http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=567121#.Tvu_4JirU20

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

June 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        
Blog powered by Typepad