Saturday, June 28, 2008

The Revolution-Freedom and Liberty


We give Ron Paul a lot of crap on this site, especially his supporters for trying to uncoil the Republican nominating process in St. Paul later this year. But we must give credit, where credit is due. Ron Paul is a force to be reckoned with, and his latest adventure proves just that. I have just finished reading his new book "The Revolution: A Manifesto" and was very surprised. This is one of the greatest visions I have seen on Freedom and Liberty.


We define conservatism as the ability of the individual to succeed on his own. That government is not the solution to our problems; it is the problem (Ronald Reagan). Ron Paul has a tight grasp on this concept and is what made him appealing during the primary. I even came pretty darn close to supporting him for President. There was only one thing that drew me away and that was his stance on foreign policy.


His foreign policy stance was well argued in the book, more than it was in the primary. It is hard in a debate that has about 10 candidates trying to state their position on the various issues. The one thing he said in the debates that triggered a lot of resentment was that the reason we got attacked on 9/11 was because we were over "there". That statement was the reason I did not support him for President.


There wasn't enough time to adequately explain that statement, but he does in the book, and it starts to make you think. I still believe that the Constitution grants the President the ability to defend the country at all cost and take pre-emptive action. However, our country has taken the approach over the past half century of being the worlds policeman. That is the reason we are still in a lot of countries and wasting a lot of money that could be used for essential needs.


The size of our government has gotten to big. Ron Paul explains brilliantly how our Constitution constrains the government and that we have moved beyond the constraints. Just look to the right and you will see. That clock ticks and ticks and Washington does nothing to stop it. They are the ones that are contributing to it. We need drastic cuts in government spending to stop a disaster that is waiting to happen.


Since the end of the Republican primary I have become a fan of Ron Paul. I don't regret not supporting him in the first place, but nonetheless I have become a fan. This book is essential to the conservative movement. It outlines the principles behind liberty and freedom and what it will take to get us back to sanity. It says on one of the reviews that this is the next Conscience of a Conservative, and that was by Barry Goldwater Jr.




Posted by at 6/28/2008 11:48:00 AM

43 Comments:

  1. I'm not really involved in the St Paul efforts, but all the delegates want to do is garner a speaking engagement for Congressman Paul. Wh McCain will be the nominee, and nobody doubts that. Butthere's more to the convention than dropping balloons on the nominee - the entire GOP platform is drafted during the convention, and it is important for the conservative voices to be heard, even if it does make McCain uncomfortable. The Ron Paul supporters are fighting to get your voice heard. Don't you see that?
    ReplyDelete
  2. Good review. One of my pet issues that I am in full agreement with Ron Paul is monetary policy. I like his idea of repealing legal tender laws and allowing competing currencies. I think the market should decide what money is, historically it has been gold and silver. Of course Federal Reserve Notes and any other paper money would be free to compete, but I don't think they would win that competition.

    I would even recommend reading Michael Scheuer's books. Imperial Hubris or his newer one, Marching Toward Hell.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the informative review. I just finished reading this book as well and now that I have seen Paul's stances fully explained, I agree with most everything, including foreign policy. I support the effort to nominate Paul - McCain will be the final death blow to the GOP.

    It's easy to see how mass media can manipulate public opinion in a world of sound bytes...I believed "longshot" and "no chance" statements about Paul and now I'm sorry I fell for them - never again.

    It does look like you have one more thing to do - change your endorsement to Ron Paul at least until after the convention.
    ReplyDelete
  4. This revolution is more than about one man, Dr. Paul. This awakening will not end in September...nor November. We're getting involved at the local levels....we will change the direction of this country from within. Thank God for the passionate new patriots!
    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm encouraged by your review. I have the book but have not begun reading it yet. I think I'll shut down the computer and crack it open right now.
    ReplyDelete
  6. The marginalization of this great man has not stopped yet. GOP conventions have literally had paid shills to overcome platform changes of following the constitution, and disavow legitimate Ron Paul delegates. GOP conventions in Hawaii, Nevada, Missouri and others have been a disgusting display of ignorance..if not treason. Why would such a real and constitutional platform be forbidden to the voters? Our country is more on the brink of losing its greatness than many see yet. Please continue to look. Although the little book contained a lot of Truth, it is not even half of it. We really needed a Ron Paul presidency. Without it, it is now up to us.
    ReplyDelete
  7. In St. Paul there is going to be a freedom rally, it is not an attempt to take over the convention, it is an attempt to remind Republicans of what they stand for.

