Whilst your commands are valid, they're delivered in a divisive manner. "Nation of Suckers / Terminally Stupid"? If these are people you're trying to reach out to, perhaps not starting with insults would be a good place to start...

Just a thought.

I understand why this article may seem divisive, however Paul has not been readily accepted by the MSM or the Republican party in general - because in my opinion, there are huge interests that would be adversely affected should Dr. Paul become President of the United States.
Practically everyone in Paul's campaign has experienced the negativity in some fashion or another. The author is no doubt aware of these
issues.

Dave:
Maybe you can be calm about it, but I'm exasperated. It drives me crazy that we're spending all that money in ANOTHER COUNTRY, on killing people, when it could be spent in OUR COUNTRY, on helping people. It's insane.

Prof. Stiglitz says the Iraq War is costing a TRILLION DOLLARS. There are people who say it will go as high as THREE TRILLION.

Why are we wasting our money on some asshole place in the Middle East when we could be spending it here?

We could make ourselves totally oil-independent if we spent a trillion dollars on here, and still have money over to improve public education and start repairing our infra-structure and give everyone a free college education.

Doesn't it drive you crazy? I was actually pulling my punches, and only towards the end lapsed into a screed.

WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH US?

Future historians will look back and shake their heads in befuddlement. They'll say the US was in the grip of a psychosis. It's your and my TAX DOLLARS that are being wasted. This is what they're doing with MY MONEY.

I'm so exasperated I could eat a car. And Hillary and Obama say we should stay in Iraq. They've drunk the Kool-Aid, too. What's the matter with them? Have they dropped their brains somewhere in Washington?

Consider the cost, that's what I'm saying. I don't want another cent of my money going to Iraq. I want it spent HERE, in MY country, in MY state, in MY city, in MY neighborhood, on MY people.

AAAAAARGH!!!!!!

Adam Ash

Man speaks the truth. Way to tell it like it is.

AMEN AMEN AMEN

Congratulations. You have eloquently put into words a maddening frustration I have been feeling for years.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I am sick and tired of being embarrassed to be an American citizen. We need to take some pride in ourselves and our country. We need to have some real courage. End the war. Bring our brave soldiers home. Stop picking on little guys like a global schoolyard bully. And take care of OUR country.

If it makes you feel any better, we probably wouldn't spend that money on schools anyway. In this country? When was the last time our government spent money on kids?

it falls on deaf ears. too many people are polarized. you have the age old christian vs muslim stuff...islamic demonization etc etc. then you have special interests having a good time with gov bank roll. then you have american jews who seem to care more about israel then united states...OUR country.

we gonna go to war with iran despite bush being caught with his pants down by the intelligence report. we going to build a bases in every middle eastern country we will not be satisfied obviously to secure the oil just incase china or russia or even europe decide to challenge us.

we americans are not bothered about all of this still..the vast majority is still happy. one day out of the blue more tragedy will strike maybe not here on our shores but to our people and soldiers off shore...BTW last time i checked those people fighting wars and being stationed in other countries are ALSO AMERICANS!!! to say that well we will limit the battle to them is RETARDED. so its better to keep the war going..(War on terror..is a never ending war and cannot ever end). then to listen to our fore fathers. oh well, we have the coalition of the willing in iraq. hahah what a joke. the brits are leaving in 08. the 100k+ american soldiers + another 150-200+ capitalistic money loven contractors who undermine our very soldiers.

yes we should stay the course! yes we should get the dollar devalued cuz hey we get to export our goods and thats the only effect that will happen!! yay!!

viva america!

I'm a fifty four year old mother and grandmother. I take no offense whatsoever to the way this article is written; in fact, it's one of the best I've read. Sometimes being slapped in the face with the horrific truth about what the hell is wrong with us can waken people from their psychotic slumber. I only wish Adam Ash could hijack everyone's home page tomorrow morning . . .

Dr. Ron Paul is running on Bush's policy from 2000 - namely to not do nation building. Dr. Paul is the only conservative republican in the race.

Ron Paul will win.

Good article. I'm glad to see someone feels the same frustration as I do. Although, I see you blame the Right more than the Left for Iraq when really they should equally share the blame. It's like a big American soap opera in congress. The Right pretends to be tough on terror and the Left threatens to defund the troops. What the American sheepeople need to understand is that all the drama going on is a big distraction from what they are really up to. A Homegrown terrorism bill HR1955 just passed in the House and I now believe it is soon to be up for vote in the Senate as S 1959. Like the Patriot act this legislation violates the Bill of Rights and further strips American's of more their freedom. check it out on the gov't website it's scary.

Loved the article. You hit the nail on the head! It all starts with the corporate owned media pigs. We need a new media an outlet for real people about real issues. No more cnn,msnbc,nbc,abc,fox. We need a news channel owned by the people for the people. No more bias news, no more breaking stories about Paris Hilton, Britney, etc. that shit belongs on E entertainment it is not news worthy. Please America WAKE UP!

You want your money spent here? Spend it here. Stop buying gasoline. Shop at local markets. Turn off the television. Don't buy any products that weren't made in America. It's really easy to bitch about where your tax dollars are being spent while at the same time spending the money you do have on goods that were made in a foreign country.

This was the right tone to take. There are many of us that are "Mad as Hell" and a rant like this puts fire in our belly!

"One, a presidential candidate who doesn't have a hope in hell of becoming president."

Frankly I believe this attitude is one of the most visible, obvious, and unfortunate aspects of Americans being "suckered"- which I'd like to commend you for noting in this article.

Really though, one of the most pathetic parts of Americans being so completely suckered as you point out is this popular attitude that the media and POLLS (yes POLLS, inaccurate, biased, and ultimately- reflective of OTHER people's opinions and not yours) will tell you who to vote for and no one seems to care or see anything silly about that trend.

I have spoken to people who literally have said they wont vote for Ron Paul (noting that he IS their "favorite candidate...stands for everything I believe in...never seen a politician reflect my views so well, etc") because "HE'S NOT DOING WELL IN THE POLLS."

Its pathetic. First off, eschewing your true personal beliefs and honest opinions for what "the polls" say are someone else's is about as opposite to the idea of patriotism I have ever heard. Second, does it truly make sense to you from an ethical basis to support a candidate you dont agree with...simply because you have been told they have a better chance of winning than your true choice?

I have refused to vote in the past two elections, saying that neither candidate had truly earned my vote and my true support- and each time I ws told that I was "wasting my vote" or "allowing (this guy or the other) to WIN by not voting for the other guy!!" Like I said...PATHETIC. I have always personally believed that the only way you can "waste" your vote is if it does not truly reflect who you truly agree with the most.

Last, everyone seems to be ignoring some very relevant information about "the polls" they keep referring to when grasping for hard information they think will disprove Paul's support:
- USA Today reported in 2004 that there had been a RECORD LOW turnout of Republicans voting for Bush against Kerry (these are the people being called by polling agencies)...to the tune of only 6.6% of registered Republicans. In other words, Ron Paul's "scientific poll numbers" are extrapolated data representing the likely percentage of REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED FOR BUSH IN THE LAST ELECTION who would vote for him. Those numbers are low? Go figure.
- Ron Paul is drawing support from Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, Greens, and even unregistered voters or those who have simply refused to vote in the past two elections (like myself). To argue that all these people are being represented in these polls (which I just explained above) is frankly beyond ridiculous. Perhaps the more accurate "poll" was the recent blind Zogby poll which polled a sample of 1,000 registered voters regardless of their party affiliation- Ron Paul ran away with it getting over 30%.

Yes, the American people are being suckered. But it is your choice whether or not to vote like one of them, or like you have a mind and an opinion of your own.

What if someone says they're not voting for him because they LIKE another candidate better?

Is there room in the political scene for those people?

Liberals, for instance?

Atheists?

I think this expresses a frustration that a lot of us Paulunteers have. My only bone of contention is the claim that Dr. Paul won't win. The People are wkaing up and getting pissed, and right on time for this election. Prepare to be surprised.

Great piece. "Get Bin laden already" thats for sure...

One, a presidential candidate who doesn't have a hope in hell of becoming president.

Adam,

I'm actually not American so I don't feel about it as strongly you do. And in the end, what I think doesn't really count...

It's just that I arrived here from Google News when searching about Ron Paul and this article was on the front page of results. And in the battle for hearts and minds, which is what elections are all about, it would be a shame to start off on the wrong foot with those you're trying to reach.

"Greetings, Nation of Suckers!" - Comes across quite elitist.

"It smacks of godless hubris."

Hubris under any guise is not a good thing.

There is nothing wrong with godlessness.

Maybe if we turned the topic to fear verses fear it might change it.

Which is worse:
To worry about terror attacks from abroad or
The complete collapse of the US dollar.

Regan was very successful with one ad he ran.
Where he showed that if you stack dollars one on top of the other it would reach x miles high.

