Why Is Sarah Palin Endorsing Ron Paul’s Son?

Y’know what I love? Devoting several hundred words to defending somebody, then watching that person turn around and do something stupid.  But sadly, that’s exactly what just happened with Sarah Palin.  Via the Other McCain, she has endorsed Rand Paul in Kentucky’s GOP primary for the 2010 Senate race.

Yeah, the son of that guy.  Rand may not come across as droolingly-insane as Daddy Dumbest, and in fact is a little more hawkish (he supports Afghanistan), but his foreign policy judgment is still foolish and simplistic, including opposition to the Iraq War and paranoia over the military-industrial complex.

(For what it’s worth, there’s a website dedicated to tearing down Rand as “Too Kooky for Kentucky.”  Not having followed the race until now, I can’t vouch for its substance, and I have to admit that I get a LGF-esque “guilt-by-association” vibe from some of their stuff, but there it is.)

What does Palin think of the fact that Rand’s foreign policy views differ from her own?  Does this mean victory in Iraq isn’t as big a priority for her after all?  Is she at all concerned about giving mainstream credibility, however indirect, to Rand’s deranged father?  What is so important about this race that it’s worth the PR headaches of associating yourself with the nuts of the party?

If it’s merely because Rand’s an “outsider” like she is, then maybe, just maybe, liberals are more right about her intellect than any of us would like to admit…


63 thoughts on “Why Is Sarah Palin Endorsing Ron Paul’s Son?

  1. what a fool you are… drowned by politcal propaganda when you claim to be a student of the very institution you bastardise. you are subversley guised into behaving like a perfect pawn. i dont support either side of this grand masquerade…. a hyped up wwf style foray of one side vs the other… and if your not with us your against us. and although i do not support his beleifs in the political world i havenever seen ron paul drrol or act dumb….. and for his son to be hawkish for “supporting afghanastan”? you sir are hawkish… currently my brother serves in the 82nd airborne… he resides in afghanastan… where if we do not support the people, economy, and government… all we will have is sustainable war…… perhaps this is more suited to your liking… being dedicated so to the principals of americas founding. i assume you also have blind faith in this topsy turvery self destructive government enterprise….. wich has little to do with americas founding principals….. do you beleive the “pancake theory” toppled the twin towers? the “boomerang effect” sent a 747 through a 16 foot hole in the penagon? please i applore you… write back… tell me how i am wrong… i would love to break your mind down to the basics of understanding and see the essence of your core fundamentals shatter as you open your eyes to the truth…. the only things they can manipulate are minds and media… neither fact nor physics shall sway for them.


    • We’ve already won in Iraq, we won by 2004. We had accomplished our goals and should have withdrawn then, to let the Shia and Sunni settle whatever small disagreements they may have had.


      • Toppling the regime isn’t all that useful if you don’t leave *something* in its place to prevent the rise of a government that would do the same stuff as the old one (pursue WMDs, sponsor jihadist groups). That doesn’t mean make a mirror image of the US, or that the Bush Administration necessarily went about it the right way, but to think we could just oust Saddam and assume the job was done is ridiculous.


  2. I heard Ron Paul speak recently at the Campaign for Liberty and I’m with him all the way up to the section on drugs and war. I do like the fact that he says that if we send troops we should declare war. Right now, our soldiers’ mission seems to be more social work than warfare. In Iraq, we should have had the surge right from the get-go. The problem is that many take the mushy middle, preach a compassionate conservatism, and thus lose respect on both sides.


  3. As soon as I saw that Michael had loaded this up as a headline at NRB I immediately went to investigate to see how similar Rand Paul’s foreign policy views were to his father’s. (Our heads were in the same place, Calvin.)

    So far I have not seen adequate cause to go after Palin or Rand Paul. That might change as more information comes to life.


    • He is a little more hawkish, and he doesn’t emphasize his foreign-policy views like his dad does, but check the YouTube video on his national defense page (linked above). Again, the usual anti-Iraq talking points are there, as is paranoia over the “military-industrial complex.”