    I am 1/2 way though the book and love it. You are right about one thing, the main issues facing us right now are much too complex than sound bites can cover.
    ReplyDelete
  8. The GOP and the MSM did to Ron Paul exactly what they did to Ronald Reagan back in 1976 - they marginalized him. I believe it is very obvious to most members of our party that we nominated the wrong candidate back then. I would hope that we do not make the same mistake again, although I realize the chances for a Ron Paul nomination are slim.

    Ron Paul has earned my trust and respect, unlike many others who do not honor the oaths of office that they have made.
    ReplyDelete
  9. I was convinced over a year ago that Ron Paul was and is clearly the best choice we have out of all candidates for US President. Unlike the author of this blog, my conversion against this war happened in November of 2006 and I come from a strong military family where my father worked for the NSA, and I had other brothers serve for the Marines and Navy and we are all aware that our government is out of control and we have talked quite a bit about foreign policy and agree that the US is on the wrong path and so the resentment for Bush, McCain, and others is deep and we do not trust them and now support for impeachment hearings and have these traitors removed from power.

    I also wish to express that our shared feelings of resentment towards Busy and McCain also extends to members of our US Congress who are also cowards and liars. For when our Congress decided to authorize the funding for a war and not properly follow the US Constitution, it is quite obvious we have cowards in public office and they also need help being convinced to step down and resign. The problems we face in our nation can no longer allow us to compromise our values as people and as Conservatives and far too often, we've watched these same men put their hands on the Bible and take an oath to defend the Constitution and violate their word and their duty to the American people. The people have awakened and members of the US Intelligence community and the military are supporting Ron Paul and will do everything in their power to protect him.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Ron Paul has cured my Anti-Americanism:

    Ich bin ein Amerikaner!

    Best whishes from Munich, Bavaria, Germany, EUSSR!

    Good to see, that Americans are waking up! The world needs you as an example, not a deterrent. Liberty is too weak over here, so please, go back to your roots. I can`t think of no other country where the people have such a powerfull weapon against tyranny: their constitution. Ours is crap.

    I love you guys!

    Fabio
    europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com
    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you for being opening minded and taking the time to read the book, many do not.

    You are a good man! Even if you don't change your endorsement, at least I know that you've taken the time to look at alternatives respectfully.
    ReplyDelete
  12. I would be thrilled to see Dr. Paul in the white house, however, it will not happen. He is not in the CFR tank with the blue bloods.

    If he were elected into the office of president they "the blue bloods" what assinate him within a month.

    The corporation, that is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by design, is going bankrupt, and there is not a damn thing anyone of us can do to stop these crazy bastards from realizing their Lucifertarian agenga to "fight, screw and win the world.

    For that which was foreseen outside of the time and space continuum, can not be change within the time and space continuum.

    However, this mandate will reach its maximus, as Sholom will return to this realm and kick their asses back to the hell they have created.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Welcome to the Revolution, friend.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Just as a minor quibble, Goldwater's book was "Conscience of a Conservative", and not "Conciseness of a Conservative". You might want to edit that.
    ReplyDelete
  15. I am a Ron Paul supporter. As I was reading these comments and what stricked me only one persom wrote his name and his not an American!!!!!!!!!!!

    Here you can see for yourself the freedom is not here. You are scared, you are Anonymous........

    Oh please!!!!!! stand up on your feet.
    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks for the positive review. I've been a fan of Ron Paul since the beginning of the primaries but I understand that his message often takes a lot of context to be properly explained, and given that he wasn't allocated as much time in the debates (or even invited to a few) I don't think the country had as good an opportunity to take a close look at him as with most of the rest of the candidates.

    The best speech I can think of of his is one from Cheyenne Wyoming back in October here:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=hKVvgyIEqbQ

    (I didn't take the video)

    It's a nice speech because it's given to a small crowd (=less cheering and more just speaking his mind) and I think he had a good opportunity to get into a lot of detail. That's probably the video I'd most recommend out of the thousands on YouTube.
    ReplyDelete
  17. Paul is either ignorant or lying about the FP stuff and "why we were attacked". It does not take much research to debunk his points, look up Robert Pape whose eggs he put his hopes in. A far-left academic who fudged numbers to try to make a case. Islam was founded to create a global Caliphate at all cost, there is over 1300 years of history that debunks everything Paul says when analyzed.

    he's a crank and an idiot, but understands some econ 101.

    also, he is not a Conservative. he is a Rothbardian Anarchist at heart. He called Ronald Reagan a Traitor in the late 80's over this stuff. fruitcake is they name
    ReplyDelete
  18. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wrong_paul.html


    Paul (May 10, 1988): The American people have never reached this point of disgust with politicians before. I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration.
    ReplyDelete
  19. if the GOP let paul speak, the racist newsletters would be all over the news the next day to smear the entire GOP as racist kooks, which is part of their strategy anyway but especially this year.

    the media would suddenly care and he'd go through the ringer. along with Rockwell
    ReplyDelete
  20. check out Jonah Goldberg's column from December, "The Tradition of Ron Paul".....gets into the Rothbard link and some actual history.

