I am declaring for Congress against Ron Paul in Texas CD-14

By ericdondero Posted in Comments (235) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Good morning,

I am making this announcement on my favorite website RedState.com. Many of you here have urged me to take this course. And now, after last night's GOP Presidential debate, I've decided to move ahead with my plans.

I have spent the early morning scanning the major political blogs, and news sites. It's unanimous. Ron Paul got slammed by Rudy Giuliani last night for suggesting that we - the United States of America - are to blame for the attacks on 9/11. He even had the audacity to cite Osama bin Laden.

While everyone is hailing this as a "Great moment" for Rudy Giuliani, I think just as importantly, it was a horrible moment for Ron Paul. My former boss looked like a complete nutcase. He looked frail. His hands shaked. He showed his age. He was completely unprepared for Giuliani's romping response.

Is this the man that should be representing South Texas Congressional District 14 in the US Congress?

I think not.

I am calling on Ron Paul to resign his seat, sooner rather than later. Otherwise Congressional District 14 voters from Victoria to Galveston will appear to be endorsing his treachorous, and near treasonous views on foreign policy.

I am sure I speak for many CD 14 voters, and certainly the vast majority of CD 14 Republicans, when I say, Ron Paul, it's time for you to exit the stage.

I am calling on the three to four Republican individuals who have expressed an interest in this Congressional seat, and challenging Ron Paul in the primary, to now enter the race.

Many are aware that libertarian conservative Friendswood Councilman Peden has suggested he would run. Bobby Eberle of GOPUSA, and former Texas YR Chairman also has been mentioned. Even former Congressman Steve Stockman now lives in this CD.
I would back any of the three, particularly Bobby.

But if any of them hesitates to come out in the coming weeks, I will officially declare against my former boss. I will not have nearly the amount of money that Ron Paul will have for the primary challenge. But I do have the most kick-ass grass roots experience and resume of any Republican political activist in the country. I am the very person who got Ron Paul elected to Congress in 1996 as his Campaign Coordinator. I know what it takes. I know every inch of Texas CD 14 like the back of my hand.

Some other resume highlights:

Fluent in Spanish (our Distict is fully 40% Hispanic)
I speak 10 to 15 other languages
US Navy Veteran, (hon.)
20-year Federal Appointee, Selective Service Board, Houston Region
VFW & American Legion Member
Author of two books on World Travel
Traveled to 30 nations on 5 continents
Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus
Fmr. Libertarian Party National Committeeman
FSU Graduate (Political Science)
Homeowner and 12-year resident of Angleton, Texas in the heart of CD 14 (Brazoria County seat 40 miles south of Houston)

I am this morning, declaring my candidacy for Congress in the GOP primaries against Ron Paul. If he does not resign his seat, and if another Republican candidate does not declare against him, I will run a balls-to-the-wall campaign for Congress in Texas CD 14.

I am the guy that got Ron Paul elected to Congress in 1996. I can and will defeat him in 2008.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003

Ron Paul for Congress Campaign Coordinator, 1995/96

Travel Aide, Ron Paul, Libertarian for President, 1987/88

Go get 'im!

Run like Reagan!

Run like Reagan, eh? Well, perhaps if one chooses to repeat Reagan's most egregious mistake of his otherwise stellar Presidency - AMNESTY for illegal aliens.

If amnesty is what you want, then Eric Dondero is your man. I wonder what the true American voters of CD-14 will think about that.

"It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from his government." --Thomas Paine

"A nation without borders is not a nation." -- Ronald Reagan

Redhead Infidel, your comments were interesting.

Is there some documentation to which you could provide a link that supports your contention that Eric Dondero supports amnesty? I'm not doubting you at all, but I would like to read some documentation that supports your opinion.

I oppose rewarding millions of illegal aliens with legal status and a path to citizenship. I consider that to be amnesty.

"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo

www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com and www.teamtancredo.org

Tonight on The Front Line: Border Patrol Updates and Debate (audio)

Mexican Women Want Their Men Back

Kit on Libertarian Politics Live Tonight (audio)

Dondero is also a fan of Rep. Jeff Flake's, who is one of the strongest supporters of amnesty in the House. (You commented yourself on this thread, Raider)

--------------------------------
"It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from his government." --Thomas Paine

"A nation without borders is not a nation." -- Ronald Reagan

Thanks for providing the links to support your contention that Mr. Dondero supports amnesty.

During the conversation that is linked to in the first link, Eric Dondero stated that "Spanish is one of the closest language, if not the closest language on the planet to English". He also stated that "the English language is half Latin". I enjoyed hearing the comments of Scott, the Virginia guardsman during that discussion.

"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo

www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com and www.teamtancredo.org

"I'm pro-Guest Worker program, but anti-illegal immigration.*

Also, I'm fluent in Spanish, and spend a great deal of my time in Mexico.

Also, I'm pro-Mexican immigration, but anti-Central American imigration [sic]."

*[Duh. That's because they're no longer ILLEGAL once you LEGALIZE them all! Funny how that neat little spin works.]

--------------------------------
"It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from his government." --Thomas Paine

"A nation without borders is not a nation." -- Ronald Reagan

Oh no! He speaks Spanish! Clearly he has... DIVIDED LOYALTIES.

Run like Reagan!

Because apparently he speaks 15 others as well. ;)

--------------------------------
"It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from his government." --Thomas Paine

"A nation without borders is not a nation." -- Ronald Reagan

I meant 20...or maybe it's 40. (?)

--------------------------------
"It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from his government." --Thomas Paine

"A nation without borders is not a nation." -- Ronald Reagan

Even for the base sport our nations political discourse has become. If you want to use this establish that he can't do what he claims. Which is get by in the languages.

But then again I suppose actually reading in one is a bit much for some.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I appended the impish wink at the end of my sentence to indicate humor. But I guess you missed that. I thought this reference was a mildly humorous, since some readers below were earlier asking legitimate questions concerning Dondero's linguistic claims. Dondero is the candidate and has the responsibility of proving his own claims. Not I, or anyone else here.

Come now...I hardly think my comment is "an attack" and "low even for the "base sport our politics has become" when you consider the accusations of treason that are blithely thrown around here. Try and get some perspective.

--------------------------------
"It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from his government." --Thomas Paine

"A nation without borders is not a nation." -- Ronald Reagan

Bro I have no problem with you supporting Paul. Your call your preference. What gets me is the length Paulists are going to promote their guy. It makes the libertarian movement look bad.

As to your linguistic double take. No if you make a negative statement its your job to back it up. If you don't you make your side look petty and foolish.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Anyhoo, you'd be happy to know that I am not a Ron Paul supporter. Not at all. In fact, he's not strong enough on the border, and he's completely ignored the Ramos/Compean Border Patrol case, which I've been all over like white on rice. I'm hoping an Independent candidate arises. I can't stand either Dems or Repubs - the former are treasonous, and the latter are pathetic weenies.

--------------------------------
"It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from his government." --Thomas Paine

"A nation without borders is not a nation." -- Ronald Reagan

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You do not support Ron Paul, but you come in here putting it to Eric -- who is running against Paul. You say you are against democrats because they are treasonous, and you are against Republicans because they are pathetic weenies.

So why exactly are you wasting bandwidth here at RS?

Shouldn't you be over at AnarchistsAnonymous.com?

I don't see why Mexicans should be judged any differently from Savadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans or anyone else from that region.

I know a Salvadoran who is legal, fully assimilated and a successful entrepreneur, to name just one example (as if I should have to).

lesterblog.blogspot.com

People like you make it harder to secure the border. By attacking the character of those who disagree with you (You're the only "True Americans?"), you stifle any hope of meaningful debate, and play into the namecalling that the far left uses on the mainstream members of the border security coalition.

Run like Reagan!

Neil, please reread my comment. I didn't attack Dondero's character (there's plenty of others who will). Rather, I wanted to point out that when it comes to one of the biggest voter issues in '08, Dondero's not in line with the American voter (the real American voters, not the illegal voters or their La Raza handlers).

A generous Guest Worker program and path to citizenship for all Mexicans who want it is not the way to "secure" the border. Far from it.

We need people in office who are tougher than ever on illegal immigration, border security, Mexican gov't manipulations and meddling; and who can help roll back the almost insurmountable damage unchecked illegal immigration has inflicted upon our nation. We don't yet another politician without a clue.

--------------------------------
"It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from his government." --Thomas Paine

"A nation without borders is not a nation." -- Ronald Reagan

First off, if implying Eric Dondero isn't a True American isn't an attack on his loyalty, and therefore his character, I don't know what is.

Secondly, you're really stealing some bases here. You already quoted Eric as being against illegal aliens:

"I'm pro-Guest Worker program, but anti-illegal immigration."

But then you imply he's pro-amnesty by echoing the amnesty crowd and pinning their rhetoric on him ("path to citizenship") without showing that Eric supports a paradoxical Guest Worker program that allows a path to citizenship, and further imply he's generous to illegals:

A generous Guest Worker program and path to citizenship for all Mexicans who want it is not the way to "secure" the border. Far from it.

We need people in office who are tougher than ever on illegal immigration, border security, Mexican gov't manipulations and meddling; and who can help roll back the almost insurmountable damage unchecked illegal immigration has inflicted upon our nation. We don't yet another politician without a clue.

Buzz off. Your attacks on Eric are baseless, self-contradictory, and to me suggest to me an ulterior motive.

Run like Reagan!

Neil,

I did not imply that Dondero was for amnesty. I said that he IS for amnesty - as per his own verbal statements, which I linked to the audio in the above post. Knowing where Dondero stands on amnesty, I find his statement on illegal immigration to be disingenuous, to say the least. It's political spin - and we all know it when we smell it.

And again, by 'true Americans', I meant the American voters of this district, not the illegal voters. If that wasn't clear to you, I do hope that my two explanations of it will now help you understand what I meant.

I do have an ulterior motive, if you want to dramatize it as that - I want the toughest candidate to represent my Congressional district. Dondero would never be my choice to represent me - and as a fiercely Independent voter, I'm a little tired of having ZERO representation in Congress. I don't agree with Dondero on allowing Mexico unfettered access to my country. I just don't.

Look, Neil. I did not go out of my way to offend you. I replied under your post because it seemed that you are a Reagan fan, like myself, and would understand my concerns about Dondero. I hadn't read all the other comments, but now I can see that your emotions are very tied up in this, and I've hurt some feelings. There's no need to painfully parse my words. Did I say "generous to illegals"? No. I said "generous Guest Worker program". Listen to the audio above, and you'll know where I get that.

--------------------------------
"It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from his government." --Thomas Paine

"A nation without borders is not a nation." -- Ronald Reagan

What is interesting is that in the Fox News viewer poll of who won the debate, Ron Paul came in second with 25% of the vote - second only to Mitt Romney. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html

I thought Guiliani's remark was a cheap shot and is the same kind of thoughtless "cowboy rhetoric" that makes for good soundbites but that got us into the foreign policy mess we are in.

Anyone who honestly believes that Ron Paul won the debate does not have the authority to analyze Republican politics. You can agree with him and you can think he's the greatest and only hope for America, but you are vastly outnumbered in the Republican party, if not the American people as a whole.

"Republicans have not just lose our majority, we lost our way." - Mike Pence

You're right, I guess, about the debate -- I say I guess because it sounds credible, not because I watched the debate -- but I think Randy's right about the supposedly dispositive nature of the rhetorical "body slam" administered by Rudy.

I like Rudy, but I think he (and most conservative commentators) jumped on what Paul said as if it bore more meaning than I think Paul meant it to have.

I have pretty much no use for libertarians, and they're really bad on foreign policy, but this dogpile on Ron Paul over his comment strikes me as pretty thoughtless and reactive.