This was a wakeup type of ad.

If Paul zeros in on this - lets say what if the paper of your $100 bill is worth more than the bill itself type of ad I think it will be much more effective.

This is what we are facing down the road.
And this will hit home.

You have the leading candidates again boxed in.
First because they can't change direction on the War.
And now a second time because they all said they will not raise taxes.

With their current platform they will have no choice but to double the tax.

People just don't know how bad things are.
And it's got to be pretty bad when your top accountant is running all over the place claiming the sky is falling.

There is no way the country can go forward on a status quo without a huge tax increase.
If Ron Paul wins and manages to get the changes he has outlined this maybe averted.

Change the fear to the fear of being pennyless verses the fear of being attacked by a terrorist.

Then you will win

I hope this article gets picked up so more people can read it. Nicely done and crystallizes my frustration about what I feel about the war, the spending, plus the lack of attention, marginalization, and smear attempts at Ron Paul. I truly hope he wins.

The people I'm talking to are not even paying attention to the elections yet. Wake up everyone you know! Let them know about this candidate.

Lastly, Americans have overreacted like this before to their shame and detriment later. After Pearl Harbor, we interned over 100,000 Japanese-Americans in makeshift camps in the middle of nowhere. But only on the West coast. How's that for stupid? Welcome back to 1941--except this time it wasn't a military bombing. It was some rag-tag pirates that snuck one past us on 9/11. The argument, "we're fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here" is the biggest line of BS ever propagated. You're right, Adam, that history will definitely frown on the War on Terror.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

BTW,
Being a liberal, it really sticks in my craw that the only presidential candidate who speaks common sense about terrorism, is on the other side.

I really wish the Dems had a Ron Paul; I'd vote for him. Even Kusinich doesn't put it together like Ron Paul does.

It's a little off my point, but I'll probably go for Hillary because she's sensible -- God, we need one of those -- and she's a woman who cares about regular folks (witness her popularity among struggling women), and she's got the strongest leader personality of all the candidates, Rep or Dem.

Except I REALLY REALLY HATE that she's out-to-lunch on Iraq like everyone else, except for Paul, Kusinich and Richardson. Only Paul really nails the sham that this "war on terror" is. A centrist like Hillary who was a little less calculating and who had Paul's views on the "war on terror" would be my ideal candidate.

As a New Yorker, Rudy scares the hell out of me. New Yorkers just don't get why the country has fallen for this madman. He was great on crime, and heroic during 9/11, but a month later he tried to get New Yorkers to let him stay on as Mayor beyond his expired term limit -- exactly like Chavez just tried to do in Venezuela. Rudy could be worse than Bush. He's nuts, he's a despot, he's rude, and he likes to surround himself with yes-men and crooks, exactly like Bush. Not that the arch-panderer Mitt Romney (tell me what you want and I'll change into that in front of your eyes) or the affable evangelist Huckabee who doesn't believe in evolution (what!?) is any better. The GOP is really scraping the barrel. Ron Paul is the only one with a brain.

Anyway, that's my run-down on the candidates.

Back to the rant. I state here and now, that historians will say that in the early part of the 21st century, Americans lost their minds. Like lemmings they followed a fool over the cliff. We're living in a novel by Joseph Heller. It's Catch-22 time, folks. Remember the last eight years for the rest of your lives, my fellow-Americans -- because that's when America was, for the very first time, ruled by an utter fool. A failed businessman made it to the top on his daddy's name. Let's hope it's the last time we vote for a fool.

Adam Ash

Sometimes when I'm fantasizing about the America perfect America, I like to pretend that this campaign is the moment where we all realize the problems with a runaway government.

And when historians look back they will say "that's when Americans woke up, brought its troops home, elected a nice little old man for president because he was smart instead of handsome, got rich, and flipped the bird to the rest of the world".

Sometimes I also imagine Ron Paul calling John McCain a "dipshit" and cold-cocking him in his ugly cheek. That's more likely to happen.

What is this 'paulunteers' thing - it's silly sounding. 'Paulbots' was so much better. Stick with it, embrace it.

What I'll say for this article is that Adam kept his irrational Bush bashing to a minimum (for him) and I think he only mentioned the word 'neocon' three or four times, which is pretty good for him.

On the other hand, it's chock-full of nonsense. The high point being his repeating of this bit of simplistic nonesense from Ron Paul:

Ron Paul: "They're not attacking us because we're rich and free, they're attacking us because we're over there."

Adam,

I can only take issue with one thing you said among everything that you wrote in your excellent article and follow-up, that "the Republicans are really scraping (the bottom of) the barrel". Hell, they're out of the barrel and into a cesspool, from all I can see! Except for Ron Paul, of course. He is the one daisy in a big field of turds, IMO.

AMEN BROTHA!!!!

Stop believing the flippin boob tube and you americans may get a clue about the crimes your government is committing around the world - before it's too late to make a difference anymore (i.e. irreversible tyranny). And you have to get rid of that immoral federal reserve corporation and get back to sound money. the rest of the world also suffers from your exported monetary inflation, you know! your filth pollutes this planet.

Adam, Adam, Adam,.... You go on about how you think Ron Paul has a lot of what this country needs, and then you resign yourself to voting for Clinton. Now, my distaste for Hillary aside (which I admit to), can't you see that there are conservatives out there doing the exact same thing;...guys who probably like Dr. Paul's true conservative positions on taxes and gov't regulation, but can't agree with his stance on Iraq. I hear these conservative types all the time talking about how mad they are at Bush and all the rest of the neocons for how they've ruined the Republican party and don't even represent established traditional conservative values anymore, but when they have a libertarian like Ron Paul as an option, like an abuse wife who keeps going back to her abuser, they just reflexively keep saying "Thank you sir, may I have another!"

If you keep voting the way you've been voting, you're gonna keep getting what you've been getting. And you'll deserve it!

TRUE. A Nation of stupids because we follow the media and believe on the establishment like sheep headed for the slaughter. We eat poison foods full of pesticides and chemicals in excess like fatten pigs. We buy junk we don't need like consumer robots and drive SUVs on torched paved earth. We live inside a/c boxes with no life. We are victims of the pharmaceutical companies that use us like guinea pigs. Yea we have become a Nation of Stupid Zombies.

Wake UP! Take your country back. Abolish the Empire and Restore the Republic and stop being so STUPID!

There is nothing wrong with godlessness.

Adam,
I appreciate the sincerity of your comments, and especially your passion. But are you saying that the one major thing that keeps you from voting for Ron Paul is because of his party affiliation?

With all respect, I would ask you and others that have the same inclinations (as I did, just weeks ago) please consider that in the end, it's not a football game.

Paul is a unique candidate in being able to appeal to a part of voters that most candidates don't even know exist. People like myself are getting excited about him in spite of his party affiliation (which incidentally seems to be in mortal terror of him), Because he truly is running for every individual US citizen.

The others are not running for any of us. Yes, they do their best to appeal to certain segments of the society, calculating which words or phrases will sound most appealing while committing to nothing.

Thanks for taking time to express the truth about the state of Americans right now. No matter what, I will not stop supporting freedom, Ron Paul!!!

We're supporting Ron Paul with everything we've got! $, signs, stickers, parades, petition signatures. It's very gratifying to be in a grass roots movement. The people we've met in the Paul meetup groups are as diverse as America (as in United States), they have a great love of their country, and they know big government is not the answer.

$ 9 trillion national debt
$ 450 billion +- spent on Iraq so far
$ 3.00+ gasoline,
65,000 troops in Germany, 30,000 in Japan,
30,000 in Korea
Borders not secure
depreciating dollar

You bet I'm supporting Ron Paul

Dean in Arizona:

You're probably right, dude. We've all gotten so used to voting while we hold our noses that we don't even realize we're cutting the people we vote for way too much slack.

Listen, I like the libertarian stance of Ron Paul, and I'm equal parts libertarian and liberal myself, and a fiscal conservative who believes that taxes should be paid, and more-than-their-fair-share by the rich, but I can't see myself voting for a GOP guy. Even one as sane as Paul, because then all the neocons and evangelicals would be along for the ride, and I'm REALLY sick and tired of how the neocons and evangelicals have ruined the party that was once led by sane folks like Rockefeller and Eisenhower (remember him? he was the one who warned us about the military-industrial complex), but is now ruled by loonies who don't believe in evolution and think Gitmo should be expanded.

Both Dems and Reps rip us off, but the GOP has really set a standard for corruption and letting the rich feed out of the trough like no-one before. We can't let those bums in again.

On the Dem side, Barack is inspirational but kinda lightweight, Edwards has good ideas but is not that up on foreign policy, Biden is sound but a little too full of himself, Richardson has good ideas but lacks charisma .... so that leaves Hillary, who is a fairly sensible centrist with a not-so-secret weapon -- Bill Clinton, who could restore respect for the USA in the world with one lightning visit to all the world capitals.

