View Comments |  Print This Post |

Labels: Elections & Political Parties

1. "did I mention that there is no such thing as feminism in China"

   I really wish you wouldn't make such ignorant and hyperbolic statements. For example, the one I quoted above, and the two occasions where you praised Islam and radical Islamic governments and structures for their strong stand against feminism. Feminism isn't the only thing there's no such thing as in China. And as wonderful as Chinese and Muslim societies are, I'd miss the at least limited economic and religious freedom that we experience here in America a lot more than I'd enjoy the tradeoff for feminism. You always start out your articles with me at least partially on your side, and then blow it with some ridiculous and absurd comment like this one.

   Comment by Patrick Mulligan | November 22, 2007

2. "Ron Paul has absolutely no position on any social issue"
   Funny, this website is titled something like "intellectual conservative." Ron Paul does not state his positions on social issues because he's running for President of the U.S. and the constitution does not authorize the president to manage, regulate, enforce, influence, or to intervene on "social matters." He doesn't want to run on any social matters or do anything about any social matters. Social matters are not to be handled at the federal level. He will defer social matters to the states to handle as they individually see fit for their own population. An "intellectual conservative" would have known this already.

   Comment by benferno | November 22, 2007

3. Paul is a libertarian and therefor believes that government has no role in determining people's social conduct, that should be the result of free association and internal belief (similar to his Baptist beliefs on Christ). He believes in freedom so much that he would legalize drugs. Yes, he believes in freedom so consistently he would even say that.

   If you want a candidate who is authoritarian on social matters, Ron Paul is not your man.

   Comment by jmklein | November 22, 2007

4. I will not attack the writer's personal views or intelligence. After all it is a 1st amendment right to express
   your views. As a Paul supporter, I welcome any discourse good or bad. These discussions raise concerns
   and give everyone an opportunity to focus attention on the poltical process that we possess.

   Especially, now it is of vital importance that we pay attention to which candidates win the various elections.
   Our country is in a very precarious position these days. Here are the things that have made me concerned.

   1) Record debt, record lowes in the dollar, record foreclosures.
   2) Unsustainable government programs. The Comptroller of the United States is on a road
   tour warning of a potential national bankruptcy because the politicians aren't listening.
   3) A huge loss of civil liberties. The recent bill that just passed the house about"thought crimes" sent
   chills down my spine. A page right of of Orwell's 1984. This is an addition to the loss of habeus corpus.
   4) A democratic governement that doesn't listen to it's citizens. 73% of American want us out of IRAQ but
   we are still there and playing around with troup surges.
   5) Warnings of a potential draft in this country.

   If you would have listed these things out 15 years ago people would have thought you were on crack.
   However, we have somehow become so desensitized we don't notice or say much as we move closer to
   dicatatorship. By the ways those are just my words. Sandra Day O'Conner Supreme Court Justice has
   warned about the movement of the country toward dictatorship.

   Boy those are some serious statements. Is this just pessimism? Is this just kooky think that a small but vehement group woudl like you to believe? Check it out for yourself.

   By the way where you stand on social issues won't matter a lick in the type of world that is now being creatd for us.

   Comment by bgodley | November 22, 2007

5. David Usher misses the point here about Ron Paul and marriage. First and foremost when in the heck is
   it the governments job to tell people who and who cannot get married. Its a religious ceremony
   and always has been until recent history. If you want to get a goverment civil union, then get one, but
   if you want to get married then leave it up to the church. By giving the government power with a
   marriage amendment to the Constitution, you are also giving them the power to set rules on who
   what and how someone can get married - that is wrong my friend. The government should not
   be involved. Of course Usher would not throw out who he supports - he does axe Guiliani, Romney, McCain, and Brownback. So that leaves Huckabee - okay Usher lets talk about your boy Huckabee. Huckabee
   raised taxes in Arkansas more than any other governor - even Bill Clinton. The guy even had
   the nerve to put a tax on nursing home beds. In additon, Huckabee's state was known as a
   sanctuary state for illegal immigrants - Huckabee actually established a Mexican Consulate so
   the illegals in his state could have an easier time staying there. Then Mike Huckabee actually
   personally pushed for the release of a convicted Rapist in which Huckabee was successful, and
   this rapist - sexualy assaulted and then killed a Missouri woman 6 weeks later.

   Mike Huckabee - conservative - Not even close

   Ron Paul for truth and following the Constitution

   Comment by bedr1 | November 22, 2007

6. OK lets leave out the Vietnam conflict…oops:) I meant the Middle east conflict. A president is supposed to lead by example, not impose his will on us. He is supposed to give us direction, not send us in a direction. If you are going to criticize the leader of the free world for not forcing people to follow Conservative standards, then you must also criticize the author of the Bible for not forcing people to accept the plan of salvation. (bold statement I know, no disrespect to the Almighty). The point is that the president is supposed to 'lead' not 'drive' . Looking at his personal values, compared to the rest of the candidates, to me the choice is clear.

   Comment by James | November 22, 2007

7. There are a few Ron Paulists here making some points that I feel need to be addressed:

   1. Social Issues need to be left up to the STATES! The feds have no control!
   Sounds great in theory. But the feds have quite a bit of control over social issues. No Presidental candidate can ignore social issues and still have a chance in hell of getting elected. And if his plan is to reduce the federal involvement in social issues, he needs to outline that plan. It is not realistic for anyone to believe that in four years, Paul will have the feds removed from federal issues. And not only are the people who try to sell us this unrealistic fools…but if this is what Paul actually believes, he's not fit to be a leader, because he will get nothing done, and doesn't see the real world. Even Reagan wasn't able to cut back the size of the government with a Democratic congress…and Paul won't be able to either.