  4. First off, Calvin, you seem like a nice guy – I’m just going to consolidate my posts below: (This is a response to you saying that the worse thing about the Palin endorsement is that it emboldens constitutionalists/libertarians and traditional conservatives.)
    If America isn’t principled and “chained down by the constitution,” is it really “America?” Calvin, I’m almost certain that you have a brain–that you hold within yourself some logical powers–how can electing a constitutionalist conservative hurt America’s defense? Are you really going to claim that our country is about to be carpet bombed by some unbeatable enemy…and that Rand Paul secretly wants this? Let’s set aside the fact that you don’t agree with the Paul’s, positions – you think the Iraq war was just brilliant – do you not see the foundations of this country turning to ash before your eyes? There is a cancer in this country – and it’s within, my friend. Just economically, we are walking on the edge of a knife. Rand Paul isn’t going to cut you, Calvin…but more big government Republicans will. There won’t even be an America to defend…

    Full quote from Jefferson:

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government,
    so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

    Next a response to those who are claiming that Rand Paul is racist or “Anti-Israel” – or, gasp, libertarian in philosophy:

    I’m very skeptical of the folks doing the name calling. I’ve met Rand and his wife…and frankly, I think you should apologize. You can’t deny that Rand Paul has strong, conservative principled views. And for all of you who are scared of libertarian (small “l”) philosophy…I shall school you with a quote from Ronald Reagan, himself:

    If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” – Ronald Reagan

    Any conservative with a clue has to be ecstatic over Rand’s candidacy…in my humble opinion. – Aaron


    • Your post is chock-full of mischaracterizations of what I actually said and believe. I never said the problem was that it would embolden “conservatives” or “constitutionalists.” Heck, I’m both! None of us who are skeptical of Ron Paul disagree that government is too big, that it does too much, that it ignores the Constitution, or that the Republican Party is by and large bereft of true conservative principles.

      Ron Paul’s foreign policy is the problem, and it is neither conservative nor constitutional. He lacks the most basic understanding of the jihadist movement. He lies (yes, lies) about the pre- and postwar intelligence concerning Iraq. His knee-jerk reaction is to always assume that America is in the wrong, and that the jihadists’ reasons for hating us are at least semi-rational (to the point where he has shown his willingness to take the word of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard over that of the US Navy). He consorts with 9/11 Truthers and other lowlifes, giving credence to the idea that we don’t really know what happened on 9/11. He thinks the CIA and the “military-industrial complex” are secretly controlling everything.

      Simply put, he’s a dime-store demagogue who figured out early on that becoming America’s voice of paranoia was a good way to get famous and get gullible people to pay him lots of money to give speeches.


  5. One more thing, Ron Paul takes a strong stance against any government subsidies. Any. He opposes government aid to Saudi Arabia and Israel. Fact: We actually give the arabs more money than Israel. This comes from a traditional conservative view of government (and it’s correct, by the way)… The Federal Government doesn’t have any money of it’s own – it took the money from someone (if it was printed, that just inflated the money supply). Government is largely ineffective at allocating money – it causes distortions in the marketplace.

    I know, why not give voluntarily to the causes you believe in so strongly around the world?


  6. Look kid I’ve met many of your kind before, you have Dick Cheney written all over you. You’re willing to watch other people shed blood and make the sacrifice, but to chicken shit to put your own ass on the line. Why don’t you put your education on hold and join the fight instead of being some little bitch cheering from the sidelines. But of course we know you won’t, because you rather see other young men and women die for your twisted un-constitutional agenda. By the way 95% of the people that I knew while serving only wanted one thing; a better way of life for their family and themselves by having the opportunity to go college, a privilege your little punk ass apparently takes for granted. I hope your mom and dad aren’t paying good money for your “education”, because you need to be taught what the founder fathers really believed in. They would have never have supported a war against a sovereign nation that never posed a threat against our national security.


      • Tirade and a thug for being upset with people like your self that can’t see what’s wrong with people like you, that are willing to let other people do the dying, while you sit back and talk as if you’re the one making the sacrifice for this nation. If that is your depiction of being a thug, so be it, than I’m a thug in your eyes. At least I am “thug” that’s willing to die for what I believe, instead of having someone else do the dying for my lack of courage and I could care a less if your impressed by my latest tirade, I have absolutely no respect for your kind.