So yes, Hillary is by no means ideal, but on balance she's the best of a medium to bad lot, Dem or Rep. She doesn't tell it like it is like Ron Paul, but he's still a GOP guy, which means the neocons and evangelists will get a platform again, and I can't stand 'em.

Now if Ron Paul were an independent, wow -- that would be something.

Adam Ash

Excellent writing. It is incredible to me the rhetoric/FUD that drives this conflict. People will say you're against the troops for your opinions (mostly facts I believe but we seem to be in the minority)

Calling the Iraq War a war is really a joke. The US military is so vastly superior to any fighting force our 'enemy' has that this isn't war - it's a schoolyard bully pushing around the little guy. When the little guy gets a cheap shot in we go crazy with vengeance. Today I was thinking about the first 'shock and awe' bombings in the early 90's. I wonder if the middle east think of 9/11 as their 'shock and awe.'? I'm not unpatriotic and I don't think we deserved or invited the attacks - but it's useful to think about the point of view of others.

If we were in a proper war we'd just dust Iraq and be done with it. Instead we're in a conflict with very unclear criteria for success. I think it's a giant mistake to push democracy onto people who have been born and bred into a religious state. It's like trying to convince someone they've chosen the wrong religion.

My ramblings aren't nearly as eloquent as the original blog - very nice work. I wish Americans would engage in an honest debate about the choices our leaders have made.

I don't agree that Ron Paul has no chance of winning. Its very early in the race yet, and his popularity is growing exponentially. And if all the would-be-supporters who repeat the mantra "Ron Paul can't win", would refrain from sharing that opinion, it would really help. There's a fine line between realism and pessimism. I truly believe he could win. Also, Cheney and the neo-cons were not freaked out by 9/11, they were pleased like pigs at the trough, they got what the wanted. google PNAC.

Adam, if you want to get the Neocons and evangelicals out of the GOP, not to mention some of the other crazy racists and conspiracy weirdos, just promote Rudy Giuliani. If Giuliani gets the GOP nomination they've promised to go running to a third party, and nothing could be better for restoring the party of Roosevelt and Rockefeller and Ike.

Dave

iswuzwilby:

I think Cheney and the neocons were both pleased as punch that 9/11 gave them the nudge they needed for their pre-9/11 agenda to invade Iraq, but they were also totally freaked out, and they still are.

Now they're looking for an excuse to bomb Iran, which was also part of their pre-9/11 agenda, but they're fast running out of excuses for this exercise -- thank God.

Adam Ash

I agree with almost everything that you've said, except...

"In teaming up with the Religious Right, the GOP is acting out of the big Evangelical trauma - their unnatural sense of sin about their natural sexual desire. It's driven the Religious Right, and the Republican Party, to fear and hate queers."

What exactly do you mean here? An unnatural sense of sin? Are you calling faith or a religious belief about sin unnatural? Are you saying that by nature we have desires for same sex encounters? I won't get into a long theological debate, but I want to understand your thought process with this statement.

First, from the perspective of desire and sin, not all things that we desire are GOOD for us. Sure, I could go out and bang everything that moves, but what do I get out of it? Other than a massive ego, possibly a penicillin prescription. The point of sin is that something isn't good for us: physically, mentally, or spiritually.

Second, are you saying then that our natural desire is to be with same sex partners? Umm, not everybody, sir. Though I don't judge people that do, I think that is blanket statement which is completely meritless and ridiculous.

Please clarify. There are some folks that like to use the words "religious right" or "social progressive" or "liberal" as dirty words that are scapegoats for all things that are wrong in society based upon their personal ideology. Personally, I think we always look to blame a group that holds different values than we do to justify why we believe what we believe. I'm hoping you are not doing that, and have a purpose for that remark.

Other than that - love the blog!

Adam Ash--what a GREAT piece. Thank you so much. You've expressed in words exactly how frustrated I've become with the idiocy of this whole mess.

We are living under this fascist administration, our troops are being killed, injured, and traumatized for life, we're being wiretapped, chipped, taxed to the nth degree, propagandized by the corporate owned media, losing our commonly owned and taxpayer paid for hospitals, roads, national parks to privatization, terrorized by our government who is constitutionally bound to protect our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we're trillions of dollars in the hole...basically beyond bankrupt, our dollar is worth nada. I mean...c'mon. How much more can we take?

That's why this Ron Paul Revolution is growing stronger and stronger every day. Ron Paul will be our next President or we can say "goodbye to hollywood."

MC:
I thought I was clear enough: sex is good and natural -- hey, how otherwise would the human race continue? -- but the Evangelists think there's something sinful and bad about it. It's natural to like sex, and it's unnatural to feel guilty about it, or to surround it with fear. That's what I thought I said.

Adam Ash

P.S. Evangelist sex scandals are instructive -- always the crocodile tears and the begging for forgiveness when evangelists are caught with prostitutes and such.

Hillary Clinton is not, in actuality, a centrist, nor is she sensible. Calculating, yes. Fake, yes. But sensible she lost.

I say lost because she started out as a Goldwater Republican way back when. Somewhere along the way she found that she could accomplish more politically through embracing globalist socialism. You say Bill Clinton could sort this mess out. You fail to realize that while he is a smooth and charismatic diplomat, he will not be the person running the show. No, Hillary is far too power-hungry to let her husband be the star again. She will not leave Iraq - ever. Don't be fooled into believing the Democrats want this war over any more than the Republicans.

What the general public fails to realize is that the neoconservatives are merely disenchanted liberal warhawks philosophically bound to Israel. Hillary Clinton is as much a neoconservative as any AIPAC supporter or CFR member.

What you can expect under Hillary is an even greater expansion of government power and a legacy of unbearable debt from the socialization initiatives she will push through Congress. In Bill Clinton's day, even he did not expect that he could push that hard at eradicating civil liberties and get away with it. What Bush, Cheney and cohorts have done has left a lot of greedy politicians drooling at the chance to have the now near-dictatorial power of the executive branch on their side.

Ron Paul is the exception. He's the reluctant candidate, the modern "Mr. Smith" descending on Washington. Unlike the Democrats, he will massively cut spending overseas and at home and bring our troops home quickly and safely. He will restore the office of President to honor and the tarnished reputation of the United States to a beacon of hope and freedom- for its own citizens first and foremost. He will never promote a conflict which is not absolutely necessary to the defense of our country. He will do as Andrew Jackson did and take on the international bankers running the Fed and the bureaucrats stealing the fruits of your labor at the IRS.

If ever a country deserved its enslavement, it is one which fails to see the wisdom of Ron Paul.

What if it turns out that Americans aren't all terminally stupid? What if the terminally stupid ones are also terminally lazy and they don't even bother to vote? What if the educated populace has actually AWOKEN and turns out in MASS droves for Ron Paul? Don't be apathetic. Join the Revolution and help us elect him.

www.teaparty07.com

Garrett:
I think Ron Paul is great, but I think you are knocking Hillary for the wrong things:

"What you can expect under Hillary is an even greater expansion of government power and a legacy of unbearable debt from the socialization initiatives she will push through Congress."

"Socialization initiatives?" Please, this is just the usual rightwing crap. I wouldn't expect such bilge from a Ron Paul supporter.

Never forget that Bill Clinton inherited a deficit from the GOP, and left us with a big surplus, which the Republicans and Bush quickly turned into the biggest deficit in history. Hillary is totally conservative fiscally, like her husband (and unlike GOP stalwarts like Reagan and Bush, both borrow-and-spend extravagants).

It's the Democrats who always have to clean up after the GOP has left a financial mess. As an honorable Ron Paul supporter, you should be above falling for stale GOP propaganda. What makes Ron Paul different from Reagan and Bush is that he is NOT a borrow-and-spend maniac like they are -- and more like the frugal budget-balancing Clintons when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Adam Ash

If any of Ron Paul's message speaks to you (which it sounds as though it does), vote for him in the Primaries. All of the other candidates are pretty much interchangeable. Ron Paul (yes, GOP, but the kind that has my respect) is the only candidate with enough supporters who can stop the insanity. But we need all his supporters to make it happen!

Garrett:
One more thing: you say
"What you can expect under Hillary is an even greater expansion of government power and a legacy of unbearable debt from the socialization initiatives she will push through Congress."

But this is exactly what Bush has done -- a massive expansion of government power and a legacy of unbearable debt.

In fact, Bush has tried to expand the power of the President to the point of breaking the law -- he has whittled down our rights, attacked habeas corpus, ignored laws with "signing statements", warrantless spying, etc. etc. The man has tried to give himself dictatorial powers. No Democrat has ever come close to such a reckless expansion of government power. Or to the Bush legacy of unbearable debt.

Hillary is going to try and cut back our debt; she's said so. She's totally against Bush's expansion of government power; she's said so.