    Link

    One things Paul is not, is a Reagan or Goldwater for alot of reasons. especially Foreign Policy though
    ReplyDelete
  21. "Paul is either ignorant or lying about the FP stuff and "why we were attacked". It does not take much research to debunk his points, look up Robert Pape whose eggs he put his hopes in. A far-left academic who fudged numbers to try to make a case. Islam was founded to create a global Caliphate at all cost, there is over 1300 years of history that debunks everything Paul says when analyzed."

    You have no clue and if you believe that preemptively bombing Islamic nations out of fear that they may "infiltrate" and take over will make us safer, *you're* and idiot. This is the talk of a homicidal maniac, i.e. John McCain.

    "he's a crank and an idiot, but understands some econ 101."

    He's neither, but you sound very much like both. He was the most polite, respectful, and cheerful candidate by far and his broad and deep understanding of economics dwarfed the other chumps.

    "also, he is not a Conservative. he is a Rothbardian Anarchist at heart. He called Ronald Reagan a Traitor in the late 80's over this stuff."

    An anarchist is clearly opposed to the philosophy of government at all levels, Ron Paul believes in *limited* government. There is a huge contrast between the two. An anarchist would not spend 30 years in government and attempt to win the presidency - to believe such a thing is a huge intellectual contradiction. Rothbard was an "Anarcho-Capitalist", meaning that people and markets can regulate themselves. Ron Paul is for limited government a la Constitutional Republic (the form of government that made this nation what it was at its greatest), anti-abortion, a states'-rights advocate, pro balanced-budget, pro-market, pro-free-trade, and so on - he was THE ONLY conservative in the race.

    I'm curious "johnathan" - who do you support for POTUS?

    fruitcake is they name
    ReplyDelete
  22. yes, the guy who considered Reagan a traitor is the "only true conservative"....actually that would more closely resemble Thompson of those that ran.

    some reading material, here Robert Spencer takes on some of his absurd claims, and especially Robert Pape.

    Robert Pape is Wrong on "Suicide terrorism"

    one example, now for Paul's absurd claims and little Islamic Theology and history is all you need.

    Ron Paul and John Stossel: A feast of wrong assumptions

    Muhammad's expansionist imperative is open-ended: "I have been commanded," he said, "to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah."
    ReplyDelete
  23. btw, this is consistent with Jefferson and what he reported on the Spiritual Decedents of todays Jihadist. Jefferson ended up fighting what was America's first "War on terror" which is right in line with what Islam Teaches and was commanded by Allah...

    It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [2] [3]

    --Thomas Jefferson
    ReplyDelete
  24. So, to be clear Johnathan, you're an advocate of illegal, preemptive wars against Islamic nations based solely on their faith, which you see as a threat?

    How many Islamic nations have invaded the United States...ever? How many times did Afghanistan invade the United States and attempt to convert us to Islam? How about Iraq? How about Iran? Now, how many times have we invaded those nations (or talking heavily of doing very soon?) How many military bases have we built on land considered holy to these people? How many times has the US engineered political turmoil and coups in these nations? What would YOU do if a foreign invader threw a grenade in your living room and killed your family? Would you say to yourself; "Well, I did believe in this faith, I guess I brought it on myself...". Or, would you become militant and oppose the invasion?

    Are we talking about the crusades during the middle ages or are we talking about 2008, here, in America, where our economy is falling apart due to the weight of world war?
    ReplyDelete
  25. Ron Paul is for limited government a la Constitutional Republic (the form of government that made this nation what it was at its greatest

    and in the "limited Govt" era of the founders, we had the ALien and Seditions acts which make the Patriot Act look like Child's play. Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines and Navy to WAR with the Barbary Sponsor States without going to congress at all....which is arguably in line with the Constitution.

    Paul has zero training in Constitutional Law and demonstratebly a dunce who takes quotes of the past out of context and especially ignores the politics of the era and especially what all they did! A Constitutional Literalist is very different from a Constitutional Originalist, the former is intellectually dishonest with itself.
    ReplyDelete
  26. calling it illegal just shows ignorance.