   2. Record foreclosures! OH NOES!
   This should be of little concern to a libertarian. If people are to be left alone to make their own choices, when a large number of them make bad ones…that's the way it goes. I haven't heard Paul come out on this issue, but if he speaks on it, I will further know that this is a man I cannot support.

   3. 73% wants us out of Iraq!
   I haven't seen that poll, but even if it's true…who cares? We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. And there are issues, such as war strategy, on which the public simply gets no say. This is simply not a sustainable position for a libertarian (let alone a Constitutionalist) to support, to argue that the uninformed public gets to make war policy.

   4. Sandra Day O'Conner…
   Is an idiot liberal. She's wrong on virtually everything and should be ignored.

   Look, Ron Paul is a fringe candidate, who will always be grouped (by serious voters) with liberals like Clinton and Obama. He has some good ideas, but in the end, he's neither a serious candidate or a good choice. And in remarks he's made recently about both Scooter Libby, and the role of the Supreme Court in war…he's not much of a Constitutionalist.

   Comment by WolvenBear | November 22, 2007

8. "I am not about to waste my time working for people who do not expressly have a pro-marriage agenda stated right up front."

   Ron Paul leads by example: he's been married to the same woman for fifty (50) years. If that isn't a "pro-marriage agenda", I don't know what is.

   Also, I've seen this story about four or five times now: are you guys just an aggregator?

   Comment by klutometis | November 22, 2007

9. "Marriage-absence is the greatest national social problem we face. "

   This is absurd. And even more absurd is the author's position that it is somehow the federal government's responsibility to do something about it. I guess that once everyone has been issued their national identity cards, then the government can start pairing people for compulsory marriage once they reach a certain age.

   And some call us Ron Paul supporters "kooks". Get real.

   Comment by rc | November 22, 2007

10. David Usher mentions a "pro-marriage (“Marriage Values” if you will) agenda." Those terms have multiple possile meanings - "pro-marriage" sounds like prohibition of divorce, which certainly affects many orders of magnitude more marriages than any other possible definition. Care to provide greater resolution on your code phrase "pro-marriage"?

    Comment by PaulBurnett | November 22, 2007

11. In response to comment #7- WolvenBear

    1) "But the feds have quite a bit of control over social issues."
    This is a problem that needs solutions, not a fact that needs accepting.

    2) If you don't understand the link between the Federal Reserve creating countless billions of dollars from thin air to create the housing bubble in the first place… well, then I guess you should look into it. Just one more reason to have sound money.

    3) "We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. And there are issues, such as war strategy, on which the public simply gets no say."
    You wrote it.

    4) Sandra Day O'Connor?? What? Are you stalked online by some Ron Paul supporter who just constantly responds to your posts with "I LOVE SANDRA DAY!"…I mean number three was scary, this is just bizarre.

    Comment by Mark Rushmore | November 22, 2007

12. "Sandra Day O’Connor?? What? Are you stalked online by some Ron Paul supporter who just constantly responds to your posts with “I LOVE SANDRA DAY!”…I mean number three was scary, this is just bizarre."

    I believe he was responding to post number 4, in which bgodley posted the following:

    "Sandra Day O’Conner Supreme Court Justice has
    warned about the movement of the country toward dictatorship."

    And what's so scary about a republic? I'm a helluva lot more scared of a democracy! So were our founding fathers, since they had some grasp of history and understood the violent anarchy that democracies swiftly deteriorate into. Hard to argue that you're a constitutionalist and say you don't believe in republican government. You know, since it's the form of government upon which our constitution is based and all…

    Comment by Patrick Mulligan | November 23, 2007

13. In response to comment #7- WolvenBear

    1) “But the feds have quite a bit of control over social issues.”
    This is a problem that needs solutions, not a fact that needs accepting.

    You all are screaming "The feds should have no involvement!" OK, if I grant you that…so what? They DO have involvement. You all seem incapable of accepting this fact and working within the frame of the system we have to change it. Wishful thinking is not a solution. Neither Ron nor his supporters seem to get this. We have weakened Federalism to an insane degree. We didn't abandon Federalism overnight, and we're not going to get it back overnight. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature realizes this.

    2) If you don’t understand the link between the Federal Reserve creating countless billions of dollars from thin air to create the housing bubble in the first place… well, then I guess you should look into it. Just one more reason to have sound money.

    The housing bubble popped because of people getting ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) that they couldn't afford. People made REALLY bad choices, and they suffered for them. I know it's more fun to believe in a scary conspiracy, but bad choices=bad results.

    3) “We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. And there are issues, such as war strategy, on which the public simply gets no say.”
    You wrote it.

    Yea, bud. I did.
    There is no reason that Generals on the ground should listen to a public that routinely gets its opinion of the war based on thirty second soundbites. Not only is the 73% made up out of whole cloth, but even if it was real, there's no reason thatthose 73% should be listened to. As Sun Tsu (the guy who wrote the definitive book on war) said: "The populus should have a say on whether or not we go to war. But not on how it is run. The public is too easily swayed by emotion, and do not have the facts to make informed decisions.

    There is no reason we should take you seriously if you believe that a majority of people should over rule our Constitution or even common sense.

    4) Sandra Day O’Connor?? What? Are you stalked online by some Ron Paul supporter who just constantly responds to your posts with “I LOVE SANDRA DAY!”…I mean number three was scary, this is just bizarre.

    Three wasn't scary, and this isn't bizarre. As Patrick pointed out…I was responding to someone.

    O'Conner not only had a terrible record on the bench, but her pronouncements of "dictatorship" reek of the same foolishness of Hollywood celebrities who make the talk show circuit who routinely talk about how they're being "silenced".
    But given that she repeatedly voted to strengthen the federal government…if we move to a dictatorship, she holds some of the blame.