Use your head, dude. Absorb some common sense from your hero Ron Paul. Or you'll have me thinking Ron Paul supporters are as dumb as Bush supporters. I really don't want to be thinking that.

Adam Ash

The man has tried to give himself dictatorial powers. No Democrat has ever come close to such a reckless expansion of government power. Or to the Bush legacy of unbearable debt.

This is, of course, completely untrue. Adjusted for inflation, Johnson and FDR both expanded the debt and the overall cost of government enomously more than Bush has.

Dave

Oh BS, Dave,
What figures are you using? What is your basis of comparison? The Bush deficit is the biggest deficit in the history of the US by far. We're talking about a war that's costing us a TRILLION dollars, and some say will be THREE TRILLION.

Which thumb did you suck your figures out of -- your left or your right?

Adam Ash

What's more, Dave, were we in hock to China up to our ears under Johnson and FDR? Were we borrowing at the rate of billions a day from foreigners? What's the matter with you -- are you trying to beat Giuliani at the numbers distortion game?

Adam Ash

My favourite piece of Ron Paul policy is that he wants to pull the US out of NATO and the UN.

Fantastic, and really well thought out.

Granted, some of his ideas on why terrorists don't like us might sound like common sense, but reality is, the buggers have been attacking us all (collectively) for decades. (Centuries, actually).

No, Ron, they're not attacking us because we're over there (although it doesn't help), they're actually attacking us because we don't believe what they believe.

Because of that, we're infidels and deserve to die.

All the more reason to stay in NATO and remain part of the UN.

The price of peace is eternal vigilance. I would have thought the US might have well and truly have learned that lesson in 1941 and again on September 11.

As evidence that these arguments are largely bollocks, I'll cite the attacks by Jemaah Islamiyah that left 80-plus Australians and 100 or so other nationalities dead in October, 2002, in Bali - well before any invasion of Iraq.

September 11 happened before the US was engaged in Afghanistan or Iraq.

See, Osama says he's not attacking Sweden, but he did attack Australians who prior to that had had no real role to play. And he attacked Americans before they went to war, not after.

No wonder John Howard became George's new best friend and subsequently sent troops to Iraq. I don't agreevwith it, BTW, but I agree even less that we just stand there waving flowers at mass murderers in the hope they'll just leave us alone.

Somewhere between Bush's hardline stance and Ron Paul's let's just withdraw from the entire world and go back in our shells approach, there might be an answer.

Certainly, talking with anyone at all might be a good start, no matter how you feel about what they've done.

Whether it'll make any difference in most cases remains to be seen.

Adam: Thanks for directing your skills in such a worthy direction. Your piece captures the zeitgeist well without arrogance. In fact, this kind of righteous anger is humbling and humble. You've struck a chord with many.

On Hilary v. Ron: I know you haven't met Ron Paul b/c you care about integrity and you're not ready to vote for him yet. I don't agree with him on everything but he'll always defer to the truth when he knows it. Sadly, I believe Mrs. Clinton will not(see campaign contributors). What lobbyist is going to exert pressure on Ron Paul? To me this is the key.

There is a failure of understanding this enemy, understanding his reasonings, his motivations. There are several informative books, difficult to get, but well worth the hunt if you are lucky to find them. One was written by Abdallah Azzam, founder of Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK-which would come to be known as al Qaeda), the book is indispensable in understanding this enemy: "The Main Obligation of Muslims is to Defend the Land of Islam". Osama bin Laden was extremely influenced by Azzam and his book, however, it appears that it has rarely been read by many Westerners, especially those who are attempting to wage this "war on terror". If they had read it then they would know several things about this enemy, the first is that "he" is driven by a devout, one could say fanatical connection with Islamic territory and Islamic "holy places". The second is that they view many of the current regimes in the region as de facto supporters of U.S. policies in the region because they have allowed the U.S. to establish bases on what they consider holy ground.
Of course, it did not help the entire situation that the U.S. government allowed over 30 MAK branches to operate under their noses for years, collecting millions of dollars in donations from the American Muslim community during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Now, if we actually look at a time-line of when the ultra-radicalization and indeed the beginning of attacks against U.S. targets, we will find that there is a very direct correlation between our introduction of troops stationed in and around the Arabian peninsula and those attacks. Yes, there were sporadic attacks prior to this period, but primarily by those who had Palestinian connections. If you recall, the majority of the Arab world was pleased that we intervened in the case of Kuwait however, it was that intervention that opened the door for the U.S. to pursue a very different policy in the region. That policy, perhaps all along, was to establish a strong presence in the region and in Central Asia. Whatever the reasons behind the implementation of that policy it consolidated several factions of Islamic fundamentalists who had felt completely powerless against everyone from the Soviets in Afghanistan, to Israel, to the U.S., into a force with a common goal, a common focus and a common enemy. That enemy was none other then the most conspicuous threat to Islam that they saw: The United States of America.

The U.S. policy that engaged the establishment of those bases in the region not only provided a focal point for decades of rage, but it became the collective focus of Islamic hatred. While there was a definite push toward radicalization due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it was the establishment of U.S. military bases that actually provided the radicals with the impetus to form and execute their radical ideals in the region and then around the world. At one time, the Mujahidin movement was relatively restricted to Afghanistan, but soon, with the new focus of perceived U.S. aggression in the region, that movement spread to Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and now, thanks to our poorly executed invasion: Iraq. It continues to spread because the perceived threat remains.

Many seem to fail to understand that the core message of the Islamic extremists is that Islam is threatened by the presence and actions of the United States. It probably would surprise many, but according to several Intel reports, and reports from former al Qaeda members, new green recruits are not indoctrinated in the Koran, but their indoctrination involves what they call the Sixth Pillar of Islam, which states that when Islam is threatened and attacked that it is the moral obligation of all Muslims to rise to its defense. The destruction of al'Qaeda's base of operation in Afghanistan and the fall of the Taliban only served to fan the flames of the extremist and expand their recruitment methods and reach. We would have done much better to have quietly and surgically taken bin Laden and his cohorts out then to have actually invaded. That would have cut off the head of the snake and then it would have been much easier to contain the radicalization of Islamist in the region.
Our current Islamophobia blinds us to a very important reality about why they despise the U.S. and why they will continue to attack us. One of the truly amazing things about our current "war on terror" and U.S. intervention is the fact that it is so unfocused and poorly executed. In particular our early actions in Afghanistan proved far less effective then our government publicized and propagandized to the American public.

Americans do not have the taste or the stomach for extended warfare, we never have. Nor do we tend to have the philosophical or political fortitude to engage an enemy, particularly this enemy, over an extremely prolonged period. On the other hand, the enemy we are now engaging is well aware of the requirements of patience and the advantages of playing their agenda over the long haul. Theirs is a philosophy that requires endurance in the face of their enemies and in their patience they strategize accordingly. We falsely assume, thanks to the Bush Administration's insistence, that since this country has not been attacked since 9/11 that our government's defense methods are working however, that assumption is based upon highly irrational assessments and miscalculations. Remember, this enemy is very, very patient and chooses his actions based upon a very determined course of action, not, as some portray, emotionalism.

While the Bush Administration made a point to publicize the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the routing of al Qaeda as a victory, the truth points to a far less decisive outcome. Long before the attacks of 9/11, al Qaeda proceeded to remove all but skeleton encampments from the region, by the time we attacked the country most of the Taliban and al Qaeda had disappeared into the Pashtun tribal areas of Pakistan and other Central Asian countries. We were told that bin Laden was surely in a tunnel in Tora Bora, unfortunately for the Administration, bin Ladin had, in my opinion, left Afghanistan long before the invasion, probably through Karachi and probably on a private jet belonging to one of the Royal Saudi princes.

The battles of Tora Bora and Shahi Kowt did nothing but allow the remaining skeleton encampments to slip over the border into Pakistan...our ally in this extremely poorly planned and executed "war on terror". Such intervention obviously serves a political purpose because it is definitely not serving a military purpose. It is not producing the results that this government claims even though they are outspoken in those claims. In the end, we will see that the results in both Iraq and Afghanistan will not only fail to produce the stated results this government has espoused, but will fail to add any security to this nation and its people.
Our leadership in this country has one of the most myopic mentalities that I haven't witnessed since the Johnson Administrations. It appears to be oblivious to the potential results of its actions, both here at home and abroad. Bush lead this country to war, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, based upon very dubious assumptions and it shows.
Our actions, based upon those dubious assumptions will eventually cause the complete failure of the Bush goals in both countries. That failure is already becoming very evident in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will, in the end, lose both efforts to the Bush/Cheney myopia. The Bush Administration either dismissed or failed to listen to experienced counsel on the possible effects of not only the invasions, but also occupations of those countries and there was plenty of experienced voices warning that there was a distinct probability of eventual failure. Our intelligence community had almost a decade of direct experience in Afghanistan from running one of the largest covert actions in our country's history while combating the Soviets, yet the Bush Administration blatantly ignored those with that extensive experience. We are, in essence, making the same mistakes that the Soviets made in Afghanistan, and the same mistakes that the British made in Iraq. We have "installed" Westernized and backed governments in both countries and in a very real way we have attempted to install a Westernized culture on both countries in hopes that it would eventually pacify the Muslim populations. It is however, counterintuitive to attempt such actions without understanding the culture itself and this Administration simply continues on the same path that it ignorantly assumes will work.