Ron Coleman
www.likelihoodofsuccess.com

I like some of Ron Paul's ideas. I am very much pro the Iraq war, but I sure do like what he is saying about cutting federal programs. I think he is right about us having everything we needed for homeland security pre 9/11. We didn't need a whole new beauracracy on top of the old one, and he is right in saying they still don't have it right. And I like that he questioned why did the Department of Education double its size.

I like some of the Libertarian posotions, but I do strongly believe in National Security.

Just like you, Eric likes a lot of Ron Paul's positions but disagrees with him national security.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Here's the interesting thing. Ron Paul is both a libertarian and a Republican. However, Paul is a TEN term Republican congressman. Yet, the media keeps referring to him as a libertarian. What gives with that?

Does everyone remember that both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan referred to themselves as "libertarian-conservatives"?

With out said proof, you are in violation of posting rules:

The posting rules for redstate.com are as follows:

1 No profanity.
2 No personal attacks.
3 No harassment or demonization of a particular individual.
4 No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.

Specifically, rule number 2 and/or 3

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

Get cracking.

Moe

PS: Yes, Leon has the authority to do that.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

In the event that you should want to comply with the demand for evidence, do so via the contact form or via my email. *Not* via coming back here with another username.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Ach, well. I wonder if there's any ice cream left?

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

the fact that he was the Libertarian Candidate for President in 1988? Do you know anything at all about your candidate? His history of joining and then leaving, and then re-joining the Republican Party?

The Paulies and Rombots were obviously working overtime. If you think that translates into real support, you need new meds.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

But just think, when the field is finally widdled down to the real candidates, you will have some rather top notch net savvy troops at the party's disposal.

There is a silver lining here. Just hold on while we dream the impossible dream.

And, FWIW, I'm not being snarky or nasty (at least I'm trying not too). Libertarians, at least at the national level are just dreamers. No action. Paul has been in Congress forever and has done nothing but talk and vote no.

There's no organization to speak of, no prioritized agenda, and no realistic plan of action. Just dreams and talk.

I hold lots of beliefs that fit well with libertarians, small govt, etc. But Ron Paul is such a fruit cake on defense, etc that he hurts the cause.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Ed Clark and he had the misfortune to be up against Reagan.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

libertarians, they simple are not content to seek alliances where they can get them, they demand ideological purity. It has been that way since Ayn Rand.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

DO want to seek alliances. I am one of them.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

These 'dreamers' you refer to are the reason you have the freedom to spew this ignorance. The founders understood the basic concepts of libertarianism which is based on the constitution and limited government. A candidate who votes no on everything is an ideal candidate in today's environment. Fifty two percent of Americas are recipients of federal money in one way or another this leaves 48% capitalists supporting 52% government recipients. At what point do you believe we are past the point of no return? 40%? 30% 5%? With out people like Ron Paul this country would have been done long ago!

If you're going to come here and get in people's face concerning stuff about which you appear to be generally ignorant you won't last long.

You are so sold on Dr. Paul as Dr. No, please tell me what he has actually ACCOMPLISHED in twenty years in the House. As in, name one piece of legislation that he's sponsored that conformed to his stated philosophy, that passed both houses of congress. Just one.

You can wander in here and whine about the number of people who receive government funds, without, I would note, specifying "why" they are receiving them, and yet your candidate has not done one proactive thing to reduce that number.

BTW, does that include the salaries paid to the US military? Or money distributed to employees of companies that receive government contracts? Or social security recipients? If you're gonna toss around numbers bubba, back 'em up or shut up.

After you get through trying to find a piece of legislation that Dr. Paul has sponsored, next you can write a blog about the plan published by either Dr. Paul or the Libertarian Party that shows how they plan to "take the country back" to the principles you seem to think the US was founded on. It'll make great reading.

Your inability to answer my questions about legislation and a Libertarian plan will reinforce my point in the comment you read before taking your meds. Libertarians are dreamers not people of action. And for your information, bonehead, the people who have given me the "freedom to spew this ignorance" and who insure that I will continue to have said freedom are decidedly NOT pacifist sops like Dr. Paul, they are rough men who are willing to put their lives on the line in places far from home for principles that Dr. Paul and you have no concept of. Men like US Army soldiers and US Marines currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan who have answered the call of their nation for generations.

You disgust me.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Again you miss the point. Let me type slowly so you can understand. If you want to create some legislation to take money from the treasury for you and your buddies, then good for you. As for me, I'm going to vote for someone who has the integrity to protect my money and my liberties.

It's because of the intelligence level of people like you that our US soldiers (which I have 3 family members their right now) are fighting for a country that is currently bankrupt and borrowing 2 billion dollars a day from the Chinese to fund this war. It doesn't prove your manhood to go to war based on faulty intelligence. If you want to put American lives at risk then please do your homework.

My personal goal as a libertarian is to keep meat heads like you from getting in a position of power that would put the lives of my family at risk.

Really? Show me.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

But the repo man is here and he wants the internet. We are bankrupt, after all.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Point one. Produce one piece of legislation that Ron Paul has authored and gotten passed into law that promoted any of your precious Libertarian "principles" in the 20 years he's been sitting on his duff in the House Chamber. NOTE: I'm not asking for some world changing thing like getting rid of the the Dept of Ed (which I favor), but just any old thing.

Point two. With eloquent spokesmen like Dr. Paul and yourself, we NEVER have to worry about a Libertarian being in charge of much of anything. You guys sit around around and dream up stuff (and to be fair, some of it is pretty good like the example above) and not a one of you has ever produced a plan to get to where you say you want to be. Bottom line, you're just wine sipping whiners who are too lazy or too incompetent at interpersonal relations to forge a pact to actually accomplish something.

I'm not even going to address the "faulty intelligence" KnownFact™. If you are dumb enough to fall for that you need help getting out of bed in the morning.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Dr, Paul submitted legislation to stop USDA from implementing the National Animal Id System (NAIS), but was shot down from both sides of the isle.

NAIS is targeted at shutting down the family farms, in favor of the huge factory farms, where the animal diseases come from. Factory Farms such as Cargil and Tyson would not have to fully comply, but the small farmer has to. When they make it fully mandatory, I will have give up my 2 birds. I only have two birds, and would have to tag them individually, where Tyson and Perdue can treat 20K birds as two birds. Every time a case of BSE (Mad Cow Disease for the uneducated) is discoverrd, it has come from one of the factory farms, and not from small farmers, or the Amish.

He has tried to stop Real Id, and got shot down there as well. I guess, since Guiliani is so much smarter, and wants Real Id (for citizens only) we will be so much safer. Do you want every move you make tracked by the feds? Don't give me any crap about, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, why would it bother you?" What I do, and where I go, is no one else's business but mine.

Dr. Paul didn't blame Bush alone for the failed foreign policy. He did state that we have been bombing them for 10 years. Remember when Clinton was bombing asprin factories to try to keep from appearing in court when charges were brought against him? Things like that are what make bad foreign policy.

Who is going to get us out of such socialist programs as Welfare and Social Security? Who is going to get us out of the UN (that property would make for some rather lovely low-income housing)? Who is going to stop NAFTA, CAFTA, and NAU? Surely, none of the idiots that are currently sitting at the highest positions in the government, because these are huge vote buying (not to mention personal money making) schemes. That's why they all want the illegals here as well. If they can get them on fast track citizenship, they hope to get the votes.

I am a Libertarian, but I am Pro-Life. The only difference between the Dems and Reps in DC is that they differ on the "A" word and Gay Marriage. That's it. Nothing more.

I suggest you read his writings, and then maybe you will get a clearer picture. That is, unless you love over-sized and extremely intrusive government.

well, certainly not Ron Paul. You make my point with great vigor.

Once again, slowly for the "action impaired"...

1. Ron Paul has been in Congress for 20 years and has not passed one piece of authored legislation that supports his views. The man cannot build a coalition of support on ANYTHING. That alone disqualifies him for anything but retirement and book writing.
2. "Read his writings". I could not be less interested in the collected writings of Ron Paul. His "thoughts" don't matter one whit. He's well published and has no following. Probably because he has no, repeat NO!, action plan and no, repeat again NO!, ability to build a coalition to actually accomplish anything. Ron Paul's writings are simply fiction.
3. I have probably less use for intrusive government than you do, but I'm not wasting my time with a pin-head like Paul who sits in a cave, wastes the time and money of the people of his district by accomplishing NOTHING in 20 years as their "representative". I would prefer a candidate who is willing to take one small step, any small step, and fight for it, than a congressional leach who "thinks" and "writes" and doesn't or can't act.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

In the future, can you just email us about this crap or something before popping off about them? That saves us the trouble of explaining the Life is not Fair™ principle over and over.

Thanks.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You are right. Libertarians don't get it. I recently said, in a post on this blog, that Ron Paul has asked for a challenge because of his terrible views on national security. I have been attacked by untold numbers of libertarians who seem to have as an objective to be more "right" on the issues than I am. I agree with libertarians on (at least) 80 percent of the issues out there, but in their minds I'm completely off based. They don't care about policy or electoral success, they simply want to be right. That is why they are not a significant force in American politics nor will they likely be in the future.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (Monday at 1 PM on CNN 650), Publisher of the HoustonBusinessReview.com and writes frequently in his www.BizPlusBlog.com.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

So, who do you think the netroots voted for? The looniest and most anti-Bush candidate they could find. Since Kucinich wasn't on stage, they voted for his "republican" clone.

People like Paul are why the LP has fallen on such hard times.

Do you think that for ONE mili-second that anyone
in the entire universe gives a fig about what you
think?

AND YOU don't know zip about"cowboys"... But they
stand head AND shoulders above YOU as far as brains
are concerned! (your "brain" rolls around like a
B-B in a box car)

Ron Paul will rue the day that he made such comments.
They will dog him till the day he dies, just like "Hanoi"
jane. What you don't know is legend!
ZAL
smitty

Smitty,
How about we have a grown up conversation?

Ron Paul never said the US deserved or was to blame for the 9/11 attacks. He merely said that the U.S.'s interventionist world-police foreign policy instigated hatred of the U.S. which leads to attacks like 9/11. Guilliani just put words in his mouth and used fained moral indignation to score a point in the debate. What is really "treachorous, and near treasonous" as you say is not Paul's criticism of our foreign policy but continuing a neo-con nation building project in Iraq that is costing billions of Dollars and most importantly of all, American lives.

And he's utterly wrong. Our foreign policy could be designed and run by the head of Hezbollah and they would hate us just as much because we let women drive.

Paul is foolish and dangerous, except that the overwhelming majority of people know he's foolish and dangerous.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Paul is foolish and dangerous? How many crazy foreign nation-builiding projects has he plunged us into? Paul dared to say what needed to be said and its what the majority of Americans agree with by the way. America should only fight for America's interests, not Israels, not the Kurds, not the Albanians, not the Somalis or anyone else.

Yes by zuiko

Paul dared to say what needed to be said and its what the majority of Americans agree with by the way.

That explains why your pal, Pat Buchanan (who seems to mesh with your positions even better than Paul), is so immensely popular. Isolationism is not any kind of answer, and most people are smart enough to realize that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It's disingenuous to present the 'either this or that' option here. This is the same treatment as those who insist our only immigration reform options are between "deportation by force with cattle prods, especially for the children" and "a path to citizenship, a new car, red carpet treatment all around and a guaranteed spot on Deal or No Deal."

There are myriad other possibilities between a pure isolationist "wall off the nation, stop all trade and communication with the outside world because it's evil" and neo-conservative, neo-Wilsonian "we can democratize the world AND we must because it's good for every person in every culture AND there are no people or cultures that cannot accommodate the imposition of temperate liberty and a republican democratic form of government."