    Comment by WolvenBear | November 23, 2007

14. The author lost all credibility when he referred to Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) as a "Man-eater" and equates Brownback's record on the marriage issue with… anyone else at all. There is literally no one in the history of U.S. federal government who has taken more action in defense of marriage and family than Brownback. I invite the author to review http://www.thomas.gov (Library of Congress) to inspect the current session and continuing down to his 1994 Freshman year as a Congressman.

    Comment by Elitist | November 24, 2007

15. True conservative-libertarianism, the very hallmark of this website's existence, has been absent so long people don't recognize it any more. Ron Paul is that conservative-libertarianism that has been missing. I think the problem is that people have lost their love of freedom and liberty and have grown so accustomed to Big Government, of all varieties, that they are afraid to cut the umbilical cord when given the opportunity. Instead, they would rather use the state's power to further their own agenda. Unfortunately, the state is like a junkyard dog. He may come to you when you call him, but one day without warning he's going to maul you.

    I'd like to rebut WolvenBear on a few issues from post #13:

    1) You all are screaming “The feds should have no involvement!” OK, if I grant you that…so what? They DO have involvement. You all seem incapable of accepting this fact and working within the frame of the system we have to change it. Wishful thinking is not a solution. Neither Ron nor his supporters seem to get this. We have weakened Federalism to an insane degree. We didn’t abandon Federalism overnight, and we’re not going to get it back overnight. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature realizes this.

    -How is Ron Paul not "working within the system" to change it? Is he supposed to vote on unconstitutional legislation in the House in order to combat unconstitutional legislation already enacted???

    2) The housing bubble popped because of people getting ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) that they couldn’t afford. People made REALLY bad choices, and they suffered for them. I know it’s more fun to believe in a scary conspiracy, but bad choices=bad results.

    -I agree that people need to be responsible for their decisions, but it must be noted that the reason people opted for ARMs was because they came with a lower interest rate because much of the risk gets shifted to the Buyer. However, ARMs are a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself.

    The real problem, as was stated by Mark Rushmore in post #11, is the fact that creating money out of thin air and lowering the interest rates to practically nothing created a CREDIT BUBBLE. Easy and cheap credit for everyone led to an out-of-control level of demand that subsequently raised housing prices into the stratosphere. This is basic supply and demand Economics 101. The housing bubble ensued because of the credit bubble. The credit bubble was a byproduct of the loose money, fractional-reserve banking fiat money system. Sound money would have prevented this entire situation.

    3) Yea, bud. I did.
    There is no reason that Generals on the ground should listen to a public that routinely gets its opinion of the war based on thirty second soundbites. Not only is the 73% made up out of whole cloth, but even if it was real, there’s no reason that those 73% should be listened to. As Sun Tsu (the guy who wrote the definitive book on war) said: “The populus should have a say on whether or not we go to war. But not on how it is run. The public is too easily swayed by emotion, and do not have the facts to make informed decisions. There is no reason we should take you seriously if you believe that a majority of people should over rule our Constitution or even common sense.

    -I happen to agree with your premise on this one. The people should not tell the military how or if to wage war. However, Article 1 Section 8 clearly lays the power to declare war in the hands of Congress, not the Executive Branch. No mention is made that Congress can abrogate this responsibility through a "Resolution." The only constitutionally acceptable "resolution" is a formal declaration. This isn't a semantics game, there are real differences. The fact that Ron Paul introduced a formal congressional declaration of war with Iraq (which he then voted against) shows that he takes the Constitution seriously.

    You seem to miss the point entirely. It is Ron Paul who has shown he "takes the constitution seriously" yet you are arguing against him and in favor of Congress' unconstitutional "Resolution" based upon enforcing UN resolutions. What's conservative and constitutional about that???

    Comment by freedom360 | November 24, 2007

16. Freedom,

    I would also like to rebut you on a couple of points:

    -How is Ron Paul not “working within the system” to change it? Is he supposed to vote on unconstitutional legislation in the House in order to combat unconstitutional legislation already enacted???

    In a word, yes. He is to vote on unconstitutional legislation if it rolls back the principals of big government. No one is going to eliminate the Department of Education in four years (or even eight). So by voting against things like vouchers, which are a step in the direction he wants to go, Paul is shooting himself in the foot.
    Example: The welfare reform of the 90s was unconstitutional. The federal government is not allowed by the constitution to have citizens on the dole, so to speak. Yet it does. Paul (I believe) voted against the reform, based on these grounds. Yet the reform took millions off the welfare roles and reduced the size of government in this area. By his "principals", he voted against his own interests. Because he was not willing to compromise, and take 10% of what he wanted (and try for more later), he would've gotten nothing (had he succeeded). This is not the hallmark of a leader. It has taken us 80+ years to get where we are now in terms of gov't size. To argue that we can overturn that immediately is beyond unrealistic…it's downright stupid. And any man who won't realize this is unfit to lead.

    - I agree that people need to be responsible for their decisions, but it must be noted that the reason people opted for ARMs was because they came with a lower interest rate because much of the risk gets shifted to the Buyer. However, ARMs are a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself.

    - The real problem, as was stated by Mark Rushmore in post #11, is the fact that creating money out of thin air and lowering the interest rates to practically nothing created a CREDIT BUBBLE. Easy and cheap credit for everyone led to an out-of-control level of demand that subsequently raised housing prices into the stratosphere. This is basic supply and demand Economics 101. The housing bubble ensued because of the credit bubble. The credit bubble was a byproduct of the loose money, fractional-reserve banking fiat money system. Sound money would have prevented this entire situation.

