Ron Paul is the only real friend of the Constitution out there. Romney has shown in many instances that he doesn’t understand many of its provisos; he’s running out of people to pander to. McCain is a liberal in conservative clothing, who doesn’t care if we are in Iraq for 100 years. Giuliani is a joke; I get the urge to do a stiff-arm salute whenever I hear him bloviate.
There was no problem with Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq until we got there. We have brought a terrible scourge on the Iraqi people. However, when we leave, it will get better, not worse, as some are saying.
Here’s a quote from an article I just read. ‘Sometimes the best way to understand a position is by contrast, so here is another amazing video of Dr. Paul getting it right on Iraq, back in 2002. Not only does he denounce the war, since “Iraq poses no threat to the United States,” but notes that pre-emptive war is an incredibly dangerous concept, and this aggression would be unique in American history. Finally, he correctly notes that Iraq is an impoverished third-world nation with no Air Force or Navy, that hasn’t hit a single one of our fighters enforcing the UN no fly zone, even after thousands of sorties.’
As for Ron Paul being a dark horse, well, he finished second in Nevada, and will no doubt continue to do well. We could quibble on the meaning of “morally abandoning Israel,” though I hardly think that giving billions of dollars every year in foreign aid to Israel’s putative enemies Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Pakistan counts as a pro-Israel foreign policy. Speaking of Pakistan, we are about to see some massive blowback from our policies over there in the last decade. Propping up a military dictatorship in the name of fighting terrorism is immoral and un-American. They are practically in a civil war already, and much of it has to do with fundamentalist anger at our irreponsible foreign policy. If only more politicians could see the value, as Washington did, of avoiding foreign entanglements.

By the way, I believe that, like “overpopulation” in the seventies, the belief that man’s activities are driving global warming is a leftist, secular pseudo-religion being forced on decent people everywhere. If we were truly serious about combatting it, we’d unleash the full powers of the free market. Instead, we get corn ethanol subsidies (but high tariffs against Brazilian ethanol, mind you!), and calls for greater government regulation of emissions. Who suffers? You and me, that’s who.


Joshua Katz: 

>>>Consider the masses who laugh at libertarianism. Ask them just what, exactly, they oppose. Is it the idea of private property? Is it opposition to theft, or to murder? These are the fundamentals of our position, are they not? Or do they challenge the application of the position to specifics? Would they maintain that it is something other than theft to take away money from Peter to give it to Paul? What word is more applicable?

>>>You’ll quickly find that most don’t oppose anything specific at all. They just think libertarians are weird, kooky – and to a certain extent, we are. While the diversity of the movement continues to grow by leaps and bounds, we remain a somewhat eclectic bunch. How could it be otherwise in a world with a public education system, where “normal” folks are taught never to look behind the curtain? Yet, this is no argument against our positions. In an insane world, only those who appear out of step with the rest will be sane. I appeared weird to my classmates, too, when I sat quietly, following the rules, and raising my hand. When breaking important rules is profitable, why not join those who break them? Look around you – success is in the government sector! Why not join in? Why not indeed. How about – because it is wrong to hit people?

Read the whole thing:

Ron Paul vs. the World

18 January 2008

Steven LaTulippe:

>>In a very fundamental way, there are really only two candidates running for president this year: Ron Paul, and all the others.

>>This is because there are really only two issues at stake.

>>The first issue is our out-of-control foreign policy. America is embroiled in shooting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We spend more on our military than nearly the rest of the world combined. We have troops stationed in over a hundred foreign countries. Manic interventionism has stretched our military to the breaking point, and has ruined our nation’s reputation.

>>The second issue is our impending economic implosion. Our government, which has shed the last vestiges of constitutional restraint, has made a myriad of promises that it cannot keep. Our outstanding obligations to fund social security, government health care programs, and everything else under the sun are rapidly bankrupting our nation. To maintain these Ponzi schemes, the Fed is debasing our currency and igniting an ugly bout of hyperinflation.

Read the whole thing!

Another awesome video

5 January 2008

I find it patently offensive that some people try to paint Ron Paul as anti-Semitic. Herewith an excerpt from a post from Spanish lawyer Jose Cohen, writing on

Here are some more “anti-Semitic” statements from Paul: in an article on he wrote: “Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists (…) Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state.(…)”

After voting “No” to a House of Representatives resolution that, during the last Lebanon war, condemned Hezbollá and supported Israel, Paul explained his decision as follows: “I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn’t authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts.”

Can anyone deduce anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism from these statements? Not at all in any rational world. What Paul is defending for his country is a legitimate non-interventionist position. His attitude is entirely incompatible with anti-Semitism. He does not oppose the aid to Israel because he considers Jews outrageous genocidal maniacs who massacre Palestinians. Nor is it because he is a die-hard anti-Zionist opposing Israel’s right to exist. And much less so is it because he is sympathetic to Palestinian terrorism. No, he votes in this manner for profound ideological reasons that are based on the U.S. Constitution and his libertarian philosophy.

The entire article is at

Harry Reid is a wienie

1 January 2008

Heard from a friend that our esteemed Senate majority leader sent a letter to Mormon bishops in Nevada asking them to tell their congregations to stop sending him criticism regarding his various stances. Seems to me that’s an implicit contravention of the Church’s policy on politics. I mean, if a building cannot be used for political purposes, and no one is supposed to support any one candidate from the pulpit, seems like a bishop should just ignore his congregation’s political activities, more or less. I hope he didn’t use the Church’s stakes directory to get those addresses!
Our Gospel Doctrine class was a little close to the edge one day. The teacher asked what people thought about Romney’s religion speech. Everyone was very approving, and I got the sense there were a lot of people in the ward who are going to vote for him because he’s “our” candidate. Booo… or maybe I should say Baa-aa-ahh!