Our leaders, who have both misjudged and miscalculated, not only our enemy, but also the effects of our policies around the world and especially in the Middle East and Central Asian countries.

Many see this "war" as a chess game, with strategic moves and counter-moves. The issue and the problem, for 109 years, has been that this country has played its foreign policy just like a chess game. Unfortunately, in a chess game there is a definite "known", given moves and strategies designed specifically for those moves; that is not true in international relations or successful foreign policies intent on providing this country with adequate and appropriate security. This country has made what its "wise" leaders consider strategic moves, just like in chess, but those moves have been, for the most part, based upon isolated actions and reactions while not taking into account that such moves always have consequences that can potentially nullify the move or make the move lose its potential value or in a worse case scenario: cost far more than if the move had never been made in the first place.

This government has been involved in a type of piece-meal strategy based upon an almost purely military arrogance that has prevailed in this country for decades and that strategy is not only severely outdated, but stagnant, extremely conventional and based on assumptions that can no longer be relied upon. At one time our military might was enough to keep, at least in the strange mental world of our government leaders, the rest of the world "in line" with what they considered U.S. interests, but that is no longer the case. First, there is no real definition of our national interests, only a very indistinct and broad definition that inherently creates a large degree of obscuration. On top of all of that, there is a conglomeration of mismatched analysis combined with the pressure of political and special interests that has, particularly in the last 7 years, produced far less reliable information than is required. In many cases, the information has been either willfully ignored or dismissed without proper consideration by those who are the "decision makers" in this government.

This may sound odd, but in numerous cases this governments preconceptions have, because of certain internal ideologies, colored the policies and actions taken by this government without consideration of the consequences of those actions. In many ways, judged by the decisions of this government, it has deliberately shelved proper policy and action for that which they consider much more suitable for their ideological point of view. This has proved, time and again, disastrous and it is still going on in this government.

Ron Paul is not advocating a policy that ignores potential threats, but he has stated that it is time that this government put away the shortsighted policies that make this nation a target for any enemy or potential enemy. He has also advocated that this government take a far wiser approach to both foreign policy and our interventions, both covert and overt. He has advocated the necessity of understanding our enemies, their motives and therefore their potential actions based upon those motives. From my reading of Ron Paul, he takes a very sober viewpoint and advocates that this country do the same because if it ignores the provocation of its policies then it will continue to suffer the consequences of those provocations.

History is filled with polices that we now mimic and unfortunately, the outcome of those historic polices either proved to be militarily disastrous or financially disastrous or both. Most countries that pursued almost identical polices as we now pursue eventually collapsed from external conquest or internal economic and political collapse that lead to external conquest. If we are so arrogant to believe that we are different then the great empires, the great civilization of the past then we are in for a very rude and very hard reality.
Our leaders have poorly defined its foreign policy and haphazardly pursued a foreign policy that is not based upon actual defense of this country, but upon a view of broadly and extended interests. Until we limit our foreign policy and its actions to a purely defensive base then we can expect even more attacks, more threats and more terrorism.

It is interesting that we rarely hear that the Jihad proposed by bin Laden is considered defensive in nature, by the tenants of Islam. We have been induced into believing that they are just attacking us because of a non-descript reason relating to our way of life or our freedom, etc. That suggestion is not only based upon a politically induced and propagated fantasy by this Administration, but on the assumption that the American public will wholly accept and swallow such a ridiculous, and I might add, baseless proposition. Until we can face the reality behind the attacks and threats of this "war on terrorism", then we will continue down the path that has brought more failures over the last 45 or 50 years than successes. It is time to defend, really defend this country for a change.

Ron Paul has not only been absolutely correct in his assessments about the foreign policy foibles of this government, but has predicted most of the resulting blowback of such policies over the years.

As we can see, even by the posts of some on this subject, many simply do not understand that when an action carries with it a potentially dangerous consequence we should be compelled to look at that action and determine if it is worth the consequence. If the risk associated with a particular action is higher than the benefit of that action then it would behoove us to throughly assess whether we should engage in that action.

Our foreign policy, for the last 40 years at least, has been gradually broadened to include anything our government can indiscriminately call "national security interests" however, if we take a very hard look we will find that such a definition is so broad that it has become unfocused and potentially dangerous to us.

There is a direct correlation between the broad application of such a policy and the increase of threats against this country. Such an application stems from a particular mindset found within a jingoistic attitude that appears to set itself above all reproach or self-criticism, which has always proven to be a dangerous mentality.

Unless we are able to look at all of our actions, particularly when it involves other sovereign nations, then we will continue to pursue a feckless foreign policy that ultimately places this nation and its people in danger from those who will seek to defend what they consider their interests, whether those interests are territorial or religious in nature.

Our actions, all of our actions have consequences and if we are not prepared to accept such consequences or the potentially heavy price for our actions then we would do well to reassess such actions.

Jingoism is not only dangerous, but irrational and prevents the healthy foresight required to maneuver within this world. Form all I have read, Ron Paul has both the foresight and the ability to rationally tell the difference between a proper role this country should play in the world and one that is improper and potentially dangerous. Ron Paul also knows that this county is no more equipped to be the Social Worker of the World anymore than it is equipped to the the Policeman of the World.

Thanks Adam. This took me back to the days when I used to write righteous rants, which started back about the time that a nation of dumbasses were considering voting for Gore or Bush. The frustration of realizing that many of my fellow citizens were idiots eventually mellowed and as of late I haven't truly snapped while writing a piece. That is fairly amazing considering I now write mostly against this inhumane drug war, the virtues of cannabis hemp, and the ridiculousness of the occupation of Iraq.

America, Americans, can not be this stupid. The war in Iraq is and has always been strictly at the behest of our corporate masters. Every single aspect of the war on drugs points to an inhumane, unsustainable pipe dream that is likewise fulfilling the bidding of corporate America. Neither have anything to do with justice, neither come close to being humane. That my fellow Americans cannot see this and understand the urgency with which these two wars need ended is beyond comprehension.

Mind-bottling.

Keep writing bro. Someday the unreachable will be reached.

Peace

STM:
Bin Laden said he attacked us on 9/11 because US troops were in Saudi-Arabia near the holy sites of Mecca and Medina. That was the reason he gave, and I believe the bastard. It probably didn't help that there were burka-less US female soldiers occasionally scantily-dressed near Mecca either -- you know how misogynist those Arab Muslims can get.

Attacking Bali was an effort by the local Al Qaeda affiliate, inspired by 9/11, as were subsequent attacks in London and Madrid.

Much earlier, Al Qaeda attacked the US embassy in Kenya and the SS Cole because of our meddling in Middle-East affairs.

The attack on our troops in Lebanon during Reagan's presidency was for the same reasons of us meddling in Middle-East affairs.

But Reagan did the correct thing: he pulled our troops the hell out.

Bush-Cheney did the incorrect thing: they invaded and installed our troops for the long haul in the Middle-East.

That's why we're in the mess we're in. If Bush-Cheney had acted like Reagan, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. If Bush-Cheney had followed traditional conservative values, we wouldn't be in debt, either. Bush-Cheney have betrayed everything conservatives stand for, and everything the GOP used to stand for.

So there. Stop drinking the Bush-Cheney Kool-Aid, dude. Absorb some common sense from Ron Paul. And vote for him.

I'm mighty sick and tired of Bush-Cheney Kool-Aid drinkers like you, STM, and all the other GOP morons who are still drinking it, instead of trying to save their party from imminent loss of power for the next 25 years -- and maybe from death, because that is what the GOP is flirting with.

Adam Ash

STM:
Read Republicae's brilliant comments, and learn.

"While there was a definite push toward radicalization due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it was the establishment of U.S. military bases that actually provided the radicals with the impetus to form and execute their radical ideals in the region and then around the world."

Right on, Republicae.

"Our leadership in this country has one of the most myopic mentalities that I haven't witnessed since the Johnson Administrations. It appears to be oblivious to the potential results of its actions, both here at home and abroad. Bush lead this country to war, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, based upon very dubious assumptions and it shows.
Our actions, based upon those dubious assumptions, will eventually cause the complete failure of the Bush goals in both countries. That failure is already becoming very evident in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will, in the end, lose both efforts to the Bush/Cheney myopia."

Right on again, Republicae.