In both examples, the most extreme options are equally absurd. However, I think that Paul was pointing out that we're pretty close to following one of the most absurd extremes with our foreign policy. It doesn't take a turn to isolationism to back off from that.

It's always a good thing when we have leaders who realize that Reagan's "Shining City on a Hill" line specifically channeled Winthrops circa 1630 hope that America would become an example for the world, not a magnet and surely not an enforcer of "our way or the highway." It's always a good thing when we have leaders who have actually read and taken to heart the Federalist Papers and figured out why the first five letters written to the citizens of a new nation to present its proposed new form of government addressed issues related to foreign policy and warned repeatedly against the nation entering into "entangling alliances."

Just because its "old wisdom" doesn't make it irrelevant or antiquated. In reading the transcript, Mayor Giuliani basically built a straw-man out of Rep. Paul's words, then attacked the extreme figment he created.

Maybe people who saw the debate were fooled at the time, but in reading through it, the ruse becomes pretty clear. I certainly wouldn't vote for anyone who couldn't figure it out.



Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

is one of the most intelligent comments I've even seen on this blog. Thank you, Finch.

I assume when you talk about 'isolationism' your referring to the current administration and the majority of the the Republican candidates? This is how you create isolationism - bomb them first and then trade with them second. We are currently the most isolated country on the planet.

Ron Paul is the only one in the GOP speaking the truth. We cannot afford a continued policy of being the global policeman. The GOP, in large part, has abandoned the Constitution. We should build fences and defend our borders. Not build a colonialism policy for the middle east. Ron Paul is right, that is one of the big reasons they hate us.

Our foreign policy could be designed and run by the head of Hezbollah and they would hate us just as much because we let women drive.

So why wasn't Canada attacked? Or Sweden? I hear they let women drive over there too.

First, the US is the "Great Satin". We're target number 1, well maybe number 2 after Israel.

Second, there has been at least 1 terroris plot to attack in Canada stopped since 9/11/01. Seems they don't care much for those women drivers in Canada either.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

IS THE HOUSE OF SAUD!!!!!

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

There's far more to his hatred than just women driving cars.

He hates the Saudi regime above all others... and credits the Great Satan as being the Great Enabler.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Ladin, whose efforts in Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait. He was rebuffed, and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led coalition. After the Saudis agreed to allow U.S. armed forces to be based in the Kingdom, Bin Ladin and a number of Islamic clerics began to publicly denounce the arrangement. The Saudi government exiled the clerics and undertook to silence Bin Ladin by, among other things, taking away his passport. With help from a dissident member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in April 1991.33 By 1994, the Saudi government would freeze his financial assets and revoke his citizenship.34 He no longer had a country he could call his own....

2.4 BUILDING AN ORGANIZATION, DECLARING WAR ON THE UNITED STATES (1992-1996)

Bin Ladin began delivering diatribes against the United States before he left Saudi Arabia. He continued to do so after he arrived in Sudan. In early 1992, the al Qaeda leadership issued a fatwa calling for jihad against the Western "occupation" of Islamic lands. Specifically singling out U.S. forces for attack, the language resembled that which would appear in Bin Ladin's public fatwa in August 1996. In ensuing weeks, Bin Ladin delivered an often-repeated lec ture on the need to cut off "the head of the snake."42

By this time, Bin Ladin was well-known and a senior figure among Islamist extremists, especially those in Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. Still, he was just one among many diverse terrorist barons. Some of Bin Ladin's close comrades were more peers than subordinates. For example, Usama Asmurai, also known as Wali Khan, worked with Bin Ladin in the early 1980s and helped him in the Philippines and in Tajikistan. The Egyptian spiritual guide based in New Jersey, the Blind Sheikh, whom Bin Ladin admired, was also in the network. Among sympathetic peers in Afghanistan were a few of the warlords still fighting for power and Abu Zubaydah, who helped operate a popular terrorist training camp near the border with Pakistan. There were also rootless but experienced operatives, such as Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who-though not necessarily formal members of someone else's organization-were traveling around the world and joining in projects that were supported by or linked to Bin Ladin, the Blind Sheikh, or their associates.43

In now analyzing the terrorist programs carried out by members of this network, it would be misleading to apply the label "al Qaeda operations" too often in these early years. Yet it would also be misleading to ignore the significance of these connections. And in this network, Bin Ladin's agenda stood out. While his allied Islamist groups were focused on local battles, such as those in Egypt, Algeria, Bosnia, or Chechnya, Bin Ladin concentrated on attacking the "far enemy"-the United States.

www.fairtax.org
You don't have to like Ron Paul's Iraq-War Stance to be a libertarian-Minded Republican! Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

why Denmark and France are under attack. It must be their presence in Iraq in big numbers and their support for Israel, huh?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

They would hate us MOSTLY b/c we "enable the Saudi regime" to stay in power. All that other stuff... to include Israel, is just the last straw for Bin Laden and his inner circle.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

...70 years of meddling in the middle east is to blame. If you cannot see that, then you're just crazy. Ask Bin Laden why he wants to kill us. It's because we support Israel and meddle in middle east affairs.

Al Quaida hasn't attacked Haiti or Cameroon or Peru or any other nation that doesn't screw around in the middle east have they?

We should be closing down our own borders instead of trying to secure Iraq. If we are going to fight a war, then we should just wipe the place out. We always fight with one hand tied behind our back. Americans are not tired of the war, we're pissed because it doesn't seem that we are winning. Torch Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and get the hell out of there.

I don't care if they ever get a democracy or not.

in events in the Middle East? Meddling? Sure, everything we do is meddling in the affairs of someone, somewhere. Even shutting our own borders would be meddling in the affairs of other countries due to the massive effects on their economies.

As for your ideas.
I don't want a long term Fortress America.
I want to encourage freedom and free trade throughout the world.
I don't want to wipe out entire countries to get a few bad guys. This reminds me of the crusader who answered a query about how to tell the good Christians from the heretics by saying "Kill them all! Let God sort them out."

And AQ and it's affiliates have attacked or attempted to attack:
1. Spain
2. Indonesia
3. Canada
4. France
5. Germany
6. Jordan
7. Tanzania
8. Kenya
9. Indonesia
10. India
11. Saudi Arabia
12. Algeria
13. England
:
:
And the list goes on and on.

Sorry, I don't buy your argument that they'd have left us alone if only we'd stay away from their back yard. They're attempting to build a worldwide caliphate. They'll get to Haiti and Cameroon eventually.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Considering your number of posts on reason H&R in the last 12 hours or so, Im assuming you consider it a major political blog. I think you need to take back that "unanimous" comment. Then again, you want to join congress, so get used to lying as soon as possible.

Ron Paul was given the opportunity by Wendell Goler to say that he didn't think we should listen to Osama bin Laden. He did not tate that opportunity. Thus, he very clearly implied that we were responsibile for 9/11.

You brush off support for the War on Islamo-Fascism as "neo-con." I'm a proud 22 year libertarian buddy. I have a libertarian activist resume that would make your head spin. I ain't no neo-con. But I most certainly support a stepped up War on Islamo-Fascism, including in Iraq. That ain't "neo-con." Fighting Islamo-Fascism is LIBERTARIAN!!

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

"'m a proud 22 year libertarian buddy. I have a libertarian activist resume that would make your head spin."

You label Paul's justified criticism of our failed foreign policy as "treachorous, and near treasonous". Labeling a dissenter of government policy as a traitor? Very libertarian indeed.

I can say this transplant would be rather a fool to walk the streets of Angleton and knocking on doors and calling Paul treasonous.

I challenge Eric Dondero Rittberg to go door knocking in Angleton and letting people know if they support Ron Paul they are treason lovers.

Since you know CD-14 like the back of your hand, and claim to be from Angleton, why not start on Cannan Drive, and let me know how that goes for you.

Make sure you let all the proud patriots on that street who have supported Ron Paul for years know that they are guilty of treason.

BTW thanks for the Spanish book, it was helpful.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I think you are more than capable of winning this, whoever else is in the frame.

Please don't pre-emptively withdraw in favour of any of the people you mentioned above. Fight for this district, and fight to win.

Ron Paul, of course, may not himself seek the post. He is, after all, running for President. While it seems obvious to all of us that he has zero chance of winning the GOP nomination, he is plainly in the race for a reason.

The next thing is to start developing your key messages. There should be three to four of them. Phrase them positively - "we should be in the GWOT to win" rather than calling him a traior. I would suggest develop them out of a series of 'at home' meetings around the district. Let people feel they are participating in your campaign and its planning.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I would have asked many of the posters here if they were serious first, but I've seen your background and am sure you are.

I'm thrilled that someone who has backed Ron Paul in the past has the character to call him out on the statements he made last night.

Thank you.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

10-15 languages? Which ones? That's very impressive!

Where you can say anything not expecting people to fact check you.

Please, let us know what 10 - 15 languages you speak. And no Google translator allowed.

First the bad news. The book is chock full of errors: spelling, grammar, pronunciation. I speak five languages to varying degrees of proficiency, and I know enough to cringe when I see blatant misspellings of common words, bad mixing of formal/informal verb forms, and just plain wrong pronunciation. I agree with those who've suggested that some major proofreading is in order.

Like difference between año and ano, eh hefe?

pettiness? hate? boredom?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Fred Thompson - Pres/ Hagel - Vice-Pres ticket?

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

If you read the intro to the book you would know that the "errors" are quite intentional. They are meant to make understanding easier for Americans. Those are guides to help readers pronounce the words. I admit I took some liberties with my method. But the purpose of my book was to get Americans speaking more languages and fast, for their trip to Europe, Asia or Africa.

My book was roundly criticized by academice types. I wore that criticism like a badge of honor.

But my readers, and travel media types loved it.

You should check out some of the endorsements for the book like from Charles Pimsleur and Dr. Barry Farber.

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

I would support Kyle Janek or Dennis Bonnen before I would even entertain the thought of pulling the level for you.

Oddly, I thought it was the people in CD-14 that put Ron Paul into his seat, not you, back in 1996. See on you the coast, I'll be the one standing with the chemical plant workers, ranchers, farmers and shrimpers supporting Ron Paul, not sure who you will be standing with.

Btw, if you do win the primary, why not just send Shane Sklar a gift basket right now? You will be handing the district to him.

Chet Edwards's acolyte Shane Sklar is going to run to the right of Ron Paul on national security and win the seat with Ron Paul's rhetoric, I'm afraid.

I certainly won't support a pro-choice Eric Dondero, and few in the GOP will, either.

My views on abortion are precisely identical to those of our Senator.

I am Pro-Choice, first trimester.

But I am opposed to government funding of abortions, in favor of parental notification and would certainly vote in favor of banning late term abortions.

Oh, and btw, Ron Paul is also sort of Pro-Choice. He favors legalized RU-486, and has even suggested that some first term abortions are necessary. He is an OB/GYN btw.

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

I'd much rather have Jeb Hensarling in her seat.

And suggestion that first trimester abortions might be necessary. That would be very enlightening. Thank you.

Ron Paul's "isolationism" is motivated by his hatred of Israel, our only staunch and important ally in the Middle East.

Got any evidence to support the contention that Ron Paul hates Israel? If so, I'd sure love to see it.

-exits

and THAT we don't need.

He fell for the propaganda point that our anti-Saddam policies were linked to 9/11. Now that is TECHNICALLY true, as that appears in the list of excuses drawn up by bin Laden. But that's just a list of excuses; if it wasn't there, something else would replace it. OBL developed his mad vision of an Islamic superstate, and everyone who could be a roadblock is to be killed in his pursuit of it.

It's time for Paul to GO. Keep us posted about your progress.