    The entire ARM situation is due to one thing and one thing only: failing to read the bottom line. You can blame whoever you want, but at the end of the day, the burden rests on those who thought they could slide by on easy street. I have no problem believing that some of these were just naive people who fell for a shady (or incompetent) mortgage salesman's pitch, but it's still their fault for not paying better attention. ARMs are risky. When they drop, they drop, but when they soar they soar. Even now, the housing "crisis" is fixing itself, without government intervention. Companies are stepping in to provide these troubled families with fixed rate mortgages to bail them out. In the long run, they'll probably pay more, but they will keep their houses. And those who are foreclosed on, their houses will be sold cheaper to other families who can afford them. The "crisis" is nothing of the sort.

    The ARMs are indeed a symptom, not a problem. The problem is that people feel that they are entitled to what they want. EVERY family highlighted in a newspaper article was living beyond their means before the rates raised. That means these were disasters waiting to happen. The problem is that people expect the government to bail them (or others) out when the going gets rough. And, ironically, I hear libertarians (normally my ideological equals) braying the loudest for this. It disturbs me.

    -I happen to agree with your premise on this one. The people should not tell the military how or if to wage war. However, Article 1 Section 8 clearly lays the power to declare war in the hands of Congress, not the Executive Branch. No mention is made that Congress can abrogate this responsibility through a “Resolution.” The only constitutionally acceptable “resolution” is a formal declaration. This isn’t a semantics game, there are real differences. The fact that Ron Paul introduced a formal congressional declaration of war with Iraq (which he then voted against) shows that he takes the Constitution seriously.

    It is a semantics game though. A declaration to use force is little different than a declaration of war. If we wish to be witty, Bush never needed to ask Congress or the UN for approval. The instant Saddam shot at a plane during Bush's term, or the instant he ignored a UN team access to a site, Bush could've gone in guns blazing. The original cease fire was between us and Iraq. We chose to cede the grunt work of inspecting to the UN, but that did not cut out our role. Clinton was 100% correct in saying that he needed no approval to launch missles into Iraq. A breach of the ceasefire is a breach of the terms of peace. And as such is an automatic relaunch of war if we so choose. That Bush did not do so shows that he has restraint and that he was acting in a spirit of bipartisanship.
    Or put another way: your premise is flawed.

    You seem to miss the point entirely. It is Ron Paul who has shown he “takes the constitution seriously” yet you are arguing against him and in favor of Congress’ unconstitutional “Resolution” based upon enforcing UN resolutions. What’s conservative and constitutional about that???

    Well, I'm not conservative, but moving on.

    I haven't even gotten into what I dislike about Ron Paul yet. The man is hardly a constitutionalist, but that's not relevant either.

    Congress voted to give the President authority to restart hostilities against Saddam. As he was breaching the ceasefire, a formal declaration of war wasn't neccessary. Basically, they said that they left it up to the President to decide whether or not the ceasefire was broken irrevocably. Even in the bizarro world Paul inhabits, Congress gave the President an OK to go to war…if he wanted. You can call it whatever you want, but semantics it most definately is.

    The UN was our proxy to achieve our ends. As such, their resolutions were on our behalf in this matter.

    And not only is Paul dead wrong on the war being illegal…but he's certainly ignoring the Constitution in calling it so.

    Comment by WolvenBear | November 25, 2007

17. Ron Paul insists that he supported the war in Afghanistan, but that the war in Iraq is illegal. I have heard him defend the latter claim on two grounds: (1) The war in Iraq violates the UN Charter, which, having been ratified as a treaty, is the supreme law of the land under the Constitution, and (2) Congress did not declare war.

    (1) may well be correct. (2) seems quite remarkable to me. I haven't yet come across a satisfying explanation of how an "authorization to use force" differs from a "declaration of war" in anything but name. But assume such a substantive difference does exist. The war in Afghanistan is supported by an authorization to use force, just as the war in Iraq is. If the lack of a formal declaration of war is grounds for condemning the war in Iraq, why is it not also grounds for condemning the war in Afghanistan?

    But let's go back to the supposed difference between a declaration of war and an authorization to use force. Freedom360 hints that the difference is that an authorization to use force is a delegation of the war-making power to the President. The President may choose to attack, or he may choose not to attack. But this says nothing that distinguishes an authorization to use force from a declaration of war. If Congress declared war, the timing of an attack would still be a matter for the Commander in Chief. And there is nothing in the Constitution that says that following a declaration of war the President may not delay initial attack for an hour, two hours, six months, or indefinitely. It seems to me that "authorization to use force" is a euphemism for "declaration of war," designed to sound less threatening, similar to how we changed "Department of War" to "Department of Defense." But just as changing the name of the department didn't mean that Congress created a new department and abolished an old one, calling a "declaration of war" an "authorization to use force" doesn't mean that Congress abdicated the war-declaring power and delegated it to the President.

    Comment by Katzen | November 25, 2007

18. WolvenBear,

    Here are my thoughts on your comments:

    "In a word, yes. He is to vote on unconstitutional legislation if it rolls back the principals of big government."

    -It is my opinion that this is the very problem, itself. Disregard for the authority of the Constitution. That is what has gotten us to the point we're at. People need to put the mindset of "the end justifies the means" behind them. Otherwise, every politician will do whatever it takes to get their agenda through. If it is wrong for them to do this, then it is also wrong for Ron Paul to do this. There is such a thing as absolute truth.

    ""By his “principals”, he voted against his own interests. Because he was not willing to compromise, and take 10% of what he wanted (and try for more later), he would’ve gotten nothing (had he succeeded). This is not the hallmark of a leader."