"It is interesting that we rarely hear that the Jihad proposed by bin Laden is considered defensive in nature, by the tenants of Islam. We have been induced into believing that they are just attacking us because of a non-descript reason relating to our way of life or our freedom, etc. That suggestion is not only based upon a politically induced and propagated fantasy by this Administration, but on the assumption that the American public will wholly accept and swallow such a ridiculous, and I might add, baseless proposition. Until we can face the reality behind the attacks and threats of this 'war on terrorism', then we will continue down the path that has brought more failures over the last 45 or 50 years than successes."

Right on, again.

"Most countries that pursued almost identical polices as we now pursue, eventually collapsed from external conquest or internal economic and political collapse that lead to external conquest."

We are already losing the economic battle with China. We're totally in their debt. If they sell our dollars, we will collapse into a depression. They've got us by the short and curlies, and Bush-Cheney let that happen.

Thank you for your analysis, Republicae. It's good to meet wise truth-sayers on Blogcritics. One Republicae is worth a thousand STMs.

Adam Ash

And one Ron Paul is worth a thousand Bush-Cheneys.

The future of the GOP lies with the Ron Pauls, not the Bush-Cheneys. Too bad there is only one Ron Paul, and millions of Bush-Cheneys.

Adam Aash

You are absolutely correct Adam and if you want to see what our other interventions have caused just look at our intervention into WWI. At the time, prior to our entry, both sides of the conflict were about to sue for peace with each other because they were drained of the necessary resources to continue their war effort.
Our entry changed the equation drastically and as we know, provided a victory to the allied side. The effects of this victory were devastating to the German nation in particular due to the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles. It was the severe reparations and national humiliation of that Treaty that later gave Hitler a platform to promote his extreme nationalism.

Imagine if the U.S. had not entered the war, both sides would have eventually settled back into a peaceful imperial decay. There would not have been an environment in which Hitler could have risen to power, WWII would not have happened as it did, 6 Million Jewish people would have never died in the concentration camps, the Middle East would be totally different today because the British would have never artificially imposed borders in the region and Israel would not exist in its present state. The Soviet Union would not have gained control over Eastern Europe.

The world would be different, very different. Our actions have consequences, major consequences and we need the foresight to determine if we can live with such consequences and the potentially massive dangers such actions pose for our own national and global well-being.

I have to agree. Anyone who doesn't vote for Ron PAul in the republican primary is a sucker for the status quo and guilty of the murder of millions of innocent Iraqi's by complacency.

Say it! brother

Adam, you cite a few things Hillary has said as to why you think she will do something. Problem is, she also says she will continue the war in Iraq, she said she wants to give bonds to every baby and when that's criticized she changes her tune. She's almost as bad as Romney on the flip-flopping.

If you really want to stick it to the neocons and evangelicals, you should register as a Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary. Although you mentioned you were a New Yorker so it's too late unless you're not already registered to vote. Nominating Ron Paul will do many things. It will really piss off the neocons and evangelists because they are the ones that oppose him. It might also cause a mutiny at the convention where they overrule the nomination of Ron Paul due to some technicality or alliance against him which would further spell the death of the GOP as the media would be all over it and it would make quite clear the party's intentions at destroying the political process. Call that check mate for the GOP.

BTW, Hillary is not a fiscal conservative like Bill (he happened to get a surplus because the tax structure remained the same during the internet boom). With a Dem Congress she will spend just like Bush has when he had a GOP Congress. We need a Dem Congress and Ron Paul as president so he can veto the stupid stuff (like Hillary's Woodstock Museum earmark). That will end the war, and bring fiscal restraint.

YOU are a sucker if you let the two party system make your choice for you. Vote for the person who would be the best President.

That was well written and insightful.
All except the part about Ron Paul having no chance of becoming president. I'll forgive you for that and, like Mandella, put aside my trauma and not shout "I told you so" later.

Yes, we let one attack which killed 3000 poeple bring us into a war which killed over half a million and cost over a trillion.

We have also used those 3000 deaths to justify the destruction of freedoms which over 25000 died in the revolutionary war to bring us.

And furthermore, 9/11 was the only successful large scale terror attack on U.S. soil in history. Why do we let 1 attack constitute a war. You could make an argument about the USS Cole and our embassies in Africa being bombed as provocation but that just re-enforces the Dr.'s point.

Anyway thank you for the 'mostly correct' insight.

Umm, just curious:

All these intricate analyses of the Islamic mindset vis-a-vis The Great Satan seem to assume that Islam has only been a force to reckon with for about 75 years, if I've read this thread correctly.

Does Tariq's invasion and conquest of much of the then civilized world in the eighth century; which conquest lasted nearly eight hundred years not also give us some insight into the mind-set of radical Islamics referred to by STM above, to wit; that they cannot abide infidels, and that their holy book directs them to spread Islam throughout the world, eliminating those who would resist?

STM didn't make this up, people. It's history, and it's in their book.

And does RP honestly think we can negotiate meekly and not from a position of strength with a philosophy that stones a woman after she is raped because she was seen in a vehicle with a man who is not her husband?

A way of life that demands the death penalty for a teacher whose students give a teddy bear the same name as their prophet, whose name is the most popular in their culture?

Good luck with that.

I think we need to be rethinking our Mideast policy, but trying to negotiate from a position of weakness with the people currently running most of Islam is a VERY bad strategy.

I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian, and I haven't decided who I want to vote for yet; but that one aspect of RP's platform is enough for me not to vote for him.

I know this is a little off topic and for that I apologize, but when considering the election of our next president I think it is important in ways we might not fully comprehend at this time.

The American People are once again given scant choices when it comes to another election; in fact, we only have one choice among the cadre of regurgitated spectacle of candidates presented by the Entrenchment Political Apparatus of the Republican and Democratic Parties and that choice is Ron Paul.

Each party have had their respective turns at the ruination of this Country for decades with no solutions to the problems that they themselves have caused; every four years we have been given choices that amount to no choice and their staged production continues to recycle the same type of candidate time and time again.

The Entrenchment Parasitic Ticks from both political parties have spent the last 60 or so years sucking the Life Blood from this Nation and have asked the People to keep smiling and supporting their feckless leadership decision-makers. While they present different Actors, the screenplay is the same. In each election, the candidates get on their stage prepared with their well-rehearsed lines and their emotional plea to the voters rings out with a facade of sincerity, they cry out their empty promises and give no real answers to real issues faced by this Nation.

Every four years this nation is swung to the Republicans or the Democrats, all hoping that this time it will be different, but it never is, it is always the same because the agendas are always the same. They care nothing for the People of this Country and at times, witnessed by the folly of their legislations, it appears that they care little for the Country itself.

Until I read Ron Paul's book: A Foreign Policy of Freedom, I had no idea just how twisted our government really was. Ron Paul has proven to be a voice of clarity in a mass of confusion, misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement in government. His writings and knowledge of what is considered by many to be esoteric subjects like monetary policy, economics and the misapplication of a misdirected and broadly applied foreign policy is absolutely astounding and right on target. Ron Paul has correctly interpreted the consequences of these government's actions time and time again. He predicted how the events would unfold years before they did and he was correct in his predictions.

In numerous occasions, Ron Paul stood before the House of Representatives speaking out about the total lack of reason behind many, if not all of our foreign policies. He stated correctly that on most occasions this country has aided, armed, trained and entered into treaties with both sides of a conflict. He is correct when he states that this country has such an unfocused and broadly applied foreign policy that we fail to determine if our actions are actually in our Nations true best interest. In essence, we have no foreign policy, just a conglomeration of miscalculations that tend to bite us in the ass more times than it actually provides us with security or solutions. We have spent decades and billions upon billions of dollars on programs, policies and decisions that have failed to provide us with any real solutions.


Ron Paul understands that America is not the Social Worker of the World any more than we are the Policeman of the World. Most, if not all of our foreign policy actions have not only proved feckless, but many times harmful to the actual security interests of the American People and this Nation. It is time that we returned rational thought to this government, restrained by a reality that few politicians on either side of the political spectrum grasp.

I can guarantee you this, if Ron Paul is not elected in 2008, by 2012 we will all wish he had been. Our entire monetary system is on the brink of reaching its mathematical terminal point. Every Fiat Monetary System, the one this government and the Federal Reserve have YOKED us with, have a Maximum Possible Lifespan and will terminate.

Every single dollar has been borrowed into existence and carries a full debt obligation. Since the entire system is totally built upon and created by debt there will come a time when the debt siphoned off more than the economy can produce. We are almost at that time period and have seen that the entire global economy, which is based solely upon the Fiat system, is having a hard time tolerating even minor disruptions, such as small interest rate increases. Mark my word, it is ending and nothing that the government or the Federal Reserve does can stop the system reaching its inherent termination point.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that understands that fact and, it appears, he is the only candidate that has an understanding of monetary mechanics. The rest are simpletons who appear to lack understanding of the concepts that will affect this Nation and its People in ways that we would rather not experience. Yet, those candidates and their gullible supporters seem eager to consume their regurgitated tripe and happily promote their empty and unrealistic promises.