First, I want to wish you the best in this. Ron Paul is sort of a Ross Perot figure for non-intellectuals and needs to be sent off to raise monarch butterflies or something.

The advice is this: You don't speak 10-15 different languages. You speak languages in exact numbers. I speak English, despite being raised in the South, and I've struggled with German and Spanish. Chris Wakim lost a race to known crook Alan Mollohan in November in part because he portrayed his degree via a Harvard extension program as a Harvard degree. He also called himself a Gulf War vet instead of a Gulf War era vet.

Either be prepared to converse in each of those languages or make a more defensible claim.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

It's gonna make a great flyer. People in along the historic coast of Texas do not suffer liars lightly.

East Texan, West Texan, South Texan, standard English and Aggiespeak (combines standard English with other Texas dialects, plus LOTS of pictures).

Come to think of it, if he's a lawyer, he's got Leglish, too. And he worked in Congress, where they work in alien tongues.

So you see, the task is not as formidable as one might think.

Oakie, Austinspeak, Good ole Boy, transplanted coon ass, and trailer trash.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Priority check for Mr. Candidate Dondero.

I'm kind of curious what my fellow Texans will make of one of Dondero's TOP THREE issues: legalized prostitution. With a priority like that, what could the other two be? Hemp farms and abolishing the seat belt laws? Wow. Now there's the man to lead the people in a time of war and Third World encroachment on our sovereignty.

I particularly like how proud he is of his sexual prowess among the prostitutes of disadvantaged nations. I'm sure that will impress the women of Texas.

Subject: [RLCTX] Response to Richard on freedom for a woman’s body
Date: 2/28/2007, 7:32 AM
From: Eric Dondero
To: Texas RLC

Richard,

Legalization of Prostitution is one of my top three issues. Not sure where you got the idea that I don’t support legalized prostitution from? I’m an ex-Sailor. I absolutely used the services of Prostitutes overseas in the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Spain, all over the world, when I was a young buck Sailor. And each time was worth every penny.

As a matter of fact, it’s an absolutely tragedy that the US Military is not allowing servicemen these days to utilize prostitutes in Iraq. There are severe restrictions on prostitution for Military Personnel nowadays. We Libertarian Republicans need to work to overturn that.

As for Rudy, yes, he pretty much sucks on the issue. Though, I hadn’t heard him talk about the issue in over a decade.

But then again, come to think of it, all the GOP Presidential candidates pretty much suck on the issue, even Ron Paul.

I worked for Ron Paul for 12 years, from 1987 - 2003. The only time I ever heard him address the issue of legalized Prostitution was way, way, back in 1987.

At the time the Libertarian Party was ga ga over Norma Jean Almadovar. Do you all remember her? She was the infamous “Cop to Call Girl.” She wrote a best-selling book about how she was a Prostitute while working for the LAPD.

Well in 1986, she ran for Lt. Governor of California on the Libertarian ticket. Ron Paul hated her. He even made the statement when asked, “Ron, who would you choose for your VP.” His response, “Anyone but Norma Jean Almadovar.”

I think if you pressed Ron Paul today, he’d have the same position; opposition to legalized prostitution.

Whose left? McCain? Romney? Not a single GOP candidate for Prez would support legalized prostitution.

And that’s our fault. RLC needs to push on this issue much, much harder. We need to call every Presidential candidate, including Rudy Giuliani, on the issue. Let them know it’s a top issue for us, along with property rights, and tax cuts.

Let the Libertarian Party be the Pot Party, with Steve Kubby. I’d like to see us use issues like Prostitution and opposition to Seat Belt Laws as our top issues for the civil liberties.

--------------------------------
"It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from his government." --Thomas Paine

"A nation without borders is not a nation." -- Ronald Reagan

of introducing prostitution to a nation torn by Muslim sectarian conflict as we struggle to win hearts and minds.

BTW, I think bolero patrons and hemp users still need to wear their seat belts :)

lesterblog.blogspot.com

So on these issues he pretty much agrees with ron paul

Sleuth: What do you think about the issues of prostitution and marijuana. Where do you come down on that?

Paul: Well, I understand prostitution has been around for a few years. And they tried to legislate it out of existence and I don't think it's worked very well. I would essentially have no restrictions, certainly on the federal level. And marijuana - I think it's tragic what's happening today in the drug war. Since the early '70s we've spent maybe $200 to $300 billion on the drug war. That's not been any good. This whole effort on the drug war doesn't make any sense at all to me.

Sleuth: In a Ron Paul administration, who would we see as secretary of defense, or secretary of state or maybe as chief of staff?

From Ron Paul being interviewed by the WaPo
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/05/do_tell_ron_paul_on_babies...

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

he is fluent in several languages and conversant in some others.

BTW I can personally vouch that he knows Spanish and Chinese.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I know that's hard to fathom, but that is my correct ability. I could be quite specific if you want.

I'm actually closer to 20 or so on a good day.

English (native), Spanish, French, Portugues (and Catalan), completely fluent.

Chinese, Filipino - Mid-level

German - Travel fluent

Russian, Dutch, Greek, Turkish, Arabic, Hebrew - Basics

I know rudimentary phrases in another 10 or so, including Tibetan, and the hardest language on the Planet IMHO - Vietnamese.

I authored the "Worldwide Mulitilingual Phrase Book: Survival Skills for Over 40 languages" in 2003. It sold over 10,000 copies. I appeared as a guest on about 80 to 100 radio talk shows nationwide on my language abilities, including Dr. Barry Farber's show for a whole hour.

As you may know Dr. Farber is America's leading Multi-linguist.

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

you have my advice, this kind of puffery doesn't make a person look good. It's like bragging about your JV football letter and being sophomore class president. But you are the one who will have to deal with the inevitable blowback not me so know yourself out.

btw there is no such language as "Filipino," the dominant language in the PI is Tagalog.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Most Anglophones are mono-lingual or close to mono-lingual and think of languages as absolutes. This is, as most of the world knows, nonsense. There are numerous definitions of what constitutes a language. Swedish and Danish, for example, are mutually intelligible, but classified as different languages. Mandarin and Cantonese, by contrast, are not mutually intelligible, when spoken, but have the same written form. They usually are classified as the same language.

An ex-lodger of mine grew up speaking Serbo-Croat. These days he speaks the two separate languages Serbian and Croatian. He tells me the difference between these languages is no greater than between English and American. Incidentally, people who learn English as a foreign language in continental Europe choose between British and American dialects. I have heard a German national who seemed very fluent in English to me insist that she doesn't understand American.

One of my favourite definitions of a language is "a dialect with an army", though quite why American doesn't count as a language if that is right is beyond me.

So, it seems quite reasonable to me for Eric to be vague about these things.

btw there is no such language as "Filipino," the dominant language in the PI is Tagalog.

That's what I thought, too. But a Filipino student of mine advises me that this is not so. The language is indeed called Filipino. Tagalog is dialect of Filipino.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

can be argued, convincingly or not.

Language is different from a pidgin, patois, or a creole.

In reference to China, colloquially people may think all Chinese speak Chinese but most realize there are different languages there.

I will concede that some consider Filipino to be a language but that is not a universal view.

But to the point, you don't speak an indefinite range of languages. You speak a finite number of languages. And when you say "speak" people expect you to have an ability beyond random phrases, otherwise I can say I speak Gaelic.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

of about a dozen or so by virtue of talking to people online and other reasons which motivated me to make an honest effort and I didn't realize how many until I counted one day. I have a very long way to go before I will claim that I functionally "speak" any of them but I do recommend that everyone try it, because it's healthy for the mind and it helps us appreciate the efforts made by those learning English as a second language.

Those eastern European school systems, operating on their shoestring budgets, are apparently doing a very good job of teaching students English. They're smart enough to understand the tremendous benefits this will bring for their countries and their people.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Hi Everyone. I thought I would clarify where Paul's ideas are coming from, so that you will understand why he is putting his head in the sand regarding Islamic extremism.

As a student of the Austrian School of Economics, I know for a fact that there are elements within the Austrian school that believe if we would just have no conflict overseas and only use self-defense through private militias, that all war and conflict would go away. They believe that if we have free-trade with all nations across the world, that people will see what freedom and capitalism is all about, and that they will drop the shackles of oppression. I debated someone on a blog dedicated to Austrian Economics a few weeks ago, and while I agree with them on everything regarding economics, I take the line of Frederic Bastiat that we need government for one purpose...security and defense. There are many within the Austrian school that are anarchist, because they believe that governments are the utmost evil in the world. Governments are evil when they surpass their powers...not by the mere existence.

Anyway, the person I was debating, I posed the question of what are we supposed to do about groups in the world that are fundamentally against freedom? While I believe people deep down inside desire freedom, there are groups (such as the Islamic extremists) that follow pure-Islamic philosophy. The person I was debating basically told me that it is all a bunch of propaganda, and that it is not true that the Koran or any part of Muslim philosophy promotes violence. He basically told me that I was believing a lie. He said that it is propaganda promoted by the government so that they can take their imperialist agenda across the world. He truly believes that there will be no such thing as suicide bombings here or anything. He doesn't believe terrorism will realistically happen here. He never addressed 9/11 or anything. It is this part of the Austrian school (THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE ENTIRE SCHOOL OF AUSTRIAN ECONOMISTS) that Ron Paul comes from, and it is the line of argument that I encountered with my debate partner in which Ron Paul ascribes.

It is at least as annoyingly naive and stupid as anything that the far left believes.

Gee if we traded with everyone and only had private militias for defense how long do you think it would be before Exxon's militia was raiding Citgo's oil feilds?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

when their experience with government is of the more interventionist variety.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

who ran Germany from 1933-45.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

As a resident of Angleton and a long time supporter of Paul, I have now lost all faith in the man. He lost my support after the April 17th speach
here
where he essentially said that we should march out of Iraq like we did in Vietnam. After all, it worked out so well for those folks we abandoned.

I believe his presidential run is nothing more than a fundraising effort since he can turn around and apply the funds to his House reelection campaign when he fails to win the nomination.

I am very interested in a candidate that can retain CD-14 for the Republicans and who can actually use the position to foster the causes of the party. While Paul has steadfastly voted along strict consitutiuonalist interpretation, I believe his foreign policy/defense posture is unaccaptable. I have made it clear to the local leadership that I will work to replace him and look forward to learning more about potential replacements.

I also appreciate all the comments so far on this blog from both the pro- and anti- Paul supporters, but if someone knocked on my door to express that Paul's position on Iraq was at least borderline treasonous, I'd probably invite him in for a beer.

But on a side note, I am very impressed by the number of people from Angleton, and Brazoria County, who seem to have come out of the wood work here on Red State.

For a town of only 18,000 people, we seem to have quite a few users here from Angleton. Maybe we shoud start Red Town.

Wow! This is too cool. A fellow RedStater from Angleton. How wierd is that?

I live in Rancho. Let's do coffee soon!

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

Look, attitudes like Paul's towards national defense are the reason I left the Libertarian Party after nearly 20 years following 9/11. The fact that somehow the Libertarians have confused non-interventionism with isolationism is undeniable. But I still think you're over-reacting. And it disturbs me that you subscribe to the American know-nothingism that criticizes a man based on how he looks on television. This is in fact at the core of the left's criticisism of GWB: he stutters on television so he's obviously stupid.

Before I support you, tell me: how do you look on television?

yours/
peter.

I live just north of you in SW Houston. I have watched in dismay as Ron Paul has moved further and further from effective to wacko.
He is so far over now he is unrecognizable. He is as wacky as Sekula-Gibbs became, only fro her it took a matter of a few days to wackout.
He needs to go in the primary. CD14 is very conservative and deserves much better.

everytime I see Sekula-Gibbs I have to make the sign of the cross.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

If you do get in perhaps you can actually start getting an organized and effective libertarian movement goin.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

is commendable.