    -Again, I disagree. That IS the very hallmark of a principled leader. We have to first define what we expect from our "leaders." Do we expect them to uphold their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution, or do we expect them to just give lip service to the Constitution and then "do whatever they see fit to get their agenda through?" If that is the case, I don't want to hear you complaining when Hillary does that very thing if she gets in. For that matter, you shouldn't complain about ANY politician shoving grotesque legislation through Congress. The only thing you can rightly complain about now is that they are not violating the Constitution for legislation you approve of.

    "To argue that we can overturn that immediately is beyond unrealistic…it’s downright stupid. And any man who won’t realize this is unfit to lead."

    -Ron Paul has never stated that he would turn things back 95 years in 4. He is realistic and has stated several times what he would be able to do as President, especially with an unsympathetic Congress. Don't take his platform positions as a "I promise to get all this done" statement."

    He will be a solid check on a runaway Congress though. He will be able to protect our borders and aggressively work on the immigration problem. He will be able to save hundreds of billions of dollars by bringing the troops home and heading off the collapse of the dollar. He will be able to prevent the NAU merger. He will be able to restore accountability and transparency in the White House. He will be able to fix the problem we have with overcrowded prisons who are filled to the brim with non-violent drug offenders. Once these non-violent offenders are sent off to prison, they then emerge back into society as violent ex-cons. There is a better way to address the drug issue. I could go on and on about the wonderful things he could do for this country.

    "The entire ARM situation is due to one thing and one thing only: failing to read the bottom line. You can blame whoever you want, but at the end of the day, the burden rests on those who thought they could slide by on easy street."

    -It is true that people are responsible for the decisions they make. But, I was addressing the ROOT of the problem. The ROOT of the problem was that the banks began offering "exotic financing" to potential homebuyers because that is what the banks had to do to keep the real estate party going. Home prices shot through the roof due to easy and cheap credit for anyone with a pulse. This inflated demand and caused prices to increase. Homebuyers took the bait because they wanted on the gravy train, too. However, none of this was possible without the fiat money system. That is the ROOT and the real problem. Most booms and busts go back to the fiat money system.

    "The ARMs are indeed a symptom, not a problem. The problem is that people feel that they are entitled to what they want. EVERY family highlighted in a newspaper article was living beyond their means before the rates raised."

    -Again, the reason they were "beyond their means" is because housing prices were astronomical. This was fueled by the reasons I stated above which lead back to the fiat money system.

    "It is a semantics game though. A declaration to use force is little different than a declaration of war."

    -Declaring "we are hereby in a state of war with such and such nation" is much different than "we authorize the President to use force if and when he sees fit." The first puts Congress in control, the second abrogates that control to the President.

    "The instant Saddam shot at a plane during Bush’s term, or the instant he ignored a UN team access to a site, Bush could’ve gone in guns blazing."

    -The "no-fly zones" were in Iraqi airspace. How can you say you believe in national sovereignty when you are so quick to deny it to others? You can't believe in it for us and reject it for others.

    "Clinton was 100% correct in saying that he needed no approval to launch missles into Iraq. A breach of the ceasefire is a breach of the terms of peace. And as such is an automatic relaunch of war if we so choose. That Bush did not do so shows that he has restraint and that he was acting in a spirit of bipartisanship."

    -The first Iraq war wasn't any different than the current one in terms of legitimacy or Constitutional authority.

    "Or put another way: your premise is flawed."

    -You are arguing from the position that we should be the UN Enforcer and the World's Policeman. It is that premise that I think is flawed.

    "Well, I’m not conservative, but moving on."

    -That probably explains our disagreement. I assumed you were due to your participation in this forum.

    "Congress voted to give the President authority to restart hostilities against Saddam. As he was breaching the ceasefire, a formal declaration of war wasn’t neccessary. Basically, they said that they left it up to the President to decide whether or not the ceasefire was broken irrevocably. Even in the bizarro world Paul inhabits, Congress gave the President an OK to go to war…if he wanted. You can call it whatever you want, but semantics it most definately is."

    -Negative… Congress is the one granted war-making powers in the Constitution. There is no authorization for Congress to punt it to the President. It would be like me punting my responsibilities at work to a fellow employee and then telling my boss to hold him accountable for it. It just doesn't work that way.

    "And not only is Paul dead wrong on the war being illegal…but he’s certainly ignoring the Constitution in calling it so. "

    -See the last 2 statements.

    Comment by freedom360 | November 28, 2007

19. Freedom,

    But your premises still don't follow your arguments. You do a neat little side step of the points.

    Is the point to shrink/lessen government or not? As I keep noting, the welfare reform was unconstitutional…but then again so is the federal government being involved at all in welfare. So, you have to make a choice. Do you support unconstitutional legislation that shrinks government by 5%, or do you refuse to do so on "principal"? You keep dancing around this point and I know why. You either must concede that I'm right…that the only way to shrink government is through half steps..or you admit that you prefer someone who stands up for what they believe in at the cost of getting nothing done.
    Which is it? You can't play the "uphold the oath of the Constitution" card, because in his fervor to adhere to his principals he is allowing the status quo to continue. The only way to get back to the federalist constitutional system our founders envisioned will be through lots of compromises. Paul is unwilling to compromise, and therefore is unfit to lead. What good is a man who stands there bemoaning how big our government is…yet votes nay on steps that will shrink it?

    Sure the government shouldn't spend the exorbatant amounts of money they do on education. The public school systems are a failure. It's nice that Paul recognizes this, but he continually votes against things like Vouchers that would save the federal government a LOT of money and start transferring power back to the people and away from the state run schools.

    Paul REPEATEDLY votes nay on such legislation, as unconstitutional, which would leave the current, and even MORE unconstitutional system in place. What good is he?