    Saddam signed a Cease Fire agreement with the US that allowed him to stay in power, he violated it repeatedly. Each time it was an Act of War against the United States, he tried to assassinate our POTUS, shot at our planes and Funded and harbored Islamic Terrorist. Including Al-Qaeda which the media has completely whitewashed in recent years.

    the "pre-emptive" part is about WMD getting into Terrorist hands....it was down the list of reasons for the war. Congress debated on and voted on over 20 Cases for the war.!!!! This is basic facts, easily accessible....Paul takes the moveon.org dishonest route, being a Rothbardian and all who thought the Cold War was a Hoax.

    btw, the Constitution does not have any Textual Requirements. If it ever went to court, and it won't because those like Paul know this, it would be argued that the War Resolution was a Declaration of War...along with the Unamious Vote for Regime Change in iraq in 1998.
    ReplyDelete
  27. ...and, to comment on your Reagan quotes. He was a failure. He was elected as a limited-government conservative and proceeded to expand the federal government at an unprecedented pace. His meager tax cuts were a start...but a far cry from a return to Constitutional government.
    ReplyDelete
  28. "Saddam signed a Cease Fire agreement with the US that allowed him to stay in power"

    allowed him to stay in power? Oh I see, we're supposedly the be all and say all of who can and can't be a head of state, anywhere in the world.

    We didn't belong there in the first Gulf War and we don't belong there now.
    ReplyDelete
  29. follow the links here, paticularly to Michael Ramsey. Harvard Law Professor and former clerk of Scalia's on the Presidents Foreign Affiars powers.

    http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6863

    the Federalist Society has a good debate up between Constitutional Originalist vs. what Paul is, a "Living Document" type on National Security related issues, FISA, etc.

    http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.13/default.asp
    ReplyDelete
  30. Ayn Rand certainly wouldn't agree with Paul on Foreign Policy:

    "Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

    This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.

    A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights."

    --- Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness
    Chapter 13 - Collectivized "Rights" (1963)



    That is what Goldwater represented. Paul represents the Birch soceity and Rothbard on this stuff. the nuts who thought Eisenhower was a Commie plant and the Cold War was a Hoax at the same time, all to "expand Govt."
    ReplyDelete
  31. You post some neocon rag of a blog who, in a nutshell, says; "Ron Paul is wrong...shut him up!"...and that's supposed to sway me somehow?

    Moving on...

    Ron Paul has commented on Ayn Rand and has made it clear of his disagreements w/ her philosophy.

    And, in closing, I'll simply say that it is immoral to attack someone who has not posed a direct threat and/or attacked you first. Defense is moral, (unfounded) aggression is not.

    This is what we're talking about here...peace, freedom, and trade. This is "non-interventionism" and was in fact, the doctrine of the founding fathers. I'd post the quotes but it's pointless, you've heard them all before.

    With the largest military in the world and the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons on earth, we're hardly in danger of being invaded and converted to Islam by these dirt-rag, third-world middle eastern nations. Get real.
    ReplyDelete
  32. actually it was a link, which directed to Harvard Law professor Michael Ramsey...a very informative and interesting piece.
    ReplyDelete
  33. "This is "non-interventionism" and was in fact, the doctrine of the founding fathers."

    you can post all the quotes you want, but they are out of context and ignore things they actually did and just as importantly the politics of the era behind them. Example, Washington was engaged in over 10 different "entangling alliances" at the time of his Farewell address, he was speaking of one specific alliance at the time, with France that he was against. The reason, it was wrote by Hamilton and was an attack on Jefferson who did want an alliances with France and help them to defeat the British.