My question is: won't Paul's seat be open if he is a candidate in 2008?

Candidate for President of the US.

will have until the end of this year, or thereabouts, to decide if he will run for re-election.

You can be on the ballot for President or Vice President AND any other office.

Since Paul can remain on the ballot for his House seat and since even he has to know that he doesn't have a real chance of winning the presidential nomination and since he has no obligation to disperse money raised for his presidential run...

I can only conclude that the exercise of the presidential run (other than bringing his ideas to the party) is to raise out-of-state money to support his House re-election campaign. I believe he knows that the CD-14 base is tired of him and knows he must have the biggest war chest possible to hold onto his seat.

Realize, that's just me talkin...

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

you can make a little more sense if you really run.
first, you say that you will run if any of the other 3 you mentioned don't.
then, a few sentences later you declare you are running. huh?
also, 10 to 15 languages... come on

Today Ron Paul did not back down from his debate statements. In fact, he suggested that Giuliani should read the 9/11 commission report. As a recap, here is the statement by Paul that caused the Giuliani rebuttal, followed by some 9/11 commission information which tends to support Paul's viewpoint.

Ron Paul -> "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. They have already... killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary."

The question is...were Ron Paul's statements based on ignorance ? Or did Paul have a source for his opinions ? Well, to answer that question, one needs to read the 9/11 commission report.

The following few paragraphs are written by reporter John Nichols. In Nichols article, he clearly shows that some of what Ron Paul stated was based on factual content within the commission's report.

----------------

"The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued "his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia" and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of "a long series" of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of Israel.

The 9-11 Commission based its assessments on testimony from experts on terrorism and the Middle East. Asked about the motivations of the terrorists, FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald told the commission: "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States."

Fitzgerald's was not a lonely voice in the intelligence community.

Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, has objected to simplistic suggestions by President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people," Scheuer said in a CNN interview. "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

It is true that reasonable people might disagree about the legitimacy of Muslim and Arab objections to U.S. military policies. And, certainly, the vast majority of Americans would object to any attempt to justify the attacks on this country, its citizen and its soldiers.

But that was not what Paul was doing. He was trying to make a case, based on what we know from past experience, for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=195576

--------------------

Round 2 between Giuliani and Paul promises to be a great show. I can hardly wait.

as Gospel; it was more or less a bipartisan attempt to save face(s).

Nonetheless, Paul did have a point in that American policies have caused much anger in the Muslim world. Nonetheless, he conflated that diffuse and generalized reaction with the goals of radical Islamists to establish a new caliphate. Although bin Laden's 1996 call for a jihad against "Zionists and Crusaders" did list a bill of particulars against U.S. policies, he and his followers have since claimed their ultimate goal is to have the world dominated by a new caliphate. So regardless of whether the U.S. aids Israel or the Saudi dictatorship or whatever, as long as it remains secular it can be expected to be attacked under those circumstances.

Rep. Paul's statement was not based on ignorance but was wrong because it failed to make that distinction.

What is your response to the remarks of former CIA official Michael Scheuer, who basically mirrors what Paul stated ?

Ron Paul is an anti-military, anti-foreign policy pacifist. His surrender mode only starts with pulling out of Iraq. You could expect to have a standing army that could comfortably party in my living room with Paul unleashed.

Paul is unhinged, not living anywhere near the 21st century and is a very dangerous man when stops talking about spending and starts talking about foreign affairs.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Hmmm by zroxx

This whole set of comments has certainly been an entertaining sort of thing, so many interesting opinions being tossed around, it seems unfair to single yours out.

But it was seeing you throw the word "unhinged" out in the same breath that you declare with apparently great conviction that Ron Paul would actually reduce the standing army to what, 15 people, that amused me enough to say, wow, thanks for the big grin!

At least, it's hard for me to not to chuckle when a guy who proposed legislation that implements "letters of marque and reprisal" and wanted to empower the President to directly target individuals and leverage non-governmental forces in taking them out (essentially, assassination by proxy) is cited as a "surrender mode pacifist".

Well we could also make a law not allowing forces under arms to reenter the country across the Rio Grande.

You are only making the case the man is unhinged. You really don't want privateers in a nuclear armed world. You especially don't want freelancers acting on our national authority.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You may be trying to argue that Paul is unhinged in the opposite direction - that he's just too shoot-from-the-hip, kill'em all regardless of the means and process?

So which is it? He's unconditionally pacifist, prepared to reduce the army to the handful necessary to entertain mbecker's house party guests? Or he's helplessly fanatical in the pursuit of jihadist scalps, such that he'll throw caution to the wind and pay top dollar for whomever will sneak a nuke into the Afghan/Pakistan border and detonate it within 2 miles of Bin Laden?

Maybe you'd like to add schizophrenic to the list of (unsupported) assertions of Paul's person? Tuesdays and Thursday, he's drawing up surrender documents. Mondays and Wednesdays, he's paying off Russian bounty hunters. And on Friday? That's the day he just locks himself in a room repeating "no" over and over again.

It might work on someone who hadn't at one point embraced the libertarian view.

We both know that the libertarian outlook is privatization of just about everything. This includes foreign policy and the military. You put things in that light its no longer a case of multiple personality disorder just insanity.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

We both know that the libertarian outlook is privatization of just about everything. This includes foreign policy and the military.

From here:

Blackwater Security Consulting, which lost four employees in Wednesday's ambush in Iraq, is one of about 25 private security groups employed in Iraq to guard officials and installations, train Iraq's new army and police and provide other support for occupation forces.

The private companies employ about 15,000 people in Iraq, making them effectively the second-largest armed component of the coalition after the United States' 100,000 troops. Britain has more than 8,000 soldiers in the country.

But Ron Paul suggests we engage non-governmental entities in an effort to, you know, actually kill our enemies, and he's an unhinged libertarian out to privatize the military? He's so many different (and often contradictory) things according to (unsupported) opinions expressed in this thread, it's hard for me to keep them all straight...

At this point I surmise your position is that paying Blackwater to support the US military's mission (at least part of which is eliminating terrorists) is good, but authorizing some other mercenary interests to directly eliminate terrorists is bad. I personally don't have a problem with either approach. It certainly escapes me how one is bereft of reason but the other is good policy.

Guarding something and waving offensive war ?

I live in a state with an enhanced castle doctrine. Would you argue that the fact that any homeowner can and is authorized to defend their property is the equivalent to sending out an expeditionary force ?

I'll stop the bad analogies if you'll stop putting a hand over an eye.

Lets think about how letters of marque and reprisal worked and under what circumstances they were employed.

The CSS Alabama should be illustrative. It was under an American government and under circumstances that warranted it. The confederate government had no other means to pursue this strategic avenue against the union. The union while not a signatory had agreed to abide treaties banning such instruments. After the war the Union won damages from Britain for aiding the Alabama.

Contrast that with our current situation. We have the military means to pursue our enemies. We are trying to avoid international opprobrium. We would be casting ourselves as a lawless state resorting to piracy and mercenary forces.

Brilliant. You wonder why I think Ron Paul is a Loon ?

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You wonder why I think Ron Paul is a Loon ?

You havn't made a very convincing case. You've merely explained that you disagree with him that we should use this avenue as a means to achieve the elimination of terrorists and terrorist leaders. The basis you offer for the disagreement seems to boil down to a concern that other countries will think poorly of us for using such a tacic. On that point I would suggest that Paul's prioritization of accomplishing the termination of our enemies over world approval should be the preferred position of American leadership.

How loony does someone have to be to think expending funds on surgical airstrikes to get Zarqawi and whoever else was in the vicinity plays any different in world opinion versus expending funds to pay a mercenary entity to assassinate him? Or to think that world opinion matters to the extent that America shouldn't use either approach that is available to accomplish the same end?

Maybe you can build a persuasive case that the latter tactic simply isn't necessary, but that's a far cry from defending your accusations of "loonery".

On Osama. That at least is not done in the context of a framework that most of the world finds acceptable.

Lets turn the example around. We issue letters of Marque to a band of mercenaries to hunt down Osama and other John Doe AQ leaders. Said mercenaries pursue their prize into (Suadi, Kuwait, the UAE, Iran, Pakistan, etc) Osama holes up in a (School, Hospital, civic center, etc) The Mercs take out Osama and the (whatever). Now we are paying someone to invade a sovereign nation, and harm its citizens. Whats more said sovereign nation could be an ally. In the case of Pakistan or India it could be a nuclear armed ally.

Thats Loony.

I am sorry I couldn't even see issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal to hunt pirates on the High Seas anymore. There is just too much that can go wrong.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Just for the sake of discussion, why not? We have a military designed largely to deal with the militaries of nation states. The enemy in the GWOT is stateless and not usually organized in a military manner. So why not avoid engaging as a State, but rather offer State authorization to whomever, another state, a contractor, would undertake to rid us of the turbulent sorts. Our British friends and forebears used mercenaries pretty effectively. I know there's a smell factor with mercenaries, not entirely unjustified, but in dealing with a stateless enemy, why not?

In Vino Veritas

It might have possibilities. Very Very limited possibilities.

The problem as i see it,with using mercenaries in that manner is its still our government doing it, just without the professionalism of our military. So we have all the downside (International incidents, provoking sovereign nations, the Media shouting for the blood of the president that authorizes it) with not much upside.

The other big problem is that stateless terrorists aren't. That letter of Marque becomes a declaration of war pretty quickly.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Can use an executive order to allow assassination. The current ban is an executive order.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

will stop the Islamo-Fundamentalists from wanting to eliminate American society from the face of the planet?

I don't.

your right to say it.

Voltaire [François Marie Arouet] (1694–1778)

Giuliani openly lied about Ron Paul's position on 9/11. Paul did not make a statement, as Giuliani hysterically asserted, that the U.S. invited 9/11.

When you accuse Ron Paul of treason for expressing ideas that you disagree with, I wonder what form of government you are interested in representing.

but aren't you the guy that brought the carpet-bagger congressional candidate, Alexander Hamilton, into my CD in 2004? [dead link: http://www.uscongress-tx15.org/]

I never understood why anybody would run for an office from 300 miles away or why he or you thought that the people of CD-15 couldn't produce a homeboy or two on our own to run against the well-funded Democrat incumbent, Ruben Hinojosa.

Dog
Deep in the Heart of Texas

My hope is Ron Paul gives ya the political fight of your life... I will support you if you get the nomination like a good little conservative soldier, but my hope is that you don't as it seems you are running for more of a personal vendetta?

Not sure RedState would appreciate me posting this whole article, but I thought it was quite pertinent to this thread.

RedState leaders, my apologies. (BTW, is this proper for this site?)