    To the ARMs. You're being deliberately dense here. People jumped on much riskier ARMs than fixed rates because it just seemed so damned convenient. Many of these people took these rates because they simply couldn't afford the Fixed Rate. What this means is that people were taking on responsibilities they could never afford. The "crisis" came about because lenders loaned money to people that they never should of.

    This guy puts it a lot better than me:
    http://anotherfuckedborrower.blogspot.com/2007/08/senator-dodd-and-los-angeles-councilman.html

    Short version: Loans were given to people who should have been nowhere near them. They lived beyond their means, and are in trouble as a result.

    And finally, the war.

    There is ZERO difference between a "delcaration of war" and an "authorization to use force". You sit there and ramble on and on about the Congress passing power to the President…but that's not it at all. The President made his case to Congress and they told him he could indeed go to war…or could use force. However you want to put it. So, the President (despite not needing to) got Congress to give him the OK to go to war with Iraq. Putting a condition on it does not mean they ceded their power. "If he doesn't comply, go to war" is still an OK to war. You can ramble on as much as you like, but as Katzen points out, the difference in name seems little different from the change of the Department of war into the Department of Defense.

    You do the same UN song and dance that I already shot down. The original war was between the US and Iraq. Saddam agreed to certain conditions in a ceasefire to make us stop attacking him. We delegated the enforcement of this to the UN. This is little different than a company bringing in an outside consultant to do work for them. The UN resolutions were ALWAYS on behalf of the US and our interests. That we chose to have someone else do the day to day work of enforcing resolutions on our behalf does not negate our involvement, not does it remove our name from the ceasefire. Violation of a ceasefire is an automatic resumation of hostilities. As such neither Bush nor Clinton needed Congressional or UN authorization to attack.

    Even assuming that the original Gulf War was unconstitutional…so what? Again, this is dealing with how things should be, not how they are. And we come full circle. Perhaps the government shouldn't have fought Saddam to begin with…but they did. And we had a ceasefire that was being violated. Bush had to deal with the system he inherited…not the magic land of Sesame Street where the Constitution has been rigidly followed. And so he dealt with the situation as it was, not as it "should have been". He enforced the ceasefire (a ceasefire is a treaty, and treaties are law under the Constitution afterall…and let's not forget we signed a treaty with the UN too), and is the only President in history to get Congression authorization when he clearly didn't need to.

    Paul is wrong on all these issues, and you are similarly wrong for supporting him. You can two step all you want around the issues above, but simply repeating yourself after I have thoroughly debunked you holds no weight with me.

    And next time you wish to "refute my arguments", address what I actually said, not what you wanted me to say. Not only had I already addressed many of the points you made, but I never claimed that the ends justified the means with legislation.

    I wish I knew what it was about Paul supporters that they can't deal with the world the way it is…but instead deal with policy in the world they wish they were in.

    Comment by WolvenBear | November 29, 2007

20. WolvenBear,

    I'm not going to get into an "is not, is too" discussion. I've laid out my case, without being argumentative, and you've laid out yours.

    I'll let the readers decide which it believe. I'm not fond of repeating myself, especially when you can use the scroll bar to re-read my answers that seems to address your "new points" adequately.

    By the way, it is "principles" not "principals." One is a noun and the other is an adjective.

    Comment by freedom360 | November 30, 2007

21. Freedom,

    Thank you for the spelling lesson.

    That said. This was never an "is not, is too" discussion. You blather on about unconstitutionality without ever once adressing my actual argument. You clamor on about some "ends justify the means" argument that I never once made while deliberately ignoring the rather simple point I made. It is not that my argument was hard to understand; you just chose to ignore it.

    But I will restate it even more simply for you:
    Ron Paul has repeatedly voted against smaller government, and against even a small return to the original framework of the Constitution, due to…you know, I can't even understand his logic.

    You can play whatever little word games you want, or take a typo that I made out, but your basic point doesn't hold water. Every single vote that Paul has cast against reform has been a vote against the Constitution. You can dress it up as high mindedness all you like, but it's no different than the liberal do-gooder mentality…just on the other side of the spectrum. Results don't matter, all that counts is intentions! That's not the way the world works, and anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows it.

    Ron Paul is a fool who lives in a pretend world where the Constitution has never been violated or ignored. He is the equivalent of the 6 year old, who when confronted with uncomfortable reality, sticks his fingers in his ears and starts saying "lalalalala". Is it any wonder he attracts people by the dozen who are unable to articulate a simple point?

    I will give one final example, in the hopes that this will sink through to you, where nothing else has:

    I am staunchly anti-abortion. It is one of (if not the) most awful practices that mankind has ever come up with. I don't think it should ever be legal (abortion is almost never medically needed).
    That said. I live in the real world. Abortion IS legal. Whether or not it should be is irrelevant. It IS legal. And I have to work within that framework.
    If I am a legislator, and a bill comes across my desk to ban abortions in the third trimester, I will sign it. Without hesitation.
    If I refuse to vote for it (because abortion should ALWAYS be illegal, not just the last three months), then I am casting my vote in favor of keeping abortion legal through all 9 months. I would be directly voting against my beliefs. And I am voting to keep the status quo, despite my belief that abortion is evil.

    This is what Paul does constantly. He claims government needs to be smaller, but votes against reforms that would reduce, even in miniscule amounts, the size of the federal government. It is not enough to talk the talk. He needs to walk the walk. And the record shows that he doesn't.

    That said, I don't blame you for preferring to point out a typo I made in a long winded post as opposed to debating the facts of the matter. If my case was as bad as yours…I'd fall back on spelling mistakes too.