    One quick example and basic history...heck, Jeffersons Foreign Policy was very interventionist itself. Paticularly against the Islamist he had to confront.
    ReplyDelete
  34. Hamilton Roberts, check out "Dangerous Nation" by Robert Kagan sometime. a good historical resource...his new book is excellent as well.
    ReplyDelete
  35. If a Sunni dictator, who was placed in power by a nation which he considered an alley for many years, funded or assisted a Shiite former CIA operative, I'll eat a box of crackers under fifteen seconds! Next you'll be telling me that Egyptians are aiding Tibetan monks! Let's not assume we even know the slightest bit about the finer details of history. Hell, I've seen it re-written a google-plex of times just within my lifetime! The big picture- the rise and fall of empires- SHOULD be the issue at hand, saving semantics for a later day. I DO believe that alliances are necessary during a time of WAR, however, outside of that context I think it foolish to be entangled with nations who wish to exert their influence and authority, a'la the USA. Jefferson and Hamilton loathed each other, and would contradict one another's views for the sake of contradiction. Raymond Burr can be attributed for ending that feud in a hurry.
    As for Reagan, when did it become taboo to say something negative about the man's policies? I think we can all agree that Reagan, like Paul in many ways, was at the very least a person of determination and unwavering principle. Yes, I know I know, Reagan defeated communism vis a vie bankrupting their top-heavy socialist system in an unrealistic arms race, but now our very own boys and girls in congress, the White house and the pentagon are turning the gun on us for the sake of multi-national banks and corporations, power, and filthy stinkin' greed! Yet we all sit around quibbling amongst each other over the dainty aspects to history, meanwhile we're being sold out. McCain is a sell-out. Obama is a socialist. You tell me then Jonathan, where my alliance should lay with, other than Dr. Paul? I'm not 100% with Dr. Paul, but I'm not 100% with Jesus for that matter. And though Muhammad said something quite unnerving 1600 years ago doesn't necessarily mean the majority of Islamists are hot to trot on the idea of actualizing that position. I don't believe that Jews are going to start sacrificing their sons' on alters, or Christians are going to be racking anyone soon simply because a prophet or angel or pope of their faith from ages long past said it should be so. Next. I'm sorry, but when Dr. Paul makes the FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR BEN BERNNAKKE (sp.) squirm like the literal worm that he is, I feel hard pressed to think that some ECON 101 student could do the same. What solutions do YOU propose Jonathan? Finding the problems are easy, finding the answers are not. I don't have all the answers, and I also don't have the seeming arrogance that Jonathan does in thinking I'm omniscient, but I know that as far as the candidates that were, RON PAUL gets my vote. And this bologna about quoting "smart people from Harvard" to solidify your arguments are preposterous. Know-it-all professors are a dime a dozen, and each contradict one another constantly. Ultimately, I'M the only authority I listen to, and to me, well, you know the rest....
    ReplyDelete
  36. Oh, a case in point I failed to make. DR. Hunter S. Thompson thought 9/11 was an inside job. DR. William F. Buckley did not (although he DID publicize his opinion that this WAR IN IRAQ and current US foreign policy was and continues to be- complete bollocks.) There you have it. Two really smart, ivy league school educated, dead white guys. Two completely different positions. Bring on the Revolution.
    ReplyDelete
  37. I encourage all who support Paul's vision of Liberty and Limited Government to to join his Campaign For Liberty.

    http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
    ReplyDelete
  38. Well, thanks for writing this. I'm glad another good soul figured it out, even if the truth came to you a bit late. The good doctor was our last shot at getting out of this horrific mess with our liberty somewhat intact, and now that hope is gone. I grieve for my country and I fear for our future. Make your preparations for what's coming, my friends. This is going to be really ugly.
    ReplyDelete
  39. The sooner we all realize what's happening, the sooner we can escape from stuckflation!
    ReplyDelete
  40. Glad to see the rEVOLution grow, just wish you and half of America had done a bit of studying after the debates.

    A basic search could have brought up this valuable resource.

    http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

    There are over a hundred documents by Ron Paul on Foreign Policy and hundreds more on every other topic you could think of. Take a look - a great follow up to his books.
    ReplyDelete
  41. President Bush should have supported Ron Paul’s bill, H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. This is the constitutional way to deal with rogue terrorist organizations. This is the way President Thomas Jefferson responded to the Barbary pirates.
    A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the President the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.
    To some that have posted certain comments: make sure you know what you are talking about before you make a fool of yourself of blogs like this one. Want to know what the constitution says...read it..it is very small...you don't need to got to law school to understand it..that was the entire point.
    ReplyDelete
  42. All that is needed for evil to succeed is good men to do nothing.

    Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the republic.

    "Action is Eloquence" - Shakespeare

    I see a lot of good words.. I want to see more action from the Colonists to bring this nation back on track. We do not need to police the world, especially when our veterans are living under bridges getting inadequate health care.

    "We the people" need to attend the Sept.2nd Rally and show our "voted in by the people" government that we mean business. Oh my, I don't mean to sound like a rebel, did I breach that new wonder of wonders the inappropriately named "Patriot act". I know when my rights are being stripped away. I believe the good Dr. has started a r3V0Lution, one that Thomas Jefferson would have been proud of.
    ReplyDelete
  43. Re. Anonymous | July 1, 2008 2:35 PM :

    I agree with everything you say, except that "Raymond Burr can be attributed to ending that feud [Jefferson/Hamilton]in a hurry."

    While "Perry Mason" Burr might have impeached Hamilton on the stand, or "Chief Ironside" Burr might have caught him in some despicable Federalist act, but it was Aaron Burr that taught Hamilton one of the unfortunate side effects of the 2nd Amendment.

    Neville Newman
    Republican/Constitutionalist
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)