What do you think of Ron Paul's take on 9/11? Some say Paul should resign May
17, 2007 - Posted at 12:00 a.m.
BY DON MUNSCH - VICTORIA ADVOCATE
Ron Paul's 9/11 comments at the GOP presidential debate Tuesday turned even
some supporters against him.
Others were left just scratching their heads.
John Griffin Jr., former chairman of the Victoria County Democratic Party,
took issue with Paul's 9/11 assessment, calling his remarks "ridiculous" and
"far-fetched."
On the other hand, Griffin said, both political parties have politicized 9/11.
Still, he said, someone with Paul's experience in Congress should know about the
relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq, that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden
"hated each other" and that there's no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Plus,
Griffin called Paul's allegations involving the U.S. bombing Iraq "a complete
fabrication."
"He should either retract his statement or resign," Griffin said about Paul.
He added he understood Paul's statements about the United States meddling in
Middle East affairs, but Paul should fortify his opinions with facts.
"A little honesty wouldn't hurt in these debates," Griffin said.
Eric Dondero, a former senior aide to Paul (1997-2003), said in a telephone
interview from Angleton that he thought Paul's comments were "deplorable" and
that he was embarrassed by Paul's statements, explaining that Paul no longer
represented the views of South Texas. He called on Paul to resign.

function submitCommentsForm(){
document.getElementById("storyCommentForm").submit(); } "Sooner rather than
later," said Dondero, who also served as a congressional campaign coordinator
for Paul in 1995-96 and was a travel aide for Paul in 1987-88 when Paul ran for
president as a Libertarian.
Otherwise, Dondero said, if Paul doesn't leave, then Congressional District 14
voters from Victoria to Galveston "will appear to be endorsing his treacherous,
and near treasonous views on foreign policy."
Dondero said he is considering running in the 2008 Republican primary against
Paul. He said he would wait to see whether a few other possible candidates run.
If they don't, he will.
Marguerite Lauger of Victoria, a former campaign worker for Paul, said she was
appalled by Paul's comments, pointing out that America's policies in the Middle
East can't justify what happened on 9/11. She said her similarly annoyed
granddaughter told her last night that Paul won't be getting her vote, either.
Ed Erwin of El Campo, who also disagreed with Paul's comments, said Tuesday's
debate exposed to the nation that Paul is "a loony."
Buddy Lee of Victoria said he's continually amazed by what Paul says. "I can't
believe that somebody really believes that."
Lee said it's upsetting that the words come from someone who represents people
here.
"And I think it's time for a change," he said.

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

Your comment says that "CD-14" wants Ron Paul to go, but the two main sources in the article are the local Democrat chairman and....YOU. Congratulations on already being the voice of CD-14, without even having to win an election!

Member for
1 day 2 hours

Run like Reagan!

Just some super intelligent logic in your message. I hope you're as eloquent in your support of Eric's congressional campaign -- that way, Ron Paul will have nothing to worry about.

I'll probably give him a small donation. He might not even notice it, since I don't have a lot of money to hand out to campaigns and such. But if a lot of us at RS kicked in 5 bucks it'd probably help!

Run like Reagan!

people on this blog thinking that somehow having a user name on this website for more than a year gives you a monopoly on knowledge? So far, I've seen a direct inverse relationship between length of membership and the willingness (ability?) to give arguments rather than personal attacks.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

Although the longtimers have certainly in many cases honed their skills at detecting drive by posters and as the site is in a constant state of war with them patience can be at times short.

Welcome aboard.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

then leave the other sections of Iraq once it's stabilzed we already have a good enough base in Kuwait so we don't need to keep one in the Shite section of Iraq and we need to get out of the Sunni areas too once Al Qaeda is neutralized.However we do need a base in Kurdistan becasue they want us there and it would serve our interests in the region.

You should all remember that it all started here. I will run as a "RedStater."

I'm getting huge support across the web. Also, from old friends, some of whom I haven't heard from for years.

But I'll be honest. I'm getting some super vitriolic hatred spewed my way as well from Ron Paul cultists. Mostly at Reason.com and other leftist libertarian sites.

For all those who have expressed their desire to make a $$$ contribution, sit tight for a week or two. I will have a website up for the campaign soon, to take donations.

Thanks again,

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

I don't want you stepping into some technicality of campaign finance laws on my account. We don't need a two bit socialist prosecutor from another county going after you too! 8*)

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

My dad knows some people there who are Republicans he went to the university of Tennesee with them.

First of all, it is almost certainly true that extremist Muslims hate the freedoms we enjoy in the West, particularly since women share in them. So I won't deny that this plays a part in their twisted goals. But the idea that they come over here and try to slaughter us because of our movies and the status of women is just too much to swallow.

I see nothing wrong with admitting that it almost certainly is our policies that has in large part led to the jihadist movement against the West. Support for Israel and maintaining a presence in the Middle East does spur on the Islamo-facists. That is not to say that we should not support Israel (we should), or not have a presence in the Middle East (we probably have to), or generally that we should set our foreign policy to placate barbarians (we definitely should not), but it is to say that actions have consequences. It is to say that even doing good things and the right things may have negative consequences, especially when dealing the likes of Osama Bin Laden. Why do some conservatives reflexively assume that a person asking such questions automatically falls into the blame America crowd? Understanding why the enemy acts the way they do is not a way of excusing them, nor is it weakness, nor is it to blame ourselves. Now, the Left often does cross that line, but when conservatives say these things, it is rarely done with the evident contempt for our nation the Left displays. To me, when conservatives question whether or not its our policies that spur on the extremists, it is done to seek a better understanding of the situation, and I prefer that to the often mindless 'they hate us for our freedom' ramblings of a Sean Hannity.

Just to reiterate, because I don't want to be misunderstood, I do not think that the reality of jihadists responsing to our foreign policy means that our foreign policy should be set out of fear for these lunatics. Its not about 'blame'.

If we are to rank the the reasons as to why they act as they do, then 'our freedoms' would no doubt rank much lower than (1) the already mentioned blowback to our foreign policy, and (2) the sense of inferiority that many Muslims no doubt feel as a result of being a part of a failed culture. These feelings soon turn to hate and rage at cultures that are superior, like the West. They hate the West because it is so clearly better in almost every single way that matters. They see it everyday, and when combined with stories of how great the Muslim world used to be, they want to destroy those that have left them behind as they wallow in the middle ages.

If we -- the West generally and the United States specifically -- are to blame ourselves, then it should be for the ridiculously lax and open immigration policies we have. It would be very difficult for these Islamic extremists to commit acts of terrorism on our soil if we never allowed them onto our soil in the first place, or if we were vigorous about deporting illegals who do make it in, or overstay. All those who worship at the altar of diversity, and who have poisoned attempts at a rational debate over immigration policy with nauseating platitudes, pointless references to the Statue of Liberty, and name-calling demagoguery (usually directed at those advancing what are actually mainstream views), have created an environment where the questioning of the wisdom of allowing significant levels of Muslim immigration rarely takes place.

And if Ron Paul's district is already 40% Hispanic (and growing I presume), then the GOP will probably struggle to hold that district soon enough anyway.

...for the actions of the jihadists is of course the dictates of their Religion of Peace, which would exist even if they didn't find Western culture so base.

Wahabbists, Salafists, and the Persian variety of Shiism are still stuck in the middle ages. But, you have plenty of Sunni, Shia, and Sufi Muslims outside of the Arab/Persian world who are perfectly sane, globalized, and modern.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

Many of the people in that country are perfectly fine.

www.fairtax.org
You don't have to like Ron Paul to be a libertarian Republican.
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

I love to mock that slogan mainly because of the insulting and nauseating way it has been used. Pretty much everytime some radicals do something violent, you have someone saying this to us simpletons lest we go out and start indiscriminately attacking any Muslims we come across.

However, we are never going to win this GWOT without the support of Muslims worldwide. The mocking is needless, and only serves to alienate any moderates that could be swayed. Nearly as bad... it puts our friends on the defensive.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

You've nailed pretty well here.

As for the OPs run for office, it's not my district so I don't much care, but it seems ironic that someone who has so loudly advocated for Republican Libertarianism is demanizing the most notable and successful Republican Libertarian ever. Suggests more of a personal vendetta than a policy conflict.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

You might know that the "policy conflict" responsible for the split is taken pretty seriously by a lot of people. Well, outside of the left, anyway.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

And had Eric been at least accurate in his accusations of Mr. Paul I would probably take them more seriously.

But to call Mr. Paul treasonous because of something Mr. Wallace said certainly doesn't suggest a mere policy conflict.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

He is a freshman state senator who won election 79-21, and his state senate district covers much of Ron Paul's district. Additionally, he's considered to be a very good, very effective legislator.

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist18/dist18.htm

The district is technically 36% Hispanic. It is not in danger of going Democrat anytime in the next century as long as we have a decent Republican nominee. Ron Paul has always been considered a bit of a loon, but his performance in the debate has finally pushed many over the edge. We will need to replace Ron Paul in the primary in order to keep the seat from falling into the hands of Democrat Shane Sklar.

He would be on my short list with Janek and Bonnen.

Dennis Bonnen:
http://www.dennisbonnen.com/
From Angleton, solid conservative, currently Texas Rep-D25

Kyle Janek
http://www.janek.senate.state.tx.us/
From Houston, great Aggie and conservative, currently Texas Sen-D17

We really have a lot of quality people to choose from, which is rather a blessing.

To say that Ron Paul does not represent the Republican Party really speak for how far to hell the Republican party has gone. This man is the only true Republican that we have as a candidate and as far as I am concerned the only chance that America has at having a successful future.

He was only stating what the 9/11 report stated in comments at the SC debate, should everyone on the commission be un-allowed to run as a Republican candidate? The fact of the matter is that Paul won the SC debate last night and he deserves to speak on behalf of the republican party, and hopefully our nation as a whole.

Please tell me what is not republican with the notion of not policing a world that hates us… not giving illegal immigrants amnesty… no national ID card… less government… going to “Declared War” as opposed to another endless police action… less spending… less nationalization?

If he is not a republican then neither am I and I am going to with drawl the R from the right of my name and replace it with a RP.

Your tactics remind me of Gerald Ford vs. Ronald Regan and I am sure that history will slap you in the face, and mark you as the opportunist political weakling that you are.

Yeah, I caught that, too. Tony Blankley even talks about it in The West's Last Chance... a very pro-GWOT book.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

of Declaration of War.

I don't think too many Senators considered that a Declaration of War.

Perhaps something a little more definitive could have been used. Perhaps something like.....

OINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between theGovernment of Iraq and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Iraq has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Iraq which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared;
and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Iraq ;
and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

I'm guessing that was the kind of language Mr. Paul wanted to see.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Were they confused about its purpose? Did they not know why they were voting on it? Apparently Paul was able to figure out what it was about, because he voted against it. Congress had their vote on it and Paul was on the losing side. So why is he complaining now? Because he doesn't have the ability to veto any bill he doesn't like?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Let's see what your favorite person John Kerry said right before the vote...

By standing with the President, Congress will demonstrate that our nation is united in its determination to take away Saddam Hussein's deadly arsenal, by peaceful means if we can, by force if we must. We are affirming a President's right and responsibility to keep the American people safe, and the President must take that grant of responsibility seriously.

Doesn't sound like a declaration of war in his mind.

And Paul opposed it because he wanted war to be declared.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Not that the Kerry's mismash of words ever means a whole lot, but what does that phrase mean? It sounds like war to me. He doesn't end it at "by peaceful means." It wasn't an Authorization for the Use of Peaceful Means he was voting on. It was clear to everyone, including Paul, what the measure was. Any claim to the contrary is stupid and disingenuous.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

can't differentiate between an "authorization for the use of military force" (which puts the initiative in the hands of the Executive to declare war de facto) and a true declaration of war (which keeps the initiative among the people's body, the Congress) is a testament to how litte the so-called "modern," "pro-American" "libertarian republicans" really understand the Constitution.

that would define this as a declaration of war. Not one.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

Indisputable.

www.fairtax.org
You don't have to like Ron Paul to be a libertarian Republican... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

Sorry, but that's a pretty broad claim to make.

" SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. "

Can you explain the difference between this authorization to use the military and whatever you would consider a "real" declaration of war?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

an actual Declaration of War.

Do you really not see a difference between a declaration of War and the authorization of the use of force?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

drop bombs and kill people and take over a country. That sounds to me like they're declaring war.

Have you ever refered to the Iraq War referred to as anything other than the "Iraq War"? I know common reference means nothing in a legal sense, but still...