    Comment by WolvenBear | December 1, 2007

22. WolvenBear,

    You seem like an emotional guy and you get worked up pretty easy. You should stick to basing your arguments on reason and not emotion. You continue to state that I ignored your points, but I addressed them previously. If you think I skipped one, please point it out and I'll address it. Otherwise, you're just restating your arguments to which I've already responded.

    Since you brought up the new issue of abortion I will comment on it. Ron Paul has introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in Congress.

    *****
    The Act declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.

    Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.[1]
    ******

    Don't try and misrepresent Paul as being soft on abortion. He vehemently opposes it and works to eliminate it. You have to ask yourself why he didn't get much support in a Republican Congress?

    Here's a great write up on it:

    http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071130.html

    For the record, a typo is an error in typing not due to ignorance. Your "typo" was prevalent numerous times in multiple emails. That isn't a "typo."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typo

    I wasn't falling back on spelling mistakes, I was kindly pointing out that you had a booger in your nose in public.

    Comment by freedom360 | December 1, 2007

23. Freedom,

    Again, you ignore the argument. I didn't say Paul was soft on abortion. Nor did I even bring up Paul's record on abortion. I simply used it as an example.
    But if we truly wish to examine his record, let us do so. Paul voted against Lacey's Law, the Violence against the Unborn act, and similar such laws. And even though he voted to ban Partial Birth Abortion, he was a leading critic of the bill (somewhat understandably). His current bill is damn near useless. And the coverage that you link to is ridiculously dishonest. It claims that not only have Republicans done nothing to ban abortion (they have), but that somehow Paul's bill would overturn Roe vs Wade (it wouldn't). As more honest pundints who are in favor on Paul's bill (myself included) have realized, it takes abortion out of the hands of federal courts only, not the Supreme Court. Thus, the Supreme Court could easily rule this law unconstitutional, which they most likely would. Even with the current court, Paul's legislation would not hold water for long.

    So once more, you ignore what I have clearly said, in favor of what you wish I said. I clearly stated that my story was an example about the half measure of compromise.

    I'm not really being emotional here. Though I tire of your lackluster arguments that ignore my original points. Not once have you addressed my original point about the need for half steps in reversing the move towards socialism. Instead you called me an "ends justift the means" type (inferring liberal), and adressed an argument I'd never made. You continue to make some imaginary distinction between "declaration of war" and "authorization of force", ignoring that both follow the constitutional demand that Congress give the President the OK before he goes off to battle. And you further ignore that he didn't need that OK, but still sought it anyways. You continue to blame inflation on our money supply, while stories routinely come on the news of people buying 300-500 thousand dollar houses with ARMS…people who couldn't afford them under ANY rate.

    I repeat, if my case was as foolish as yours, I'd focus on a typo as well.

    Look, bud. I'm not going to keep pointing out where your logic fails. If you want a further debate, address the following points, or don't bother:

    1. If Ron Paul is against big government, why does he constantly vote against measures to reduce governmental size? If governmental reduction is the goal, he will either vote for legislation (unconstitutional) that will reduce gov't, or he will vote to keep gov't bloated. So far he has consistantly voted for the latter.

    2. As Katzen points out, Paul is opposed to the Iraq war while supporting the Afghanistan one. Neither had a declaration of war. Paul is being hypocritical. Defend that.

    3. Actually address the fact that the Constitution has been ignored. Yea, the 10th Amendment says that all powers not specifically granted to the feds are reserved to the states. But I can point out a hundred examples of that being ignored (and in many cases held up by the SCOTUS) over the past decade. In a Congress dominated by liberals, and a Supreme Court with 4 out of 7 believing in a "living breathing Constitution" (key words for "it means whatever I want it to mean"), Paul's tactics will not only accomplish nothing, but will advance the liberal agenda.

    I'm not going to hold my breath. You haven't addressed any of these points so far, instead deviating off on misspellings and name calling. I doubt this time will be different.

    Comment by WolvenBear | December 2, 2007

24. WolvenBear,

    I have not engaged in any name calling and I challenge you to point out where I did so or retract the accustation.

    Regarding the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (not Violence against the Unborn Act) Paul's NO VOTE was clearly cast in recognition of the 10th Amendment. You cite the 10th Amendment in your post, but I wonder if you truly believe in it in that you will fault a Congressman for honoring it.

    Paul's legislation would immediately recognize the life and "personhood" of unborn children. That would in-effect nullify Roe on the spot.

    Further, it DOES remove the Supreme Court from having jurisdiction in these matters. Did you read it?
    ****************

    "Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance…"

    ****************

    You said:
    "I’m not really being emotional here. Though I tire of your lackluster arguments that ignore my original points. Not once have you addressed my original point about the need for half steps in reversing the move towards socialism. Instead you called me an “ends justift the means” type (inferring liberal), and adressed an argument I’d never made. "

    Yes, I did address your initial point of the need for "half-steps." Paul does not vote on unconstitutional legislation. I said that at the very beginning. Your term "half-steps" is really a euphemism for unconstitutional legislation. And, you advocate such legislation in order to return to limited government. That, sir, is indeed a doctrine of "the end justifies the means."

    Regarding the ARM crisis… again YOU ignore the fact that without the Fed Reserve and fiat money we wouldn't have had this problem with inflation (which is what drove the housing prices up to the point where ARMs were offered to buyers to keep the party going). I have stated and restated this several times. I won't do it again. You are clearly incapable of understanding this point. I feel like I'm trying to teach algebra to a 1st grader here (not trying to insult you, just trying to communicate the frustration of repeating certain facts over and over and seeing them go over the head of the hearer, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

    Now, to your numbered points:
    1. I did address this and I just did so again in this post. Hopefully you got it this time.