I have been a successful businessman for 4 decades, I have seen these political hacks of special interests and corporate darlings decimate this Nations economy and manufacturing base. They have continued to drive the working man and woman of this Country into a slow road to being nothing more than productive serfs. I have witnessed the Administrations of 11 Presidents in this country, each have given this Nation precious little in the way of real leadership or common-sense decision making. Ron Paul is that voice of common-sense and a principled intellect beyond reproach. IT IS TIME TO PUT AMERICA AND AMERICANS FIRST-VOTE RON PAUL FOR A REAL CHANGE!!!!!

Adam, I forwarded your article to Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty. I hope they read it. We're working our guts out to get Ron Paul to a win in the primaries. If you ever wanted to spend time working for a good candidate, not is the time, and Ron Paul is the MAN.

re: #56 -- December 6, 2007 @ 07:12AM -- Republicae

Fantastic comments and great little article in itself. By the way, I am a Muslim. You are the first people to state what the Muslims have been saying since 2001.

Muslims are not an evil race who want to wipe out freedom and democracy. The Muslims simply feel outraged by US foreign policy, which, lets face it, has been "we will do whatever the hell we want, when we want as long as we get more oil".

Go Ron.

Adam, you normally sensible person, you. Sorry to see you seeming to support Ron Paul. The guy is makes a few sensible statements that are obvious to anyone, but in many ways he's nuts. He believes in the, uh, "War on Christmas." He claims to be a Libertarian, but is also anti-choice and opposes gay rights. (What the f*ck???)

This is why Paul's sensible pronouncements on foreign policy won't gain really wide traction. When it comes to America itself, he lives in bizarro-land. And it's why the rest of your article won't get a fair enough hearing either.

You are absolutely wrong, Mr. hateful Adam (...!)Ash.
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Your PAID opinion is not worth an onion. Your fault is, not to be able for clear thinking, because you are making stupid republican propaganda of rich greedies. It would be nice, when you try to understand, why America is hated from the whole World for dumbness, hypocricy and worldwide dictatorship. A REAL free and democratic world don't needs Apes in front as clownleaders. And the next BigPlayer would be China togehther with most of the asian countries, if you like it or not. And don't forget, they have YOU in the hand because of their huge dollar reserves...if they want, they can crash your freemason-dollar instantly... go down America, we keep you in mind with laughter :) :D ;P
We don't need you...but you need us.

Mathias, from Holland

Clavos:

If you look at the mentality of not only Islam, but also of Christianity at that time period you would find a similar creed propagated within the Christian church. Is it excusable to say that Islam was anymore radical than those within the Christian lands to spread, either by preaching or by sword, their respective religions. If you carefully read the history of that period you will find a much more tolerant attitude toward both Christians and Jews by the Muslims than from the Christians toward the Muslims or Jews. In fact, at the siege of Constantinople the Christian Crusaders massacred men, women and children, most of which were themselves Christian; needless to say, atrocities were on both sides of the religious spectrum at that time, but it is much more convenient at this time to condemn the Muslims because they are currently considered the bad guys. Such skimming of history usually provides us with an ability to excuse our own attitudes and in turn our actions.

Ron Paul does not advocate anything other than a position of strength, but he advocates that we use that strength wisely instead of rashly. Whether a nation's law decides a woman should be stoned after she is raped because she was seen in the car with another man who is not her husband is not the issue here, neither is it any of our business even though we find it morally repulsive. Those things are not our concerns but the concerns of those people living in those nations.

Our business is our own nation's defense, not the world even though there are plenty of evils that plague this world, it is none of our business to be the world's social worker or police. We have enough woes to deal with ourselves than to spread our troops all over the world. Ron Paul is absolutely correct when he states that our military is spread thin, ill prepared to deal with every single conflict in the world and it is being utilized for purposes that it was never meant to be used. Our responsibility ends at our shores, period! Ron Paul has stated on numerous occasions that we should be so strong that no one dare attack us and that we should let it be known that if attacked we will respond with a decisive retaliation regardless of world opinion, but that we will not engage in, finance, arm or intervene in conflicts that don't concern us or threaten us directly.

I dare say that people who seem to think that Ron Paul doesn't believe in a strong military has just listened to the talking-heads instead of reading his actual writings and speeches over the last 20 years. Ronald Reagan gave Ron Paul a very strong compliment when he said that Ron Paul was one of the few Representatives in the House who completely understood the need for a strong and focused military. Perhaps you would do well to read what Ron Paul thinks about the military instead of what the mass media tries to portray.

The question under discussion seems to be: Did al-Qaeda attack us because we're infidels and need to be destroyed, or because we've planted our ugly great size twelves all over the Middle East?

I think it's a bit of both. The folks masterminding al-Qaeda and their ilk most assuredly think we're all godless harlots and would benefit greatly from being dead. But as STM said in an earlier comment, it certainly doesn't help that we're clomping about over there. Our foreign policy gives these mullahs, or whatever they like to be called, the perfect rallying cry for impressionable young Muslims who wouldn't otherwise give a damn one way or the other.

Mathias from Holland:
Did you read my piece? It was an all-out attack on US foreign policy -- so what are you talking about? Why are you calling me hateful when I agree with you? Lay off that fine Amsterdam Thai stick, dude.

James Henderson:
Thank you for forwarding my article to Dobbs & Cafferty.

All you Ron Paulites:
Is Ron Paul really against abortion and gay rights, like Jon Sobel says? That doesn't sound very libertarian to me. I want the government out of our bedrooms, and if I'm a woman, to get its hands off my body. How can Ron Paul call himself libertarian if he's pro-life and anti-gay? Say it ain't so, you Ron Paul supporters.

Adam Ash

Actually Jon, I think you have your facts a bit twisted. Ron Paul states, very simply, that it is not the federal government's role or within its power to mandate anything about such things as marriage, whether it be gay marriage or straight marriage. It is none of the federal government's business either way, whether to forbid or support marriage of anyone.

As far as abortion, he believes that it also is not in the delegated powers of the federal government to mandate, one way or the other, whether it is legal or not, but up to the States to decide. Also, he also points out the total irrationality of the law governing the issue when it comes to say someone who murders a woman who is pregnant because the murderer is charged with two murders because it the fetus is viewed as a person in such cases, even though when it comes to abortion the law states the fetus has no rights. He also states that it makes no legal sense to say that the fetus has no rights under the law when it comes to abortion and yet a doctor can be sued for malpractice if, while treating a pregnant woman, the fetus is harmed in anyway. Talk about bizarro-world, how can such laws co-exist when the law is supposed to be blind?

He believes, and rightly so, that the role of the federal government is strictly limited by the Constitution and that the States maintain ever other power not delegated to the federal government. Now, who makes up the States, the people and it is up to the people to determine and enforce all the Rights enumerated within the Constitution, the problem is that we have chosen to relegate that responsibility and in doing so we have all been place in jeopardy by the scope and reach of the federal government.

Now concerning minorities and rights, we need to take a much harder look at just what it has come to mean to be a minority and how that minority status actually is adversely affected by the status itself.

We must all come to understand that as long as anyone depends on their minority status to determine their rights then the majority will only recognize a degree of rights based solely upon a specified set of what the majority considers allowable and therefore, contingent freedoms. In other words, the majority will always restrict the rights of the minority unless the minority can base their rights upon something other than the specific attributes and or definitions of that minority.

The government is not inclined to, nor does it obligate itself to ensure the Rights of any person in this country although it was created to protect the Rights of every individual. It is up to the individual to combatively insist and aggressively pursue his or her Rights before the government. It is People, first and foremost, that form the State Republics through acting on a cooperative and voluntary basis, but with an extreme prejudice toward their Rights. It has been said that the majority opinion is the true ruler; if that is the case then perhaps it is time for us all to become the majority and not base our Rights upon a specific status as a minority. This does not preclude any attributes that a person has who is a member of a minority or their identity, but in the eyes of the majority and therefore the law, a minority is only a minority and will remain as such as long as they base their Rights solely upon their minority status.

The problem with every democracy is that the majority always rule to the exclusion of the minority. The reason the Founders purposed a Republic instead of a democracy was to blunt the force and power of the majority through layers of checks and balances to equal out the playing field. The more democratic a political system becomes the more the majority "lords over" the minority. It is strange that people are all for democracy until it actually rules against them and in a democracy, since the majority always rules, the minority will always suffer under the prejudices of the majority. There is a defined tyranny within a democracy and yet so many clamor for such a system because they feel that it will provide them with more voice while just the opposite is true. In every democracy the government system appeals to the material interests of the majority's large voting block, in turn the government will then merely placate the minority with a degree of rights and yet never "grant" them the same degree of rights as the majority.

