Comments on Conservative for Change: The Revolution-Freedom and Liberty

Re. Anonymous | July 1, 2008 2:35 PM :

I ag...

2008-07-22T23:38:00.000-06:00

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

All that is needed for evil to succeed is good men...

2008-07-03T16:14:00.000-06:00

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.

President Bush should have supported Ron Paul’s bi...

2008-07-02T12:47:00.000-06:00

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.

Glad to see the rEVOLution grow, just wish you and...

2008-07-02T04:37:00.000-06:00

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.

The sooner we all realize what's happening, the so...

2008-07-01T22:54:00.000-06:00

The sooner we all realize what's happening, the sooner we can escape from stuckflation!

Well, thanks for writing this. I'm glad another g...

2008-07-01T18:24:00.000-06:00

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.

I encourage all who support Paul's vision of Liber...

2008-07-01T17:00:00.000-06:00

I encourage all who support Paul's vision of Liberty and Limited Government to to join his Campaign For Liberty.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Oh, a case in point I failed to make. DR. Hunter S...

2008-07-01T16:38:00.000-06:00

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.

If a Sunni dictator, who was placed in power by a ...

2008-07-01T16:28:00.000-06:00

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....

Hamilton Roberts, check out "Dangerous Nation" by ...

2008-07-01T14:35:00.000-06:00

Hamilton Roberts, check out "Dangerous Nation" by Robert Kagan sometime. a good historical resource...his new book is excellent as well.

"This is "non-interventionism" and was in fact, th...

2008-07-01T14:34:00.000-06:00

"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.

actually it was a link, which directed to Harvard ...

2008-07-01T14:30:00.000-06:00

actually it was a link, which directed to Harvard Law professor Michael Ramsey...a very informative and interesting piece.

You post some neocon rag of a blog who, in a nutsh...

2008-07-01T13:34:00.000-06:00

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.

Ayn Rand certainly wouldn't agree with Paul on For...

2008-07-01T13:23:00.000-06:00

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."

follow the links here, paticularly to Michael Rams...

2008-07-01T13:20:00.000-06:00

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

"Saddam signed a Cease Fire agreement with the US ...

2008-07-01T13:19:00.000-06:00

"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.

...and, to comment on your Reagan quotes. He was ...

2008-07-01T13:17:00.000-06:00

...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.

calling it illegal just shows ignorance.

Sa...

2008-07-01T13:16:00.000-06:00

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.

Ron Paul is for limited government a la Constit...

2008-07-01T13:12:00.000-06:00
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.

So, to be clear Johnathan, you're an advocate of i...

2008-07-01T13:11:00.000-06:00
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?

btw, this is consistent with Jefferson and what he...

2008-07-01T13:05:00.000-06:00
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

yes, the guy who considered Reagan a traitor is th...

2008-07-01T13:01:00.000-06:00
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."

"Paul is either ignorant or lying about the FP stu...

2008-07-01T12:50:00.000-06:00
"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

check out Jonah Goldberg's column from December, "...

2008-07-01T12:47:00.000-06:00
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

if the GOP let paul speak, the racist newsletters ...

2008-07-01T12:42:00.000-06:00
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