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

So you believe we declared war on the following nations as well?

Vietnam
North Korea
Haiti
Panama
Grenada

War is a noun. Declaration of War is an action.

The framers were very clear about Congress declaring war and for good reason. As Mr. Paul points the Declaration of War is made to ensure that the American people are fully supportive of the war. It may be much harder for Presidents to get a Declaration of War signed off on but that is the point. It requires the President to actually make a case for war, as Mr. Wilson did, or allow events to speak for themselves, as Mr. Roosevelt did, or a little bit of both as Mr. McKinley did.

It also makes Congress accountable. They can't say they were duped(Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, etc). Either they were willing to go to war or they were not.

The Administration and Congress chose the easy path, at least at the time, and it has put us into a very poor situation with an American people that are strongly against our presence in Iraq, and growing moreso every day.

You want to pretend that a declaration of war was made for political reasons, go ahead. But it didn't happen.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I haven't seen the text of any authorizations that congress gave to those actions.

If Clinton, Kerry, et al are saying they were duped, then they are lying.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Any military action that lasts longer than 90 days requires Congressional approval.

Here is what Hillary Clinton said before the vote...

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.....

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

It seems pretty clear that many Senators voted in favor of giving the President the authority for diplomatic leverage primarily.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

They could have just as easily voted for your theoretical bill text "for diplomatic leverage." Their motivations for voting for it hardly matter. They could have voted for it because the moon was in the seventh house and Jupiter was aligned with Mars. They still voted for it.

None of this changes the fact that they knew exactly what they were voting for. Even if they didn't bother to read the text at all, the title pretty much gave it away.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Where did I blame anyone? If I were to blame people it certainly wouldn't be party specific since I think that lots of people bear the brunt of blame for this.

But I also think that Mr. Paul makes a lot of really good points and that instead of calling him a traitor perhaps we should listen to those points and consider the possibility that we aren't perfect and that perhaps we have made mistakes in the Middle East.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

They were not declared wars...

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

with authorization to use military force prior to those actions? Was the wording of those authorizations similar to the one used for the Iraq War?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Desert Storm, Kosovo, Afghanistan, at a minimum.

Probably more, but the current incarnation of the laws they use to give these "authorizations of force" didn't come about until 1973.

But, those were extremely clean victories (at least until Afghanistan has started to look iffy). Eventually, the law was bound to bite us in the tail. Welcome to Iraq.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

It also makes Congress accountable. They can't say they were duped(Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, etc). Either they were willing to go to war or they were not.

Good Work...

www.fairtax.org
Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

voted for. If they think they were duped, they either didn't read the bill, are too stupid to understand that using military force is war, or are lying. Which do you think it was?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

But, they have all the wiggle room in the world thanks to the "resolution."

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

But, it's not a declaration of war. That is a pretty precise (and accurate) claim to make, and I make it as an intelligence officer in the USAF, who has briefed and debriefed pilots defending from Surface to Air Missile and Anti-Aicraft Artillary firings daily. And yes, I have worked with JAGS before.

www.fairtax.org
You don't have to like Ron Paul to be a libertarian Republican... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

But I still think your statement that no JAG would consider that a declaration of war to be a bit broad with no support. It's a bold assertion.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

n/m.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

To say that Ron Paul does not represent the Republican Party really speak for how far to hell the Republican party has gone. This man is the only true Republican that we have as a candidate and as far as I am concerned the only chance that America has at having a successful future.

He was only stating what the 9/11 report stated in comments at the SC debate, should everyone on the commission be un-allowed to run as a Republican candidate? The fact of the matter is that Paul won the SC debate last night and he deserves to speak on behalf of the republican party, and hopefully our nation as a whole.

Please tell me what is not republican with the notion of not policing a world that hates us… not giving illegal immigrants amnesty… no national ID card… less government… going to “Declared War” as opposed to another endless police action… less spending… less nationalization?

If he is not a republican then neither am I and I am going to with drawl the R from the right of my name and replace it with a RP.

Your tactics remind me of Gerald Ford vs. Ronald Regan and I am sure that history will slap you in the face, and mark you as the opportunist political weakling that you are.

Ron Paul is no "true republican" he was in the libertarian party for years. He is also a brain dead blame America firster and he wants to sell us out in foreign policy the same way McCain and his pet poodle Graham just sold us out on immigration.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I can see why the original poster didn't list loyalty as one of his traits. Regardless of how badly Ron messed up the debate I think he will be around for a long long time to come. Why are so may republicans afraid of intellectually honest debate on real differences of policy.

Since when is challenging a man to a primary race anything BUT a challenge FOR a debate on the policy point of major disagreement?

Run like Reagan!

run (with the obvious exception of ranscot) have only been short time posters here. Take the contructive criticism of the long time posters and ignore the rest. Run a good clean campaign and WIN!

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Eric, if you win the Primary, you have my support in the General Election. No sour grapes, promise.

The debate I was watching Ron Paul never said - "we - the United States of America - are to blame for the attacks on 9/11". I suppose if you're running for office then it's good practice to start tainting the truth. I wish you would pick up a history book and learn where this type of arrogance has lead civilizations for the last several thousand years. Are American leaders ever wrong? Is it their job to tell the world how to live their lives and run the world? Do you not think that there will be consequences to our leaders misguided actions? There are always consequences to every action. You have to agree with this? This is the type of arrogance that will lead to the destruction of America. Maybe you don't care and would just as well feed like a maggot on its decaying carcass? You, my friend, are not a patriot. If you have kids then I feel sorry for them because they will have to pay the price of your arrogance.

He won't need that seat anymore when he's in the White House :)

By the way, he never said the United States was to blame for 9/11. :)

is if he pays the requisite $50,000 to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom once The Hildebeast takes office!

to McPherson Square and from there it is just a short walk. It's also just a $6.50 cab ride.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

You are truly a snake in the grass Mr. Dondero. As an associate of Dr. Paul, you should know better than to take the Media's twisted interpretation of his factual assertions to heart. His contention is backed up by the 9/11 Commission Report and common sense. "Audacity to cite Osama bin Laden"? You must certainly be a fool. Who should we listen to about why Islamists hate us? Bush propagandists? It is a simple fact that they hate us because we are occupying what they consider Holy Land.

You, like most so-called Republicans, including the nine other morons who took the stage with the most conservative member of Congress, should be ashamed to call yourselves members of our Party. Do yourself a favor and drop out of this race before you really start.

Despite the fact that some of you "old posters" think thatregurgitating the same intellectual backwash makes you experts on foreign affairs, I will very timidly offer, with hat in hand, my thoughts on a couple issues:

1) First of all, Eric, I don't even live in Texas but I promise I will send every last dollar I can to Ron Paul just to make sure I have the pleasure of reading more of your blogposts about how lunatic libertarians are ruining the country. And for the record, I would donate in this way even if you were running against a Socialist Green party candidate. But it gives me double pleasure to donate TO Ron Paul and AGAINST you.

2) I think Eric and the other neo-cons have such little respect for liberty that they can't even tolerate an honest discussion about foreign policy. Romney says he wants to double Guantanamo and he's a hero; Paul suggests we shouldn't meddle in other countries just because we want to, and he's the devil. If torture, the violation of international law, profound arrogance, and disregard for any limit on federal power as long as it is "foreign policy" is what makes you a "modern libertarian" or a Republican, you all can put it where the sun doesn't shine.

I think the same thing that motivates many Republicans is the same thing that motivates Eric: fear. Fear that immigrants will take over the country. Fear that if we don't lash out we'll be overrun by jihadists. Ron Paul is too courageous for that kind of fear, and so we all should be.

In all likelihood there will be other terrorist attacks in our country. So then, after giving up all our domestic liberties, after spilling blood unnecessarily, after taking on a national ID card, after building a wall around our whole southern border, those who are afraid will STILL not have the ONE thing that they gave everythign else up for.

Which reminds me: to be a non-interventionist is not the same as not having a foreign policy. It is not the same as being a pacifist. It is not the same as refusing to pick up the sword, no matter what. Non-interventionism says that, if Saudi Arabia is really the "great satan," then we ought to reconsider whether or not it's worth sticking our necks out for someone else's fight.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

1) Our sensitivity to new posters is not something to poke fun at right now. In case you haven't noticed, our site has something of a problem with a particularly persistent troll, so every new poster gets the hairy eyeball until we determine it's not him. DOn't take it personally.

2) While there's nothing I like better than one 'Toid flaming another 'Toid (I dislike 'Toids), we do have some decorum rules and newer folks need to walk a little gentler. You can certainly call out anyone you want (including Eric - Lord knows I've flamed him a couple of times myself), but please don't tell us all to put it where the sun doesn't shine, 'kay.

Cheers,
Mgmt.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Mr. Wolf,

My apologies for the broadside attack on other users. This isn't my normal style and I got caught up in the moment while railing against one particular individual.

I am happy to focus on issues and not let individual attacks distract from those issues. It is a good standard for everyone to live up to.

"DOn't take it personally"

Now that's what I call style!!!

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Run like Reagan!

Since others have warned you about wielding Pointy Sticks, I'll take on your argument. Sure, it would be nice if we could just retreat into Fortress America and let the rest of the world go to Hades. It would be nice too if all of America's enemies had a Road to Damascus experience and stopped hating us, too-- and that's about as likely to happen as your Fortress America holding up.

I consider myself a libertarian as well, but the difference between me and you is that I care about liberty in other places than just the United States. You and types like you just love to pi$$ and moan about the very minor restrictions on civil liberty that have proven necessary this decade, but you have absolutely no appreciation at all for the newfound freedom that 25 million Iraqis now have. I'd love to see you come up with a list of every restriction on freedom in the United States that's been imposed since 9/11 (not counting the Drug War, which is its own separate issue that's been going on since Nixon). No matter what you come up with, it'd pale in comparison to what we've had to do in previous times of war. President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus! President Roosevelt had thousands upon thousands of Japanese-Americans detained for years! What's the worst that's happened to any innocent American? Being detained for a few hours and missing their airplane flight?

You have absolutely no comprehension of the threat to the United States posed by terrorism. You just want to retreat to your own little sandbox and hope the troubles of the world just take care of themselves. Well, we tried that in the 1990s, and look where it got us (African embassies, USS Cole, 9/11). Isolationism is dead and nobody but you and Pat Buchanan mourn it. If you think civil liberties are so incredibly encroached now, just wait until something worse than 9/11 happens-- then we WILL have more restrictions, because people will demand them to be kept safe. Freedoms are important-- but if our government and our nation does not survive, then everybody will lose all their freedom, and many will lose their lives.

Your hyperbole is sickening, as well. Torture? You've been listening to too many bozos like Michael Moore and the like. Violation of international law? Again, from the same set of bozos. Did you know that under international law, we could shoot every single prisoner that we're keeping in Guantanamo and not be in the slightest violation of the Geneva Accords or of international law? Put down the leftist talking points and back away slowly, because you're becoming no longer a libertarian, you're just becoming an old-fashioned leftist, and that's why your views and viewpoints are rejected here.

Maybe you should try dailyKos; you'd probably fit in just fine there.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Finrod,

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I have responded below.

"Since others have warned you about wielding Pointy Sticks..."

I didn't know that this forum was a place for timidity.

"Sure, it would be nice if we could just retreat into Fortress America and let the rest of the world go to Hades. It would be nice too if all of America's enemies had a Road to Damascus experience and stopped hating us, too-- and that's about as likely to happen as your Fortress America holding up."

The non-interventionist argument does not hinge on a "fortress America" or any other such impossibility. Nor does it hinge, as you and many others seem to believe, on an unwillingness to acknowledge strategic threats.