The established elite ruling class, the governing "gentry" fears nothing more than a unified People. As long as sectionalism can be promoted and therefore pseudo-legalized, then this nation will remain divided and that is exactly what the "State" desires: a house divided. Until We take the stance that the only status that is legally meaningful and powerful is that of the Citizen, then We will remain a conquered People subject to the will of majoritarianism and their preferred democratic tyranny. The majorities will always, whether by vote, referendum or even by a form of legal or judicial enforcement, secure their perceived rights over the rights of a defined minority. Majoritarian democracy desires the artificial designation of minorities, it keeps the "majority" holding the reigns of power while providing the minority with a degree of satisfaction based upon their struggle to gain or retain a certain allowance of rights, but such a system will never provide equality because it inherently promotes and maintains social, racial, religious, ethnic or sexual divisions among the People.

The "State" readily supports the idea that a particular class or group requires or is entitled to recognition based upon that class or group or category, because segmentation will continue to allow its decisions to be based upon the majority and keeps the perceived minority, of which ever particular group, in check or within a majority defined scope of "civil rights". In such a "democratic" system the minority will always yield to the will and power of the majority. The majority will always enact policies which ensure that the minority is not strengthened and will never allow the total empowerment of the minority. The "State" will always seek to breed social divisions in order the restrict minority power or empowerment. The solution therefore, must be found through a very powerful and very different view: that of the Majority of Citizenship.

It is interesting to note that you rarely hear the word Republic, but democracy is tossed out by most politicians and for good reason: a democracy will always protect the majority first and keep any minority under the thumb of the ruling powers. Minorities are not only required, but desired within democratic majoritarian system of government because it will always demand that all minorities yield to the will and allowances of the majority. A Republic is anathema to democratic majoritarianism because it equalizes the power and force of government among all People of the Land when the People press their Sovereignty, based solely upon their Natural Rights of Citizenship, over the "State".

Ron Paul is not for equal rights as the government seeks to impose, but Individual Rights based upon the only foundation that assures such rights and that is the Constitution, not an arbitrary application based upon someones opinion or what the majority states as accepted or not.

The South African Constitution has gay rights and pro-choice enshrined in it, so they don't have problems of the majority checking the minority. What's the chance of a constitutional amendment to enshrine gay rights in our Constitution?

Adam Ash

replublicae #76 states: It is none of the federal government's business either way, whether to forbid or support marriage of anyone.

This is an absurdly simplistic point of view. Humans and their institutions are not robots. What do you mean, "support"? Do you mean actively encourage something? Then you have a case. But if you mean "prevent tyranny against," then you're on extremely shaky ground. The federal govt.'s role (besides national defense) must *precisely* be to prevent tyrannies, whether they are tyrannies of the majority, or of an oligarchic class such as big business.

Republicae sez:

"Clavos:

If you look at the mentality of not only Islam, but also of Christianity at that time period you would find a similar creed propagated within the Christian church."

True. But while Christians (with the possible exception of the fundies) have become more or less peaceful since then, the radical Islamists, as we all know, have not, and are still advocating the most extreme elements of their holy writ. As an atheist, I can't abide religionists of any faith who advocate or practice murder and genocide in the name of their god, and I believe the attitudes displayed by Islamists worldwide in recent years warrant a more proactive stance than RP professes.

"Whether a nation's law decides a woman should be stoned after she is raped because she was seen in the car with another man who is not her husband is not the issue here, neither is it any of our business even though we find it morally repulsive."

I agree. But it is indicative of the values of those who have sworn to eliminate all infidels, and that's why I pointed it out.

"Our business is our own nation's defense, not the world even though there are plenty of evils that plague this world, it is none of our business to be the world's social worker or police...Our responsibility ends at our shores, period!"

And yet, there are evil forces prowling the world; forces which are sworn to eliminate US and all other nations similar in culture to US.

"Ron Paul has stated on numerous occasions that we should be so strong that no one dare attack us and that we should let it be known that if attacked we will respond with a decisive retaliation..."

And here we are, not only the strongest contemporary nation, but also the strongest in history, yet we were attacked, on our own soil, without provocation in 2001. I prefer that we fight (if we must), on the soil of others, not here at home, and Ron Paul's plans for national defense leave us vulnerable in that regard, IMO.

I'm basing this conclusion, BTW, on what I have read on his official campaign website, and from direct quotations from his speeches published elsewhere, as well as what he has said in the debates.

Let me make it clear that I'm not saying that RP is not in favor of a strong military, I simply am saying that I disagree strongly with his ideas about where that military should be deployed.

Adam: Hillary sensible in what way? That she won't take a stand on anything until she has seen the poll numbers?

Please elaborate. Her votes to give Bush carte blanc to invade Iraq, bomb Iran, for the Patriot Act, for the Military Commissions Act, etc., does not strike me in anyway as being "sensible". Frankly, I don't see a lot of difference between her and any of the other GOP candidates (Ron Paul excluded). Both Gravel and Kucinich are much better choices (IMHO).

Don't let the media make up your mind for you. Vote for the person who best echos your views and who has a track record to back it up (no matter what chance MSM thinks they have of winning). Judging from the views you express in your excellent article, I would assert that candidate is NOT Hillary Clinton.

Clavos:

Our so-called pro-active stance that we have taken over the last 30 years has not only provoked a response from the Muslim world, but it has contributed to our own insecurity. Ron Paul professes that we should mind our own business, get out of the quagmire of the Middle East, stop intervening and "setting-up shop" in that region and tend to our own business.

Like you, I have nothing for the superstitions that tend to rule the religious mind and govern their actions. There is, at this point, a minority of Islam that has been radicalized, but that will rapidly change if the actions of this country continue to trespass in areas that Muslim people feel is sacred. You said something extremely interesting and it poses a question that few are either willing to ask or consider: "I believe the attitudes displayed by Islamists worldwide in recent years warrants". Why are the attitudes displayed by Islamists expressed violently in recent years? Could there be a very valid reason for such attitudes and actions and if so, then what is that reason?

As I said, if you look at recent history you will see a very direct correlation between our military actions and the attitudes and reactions of the Islamic world. You can follow a timeline of events and actions this government has taken over the last 20 to 30 years and you will see a growing response from the Muslim world. That response is not in a vacuum, it relates directly to our governments military actions and to what the Muslim world perceives as a direct threat to their sacred lands, their way of life and their religion. We are viewed as invaders, it is as simple as that and as invaders we will be fought. We are not defending ourselves or our country by building massive bases in that region, we are only opening our own country up for more horrible attacks by taking such steps because we are perceived as a threat and invader in their lands.

I dare say that we would be far less vulnerable by following Ron Paul's plans instead of following the same path that has brought us to this point presently. Obviously, what we have been doing for the last 30 years has not made us any safer otherwise we would not be facing such threats according to that logic. If such policies were working then we would have never been attacked. If the efficiency of such policies and the massive amounts of funding for our military was effective then why are we currently facing such issues with our security?

Our military is the most expensive, but that doesn't mean that it is either the most efficient or the strongest in terms of providing the proper and ideal defense of this nation. The key word is defense and until we change our policy from one of intervention to that of actual the actual defense of this country then we will continue to face a growing threat from all types of enemies, not just Islam.

If you think we were attacked without provocation then perhaps you should review your recent history of the time-line of events. Indeed, in 1990 we entered Kuwait to drive our Iraq and in the process we also entered and set up bases on the Arabian Peninsula and we remained, that was part of the provocation for the events of 9/11. That is not just a supposition set forth by Ron Paul, but it is a fact that has been extremely well documented by both the CIA, the 9/11 Commission, the French and British Intel Services and numerous other "think-tanks". The provocation was stated by bin Laden himself, very plainly and openly, for years prior to the events of 9/11.

Until we strength a focused military, efficient in the actual defense of this land, not some foreign shores then we will continue to face such threats. Ron Paul has stated, and it is obviously true, that in the foreign countries, where we are based, were actually more protected on 9/11 than we ourselves were. Imagine every single standard operating system of this massive intelligence system and military machine failed on 9/11. Ron Paul is advocating a very rational defense policy that includes strengthening our military for such defense, but not for intervention which has not served our welfare well over the last 50 years, I mean if you believe in the effectiveness of such intervention then just look at the results of such polices and tell me that they have made us safe. What have been the results?

Jon:

The federal government's role, according to the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, is strictly limited as a reflection of the States; the States are limited as a reflection of the People. The whole concept of a representative Republic was put in place numerous checks and balances to ensure the most ideal and fertile ground for individual liberty. Such liberty, according to the guys who wrote the Constitution, was best served in a layered system of government, each working together and striving against each other to maintain that balance. According to the courts, it is the responsibility of each citizen to combatively promote his or her rights before the law, it is not the responsibility of the government to promote such rights...I can provide you with case law if you like.

Once again I want to bring up the superior system of the Republic in respects to the equal application of the Rights of all Citizens. The erosion of this extremely important principle from the governance of this country has been devastating to the cause of the individual, no matter what race, creed or gender.