    2. Point 2 is interesting and I'll do some investigating into why this is so. It could be that Osama was directly attributed to 9/11 and thus Afghanistan was justified, while Iraq was not. But, as for the technicality I will check into it.

    3. I'm not sure why you went this direction. You slam Paul for honoring the 10th Amendment and then you want to rally behind the 10th Amendment. I think you're the one being hypocritical here.

    Lastly, you attempt to cloak your ignorance of the difference of "principle" and "principal" by pointing to them as "typos." You carry a lot of pride, WolvenBear.

    My posts and responses have been courteous and controlled. It is you who have been blathering and clamorous. I suspect you will respond to this by getting into another emotion tirade and AGAIN asking for answers to your questions that you seem to think go unanswered. But, an argument is won on reason, not decibel levels. Hitler once said something to the effect of "if you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough the people will believe you." That seems to be your debating style. Short on substance and facts and long on emotion, drama, and accusations.

    All of your points have been addressed multiple times and I am going to look into the Afghanistan thing. I suspect you're going to get all worked up again and type out another emotion-filled post in response. Don't bother, because I will not respond to the same old nonsense. Someone has to be the adult here and walk away.

    Proverbs 18:2

    Comment by freedom360 | December 2, 2007

25. Small mistake to address, I meant to say "4 out of the 7 previous members of the Court". On where Roberts and Alito stand, I have not yet decided. They are far from the hard line conservatives they have been made out to be by leftists. My error.

    And none of the above comments address some of Paul's other problems, such as:
    His public musings to Hugh Hewitt that the Courts should be allowed to decide war policy.
    His public support of jailing Scooter Libby…not because he was guilty, but because he had supported the war…
    His utterly weak foreign policy approach of "ignore what goes on everywhere else".
    A perplexing (for a claimed libertarian) tendency to be against free trade…
    His association with truthers and other fringe lunatics.
    A sort of "everyone else is doing it" attitude in recent years when it comes to justifying his recent fondness of earmarks and pork.

    I'm not trying to pick on you Freedom, but it seems that like all Paulists, you seem to think that frequency and repetition are substitutes for real argument. And they aren't.

    Comment by WolvenBear | December 2, 2007

26. Freedom,

    1. If Lacey's Law is unconstitutional, then so is his sanctity of life act.
    Congress cannot shut the Supreme Court out of cases. Thus, his act would be immediately ruled as unconstitutional.
    Congress may set any rules they wish for the lower courts, but for the Supreme, they can't set any. Thus, you must either admit that his ruling holds no teeth…or that it is unconstitutional.

    2. If half steps are unconstitutional, then Ron is siding with the liberals as a big government type, and is the least qualified of any candidate on either side of the line.
    At least the liberals make open their disdain for our constitution. Ron Paul refuses to take steps to restore it, despite being the Constitutional candidate. He is the most dispicable of all those running.

    And yet you HAVEN'T addressed my point. If Ron is unwilling to take small steps to try and rein in government, he's not willing to rein in government at all. It is idiocy to claim to support the Constitution, yet refuse to uphold it, even in half. Every Ron Paul supporter is an idiot.

    Listen, fool. You have compared me to Hitler. If THAT is not an emotional appeal, I don't know what is. There is zero emotion in what I'm saying. I defy you to find an instance of any emotion.

    Look dude. You sit there pretty high and mighty. Paul REFUSES to cut government. Because cutting government by 50…70…even 90% is unconstitutional…you tell me. This is the worst argument I've ever dealt with. It is an argument devoid of logic, reason, or fact. If someone will not vote to cut government by a fraction, they will not vote to cut it period.

    I'm done with you. You're a fool, and calling me a big gov't liberal, while supporting a man who refuses to bend to get 70% of what he wants makes you look imbecilic. I'm tired of you.

    Relish in obscurity.

    Comment by WolvenBear | December 5, 2007

27. WolvenBear,

    Thanks for proving my point.

    Comment by freedom360 | December 5, 2007

28. There is nobody more qualified to lead this country than Ron Paul.
    _____

    Patriotism
    by Ron Paul

    Madam Speaker, for some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government's abuse of the people's rights.
    I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.
    What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.
    The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. (emphasis added)
    The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.
    Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.
    True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.
    Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.
    It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.
    Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?
    Randolph Bourne said that, "War is the health of the state." With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a "war psychology" to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.
    Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.
    This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism; that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.
    Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.
    The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.
    All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.
    Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.
    Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code's unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.
    Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state's pleasure.
    A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.
    Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it's with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.
    If there is a war going on, supporting the state's effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties, which they are told is necessary.
    The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.
    We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.
    Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is, our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world's policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.
    We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.
    Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.
    The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.
    The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.
    Our enemies say boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.
    We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.
    These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.
    We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.
    The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.
    The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.
    The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long-planned invasion of Iraq.
    The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.
    The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time to study it. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.
    The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to library and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens' use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.
    The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.
    Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.
    Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.
    A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government's list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one's name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.
    A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver's license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver's license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.
    Some of the least-noticed and least-discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.
    Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called "other conditions." The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors' approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.
    The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King's abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire-building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.
    Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliché "Support the Troops" is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.
    Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm's way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of "patriot"?
    Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.
    But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

    Comment by freedom360 | December 7, 2007

29. Ron Paul stands head and shoulders above the tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber candidates that both parties offer.

    Dr. Paul will have my vote in the NY primary. But, don't worry my neoconservative friends. Ron Paul has little chance of winning the Republican nomination. We're not ready for a real conservatie. Instead, we'll end up with one of the other clowns. If we're lucky, Dr Paul will have enough influence on the party to bring it more in line with traditional conservative values. If not, the Republican Party will evolve into a regional party.

    Greg in NY

    Comment by GreginNY | December 8, 2007

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.