The difference between non-interventionism and militarism is one of attitude: using force as an absolute last resort; fighting the "war on terror" as, in large part, a police effort rather than one of conventional military force; working with allies rather than against them; focsuing on the "soft power" of trade and foreign aid; encouraging religious dialogue rather than lumping all Muslims together as terrorists; and, finally, recognizing the importance of the rule of law, domestically and internationally, for the well-being of Western civilization (the very idea which you claim to be fighting for).

Non-interventionism is a Realist philosophy -- it recognizes the reality of blowback. It refuses to blame all terrorist action on "irrational" theological beliefs. The current militarism is just a warmed over Wilsonian idealism -- the desire to "make the world safe for democracy." Wilson started on that project about 100 years ago, and I don't see that we've made very much progress. Yes, we stopped Germany and Japan in World War II -- but that was a war of self-defense, not a war of choice as we have in Iraq.

"I consider myself a libertarian as well, but the difference between me and you is that I care about liberty in other places than just the United States."

The difference between me and you is this: I recognize the REALITY that to fight for "liberty" abroad requires the diminution of liberty at home (as your wonderful examples about Lincoln and Roosevelt illustrate). I also realize that most of the world doesn't want your brand of liberty, so it's best to preserve it for those of us who will enjoy it.

And before you continue your sanctimonious tirade, I have a couple of other observations: you were probably part of that same Republican group that griped and moaned about Clinton sending troops to Kosovo, Bosnia and Somalia. I didn't like that either, but those troops were sent to help stop genocide and civil war. They were sent as part of a real international coalition. In contrast, the unilateral desire to promote "liberty" abroad in Iraq (if by "promote liberty" we mean "fight for oil") has in fact created a civil war, strengthened our worst enemies, and has put our troops in a terrible situation.

Finally, I find it hard to believe that you care about liberty anywhere when you show no concern over the fact that many innocent people in Guantanamo are being denied basic human rights such as legal counsel and a fair trial, or that those innocent people have had their lives ruined by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"You and types like you just love to pi$$ and moan about the very minor restrictions on civil liberty that have proven necessary this decade, but you have absolutely no appreciation at all for the newfound freedom that 25 million Iraqis now have."

How has anything the Bush Admin done since 9/11 proven necessary? Are you using that same old line that "we haven't had another attack since 9/11"? Geeze -- they stop 6 morons trying to shoot up Fort Dix and it covers the headlines. You think that they've stopped bigger planned attacks and somehow failed to mention it the newspapers? I think that if they had stopped the planning of another large attack here in the US, we probably would've heard about it. They have stopped other planned attacks in England and in Germany -- but, of course, they did that without the aid of the PATRIOT Act.

"I'd love to see you come up with a list of every restriction on freedom in the United States that's been imposed since 9/11 (not counting the Drug War, which is its own separate issue that's been going on since Nixon)."

1) illegal wiretapping of American citizens
2) illegal collection of phone records
3) gross abuse of national security letters
4) the passage of a national ID law
5) the lack of due process for those detained in airports
6) the illegal collection of Internet records
7) the arrogance with which the Executive branch uses its power -- which is, in reality, the greatest long-term threat out of this list
8) the immoral collection of library records (legal only because of the PATRIOT Act)
9) the inhumane, unlawful treatment of hundreds of individuals detained at Guantanamo and as "persons of interest" here in the United States.
10) The passage of the Military Commissions Act, which allows for American citizens to be denied habeus corpus under certain circumstances.

That's just off the top of my head.

"No matter what you come up with, it'd pale in comparison to what we've had to do in previous times of war. President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus! President Roosevelt had thousands upon thousands of Japanese-Americans detained for years! What's the worst that's happened to any innocent American? Being detained for a few hours and missing their airplane flight?"

You've convinced me, Finrod -- it's worth fighting for liberty abroad if all it means is that we have to deprive a few tens of thousands of American citizens their property and due process rights! I mean, after all, the "war on terror" is a far bigger war than World War II, so presumably everything we did at home during World War II, and then some, would be justified to win this war. Right?

We've already done what Lincoln did -- suspend habeus corpus. Only this time we had a Congress sign off on it (through the passage of the Military Commissions Act) and I dare say we don't have a Supreme Court to hold the President in check (as we did with Lincoln's suspension at the end of the Civil War). All that's left is to go on and do what Roosevelt did.

"You have absolutely no comprehension of the threat to the United States posed by terrorism."

Yes I do. I watched the Pentagon burn. I know people who died in New York.

"You just want to retreat to your own little sandbox and hope the troubles of the world just take care of themselves. Well, we tried that in the 1990s, and look where it got us (African embassies, USS Cole, 9/11)."

Our involvement in the Middle East began well before 1990. We have given uneven treatment to Israel since 1948. We installed the Shah of Iran in the '50s. We armed Osama bin Ladin against the Russians in Afghanistan. We backed Saddam Hussein against Iran. We made the decision to put American troops in Saudi Arabia to defend our oil interests. Reagan put Marines in Lebanon -- and later regretted it.

The attacks on embassies and the USS Cole were, yes, the beginning of what precipitated 9/11. But they were also the effects of unprecedented interventionism. So if interventionism is the cause, more interventionism is hardly the solution.

"Isolationism is dead and nobody but you and Pat Buchanan mourn it."

Maybe. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. And I'm not an isolationist -- I'm a non-interventionist.

"If you think civil liberties are so incredibly encroached now, just wait until something worse than 9/11 happens-- then we WILL have more restrictions, because people will demand them to be kept safe. Freedoms are important-- but if our government and our nation does not survive, then everybody will lose all their freedom, and many will lose their lives."

Please -- calm down. Another terrorist attack will not destroy this nation. The only thing that will destroy it is people like you who are so afraid of dying that they're willing to shred the Constitution to save their sorry hides. And when that happens, you can keep this nation, because it won't be a place I want to live in anymore.

Furthermore, I challenge your fundamental assumption that the current interventionist policies are the only thing standing between us and destruction. I submit to you that if we spent fewer resources abroad, we would have more resources to reform our immigration system, have our National Guard in the states where they belong, and develop human intelligence resources -- the absence of which is our single greatest strategic threat.

I dare say to you that a non-interventionist United States could flourish and prosper in ways we cannot even imagine.

"Your hyperbole is sickening, as well. Torture? You've been listening to too many bozos like Michael Moore and the like."

I hate that SOB Michael Moore. But let's call "enhanced interrogation" what it is -- torture. Let's call "rendition programs" what they are -- kidnapping. Let's call "black prisons" what they are -- illegal.

"Violation of international law? Again, from the same set of bozos. Did you know that under international law, we could shoot every single prisoner that we're keeping in Guantanamo and not be in the slightest violation of the Geneva Accords or of international law?"

Your point is true only if you accept the Bush Administration's legal argument about the detainees being "illegal combatants." I do not accept this argument in full, and even if I did, it is certainly no reason to violate our own principles by denying legal council and a fair trial.

"Put down the leftist talking points and back away slowly, because you're becoming no longer a libertarian, you're just becoming an old-fashioned leftist, and that's why your views and viewpoints are rejected here. Maybe you should try dailyKos; you'd probably fit in just fine there."

No -- the attitude that to be a Republican you must be for militarism is a dangerous, dangerous path. The United States cannot afford to turn the keys over to two major parties, block out all other options, and then have one of those parties turn toward militarism and the other toward domestic intervention (although when I don't label them it's kind of hard to tell which is which).

14 minutes in, and already a pee stain on our carpet. Tsk tsk.

You met our friend Moe yet? Oops-I think that's him now.

Later man.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

So, Eric, I suppose all that work you supposedly did to get Dr. Paul elected was BEFORE you were FIRED FOR STEALING from the campaign, eh? LOL. What a sad little person you are.

And with no proof.

You reflect poorly on the congressman.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I am responsible only to myself. If you think what I wrote about Eric was bad, then blame me. It doesn't impact on the reality of the situation however. Mr. Dondero is going all over the web spewing lies about Dr. Paul and I'm just about sick of it. It's way past time someone stood up and laid out the reality of what 'ol Eric is all about.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The bad news is that, as much as I personally dislike Mr. Dondero, you don't get to come in here and just throw that kind of crap around without some credible evidence. So, your next comment here needs to provide that, kay?

Thanks in advance,
Mgmt.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

He didn't dream it up, folks. It came straight out of the 9-11 Commission Report and was backed up by CIA Intelligence Reports. Since the debate, 3 former CIA agents have come forward and have expressed their agreement with Congressman Paul. One of these was Michael Scheur, who was the former CIA's Chief of the bin Laden Unit.

What Giuliani and the media did was twist what Dr. Paul said. He was not blaming America for what the terrorists did. Not at all. He was only suggesting we needed to take a good look at our foreign policy to see if it was hindering or furthering our own national security.

To understand the best way to defeat your enemy, don't you think it wise to know what he's thinking?

I agree that he could have done a better job of getting his message across, but it's pretty hard to do in 1 minute. Giuliani was doing nothing but grandstanding to try to spin what Dr. Paul said, into an opportunity to spew his prepared speech trying to look like the savior of 9-11. After all, it's the only possible thing that makes him look in the least, conservative. Think about it... pro-amnesty, anti-gun, pro-open borders, Giuliani.

Don't let them spin what Dr. Paul was saying and turn you against the only true conservative that is running. Remember the traditional conservative principles?:

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

The ONLY one who embodies these principles is Dr. Paul. He is a 10 term Congressman, who has never sold us out, not once, to any special interest lobby, nor has he ever sold a vote. He votes with the Constitution, each and every time, which is why he earned the moniker of "Dr. No". Never voted for a tax increase, never voted for gun restriction, never voted for a pay raise, turned down his congressional pension... Please check out this man further, before you make up your mind. He's the real deal. A patriot in our own time.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom
http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008
http://www.myspace.com/congressmanronpaul
An archive of his many articles and speeches:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
http://gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm
A few interesting interviews:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A45NG8tOCQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmwDH-Ynung&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Your still pathetic.

you embarrass yourself, then come back and want us to listen to you make a nice debate.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

If you call the truth, embarrassment, then have at it. I stand my ground.

I have no problem with you coming in here and telling the truth, even if it is unpleasant. That is not the issue.

What is the issue is coming in here and making a claim against a person then offering now proof of that claim.

How would you feel if a person made a claim to your employer about how you molest children but offered no proof. In anyone's world, that is not a nice thing to do. I don't advocate it against you or anyone else. However, that is the type thing you are doing here.

There is a very simple way to resolve this. A simple image of the police report made of this theft when it was reported to police would suffice. If you cannot provide proof of this crime please take your claims to the police and them come back with the police report. That is the best way to resolve this.

Until then, you fall into the category of "a not very nice person" and anything you have to say gets tuned out because you discredited yourself by making a claim slandering another person and refuse to provide proof.

I am not trying to defend Eric, I am trying to be fair with Eric, as you would want the same consideration for yourself if a charge were made against you.

I don't think that is asking too much.

OUT

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

You're REALLY bringing out the kooks after you...

Run like Reagan!

to anything in this post for a while....

He sent me a reply indicating that he has not been able to log in to RedState. He thought he had been banned. I assured him he wasn't banned since I can still get to his user page and suggested he contact the moderators for assistance.

If any moderators have any spare cycles, perhaps you can be proactive and contact Eric to help him get back in.

I don't really know if he has a realistic chance to win TX CD-14, but I'd like to help him in any way I can.... and I think it'd be REALLY cool to have a RedState regular win a congressional seat, even if I don't always agree with his posts. I've debated him in a few postings, but tend to think his heart (and mind) is in the right place, but then I lean a little towards the libertarian (small l) side of conservatism anyway.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service