  7. Justin,

    Actually, “tirade and a thug” for being so blinded by hate that you will so ridiculously lash out at somebody who disagrees with you, with no regard for anything I’ve actually said. Indeed, you seem to care about truth so little that you falsely accuse me of talking “as if [I’m] the one making the sacrifice for this nation.”

    If you really did serve our country, then thank you. I have several old friends in the armed forces, one of which recently returned from Iraq. The possibility of any of them dying in combat horrifies me, and I assure you, none of us who make the decision to support wars overseas do so lightly.


  8. Well the only thing you got right up there is that you should question Palin. Let’s admit it, she’s an airhead and not qualified in the least be President. While I can admire her for being an everyday woman who relates to average people, her intelligence leaves much lacking. Being an independent conservative who doesn’t automatically rush to defend Republicans, I could see she was a lightweight right after she was picked as VP.

    Rand as far as I can tell is less principled than his father, though similarly ideologically. I gave 20 bucks to his campaign and I wish I could’ve given more. As far as Afghanistan, even George Will and Tony Blankley (the man who wants the draft) of all people, have said get them out of there. I’m pretty sure it’s OK for conservatives to now start coming out and saying “ok, yes this war is crap, afghanistan is crap and will always be crap, let’s stop wasting lives trying to change this craphole part of the world.” All we’re doing now is saving face. Calvin, would you in all honestly give up your first born son to have him die in that war and then say it was truly worth it?

    The problem with you Calvin is that you’ve been listening to Sean Hannity your entire life. If that’s your perspective, if that’s all you know, how do you know any better? You shut off your mind to any opposing views. That doesn’t mean listen to Keith Olbermann (who’s a douche), it means maybe listen to Pat Buchanan instead of listening to the constant drumbeat of Limbaugh and that ex-commie Horowitz. But I know you won’t change and luckily not everyone is as arrogant as you in their beliefs thinking that they know everything, and it’s why Ron Paul is going to get 2nd at CPAC this year. Too bad I can’t attend but to make up for it I’ll redouble my efforts for Rand and Ron this year.

    Oh, BTW can you imagine if Ron would run in 2012? In every college campus across America (save your hilldale) Student’s for Ron Paul will have more members than of all the other candidates combined, and probably 20x the activism. And it doesn’t have to be Ron Paul, it’s not about him, it’s about the message, and anyone who espouses freedom like him will win our support.


    • “As far as Afghanistan, even George Will and Tony Blankley (the man who wants the draft) of all people, have said get them out of there.”

      Ah, “I’m right because somebody else says so.” One of my favorite arguments ever!

      “Calvin, would you in all honestly give up your first born son to have him die in that war and then say it was truly worth it?”

      I wouldn’t “give up” or “have” anybody die — military service is voluntary. Nevertheless, even if my son was over there, I would still believe in our mission.

      “The problem with you Calvin is that you’ve been listening to Sean Hannity your entire life. If that’s your perspective, if that’s all you know, how do you know any better? You shut off your mind to any opposing views.”

      The fact that you would make such a simplistic and ignorant statement shows both that you’re incredibly sloppy with facts and that you’re really not a critical thinker — and both those things explain your positions really, really well.

      Oh, and for yet another example of how you shoot your mouth off without knowing what you’re talking about, Ron Paul is actually quite popular here at Hillsdale. In my opinion, that’s the college’s only real flaw.


      • “Ron Paul is actually quite popular here at Hillsdale. In my opinion, that’s the college’s only real flaw.”

        So, there is hope?

        Calvin, I’ve enjoyed your blog – and I hope you’ll be understanding to us paleo-conservative/libertarians who are pumped about Rand Paul and Ron Paul. I still even hold out some hope for you! And no, I’m not a conspiracy theory guy into Alex Jones. I do care deeply about my country and Rand/Ron Paul do as well – I’ve spoken with them many times and with their wives – you would enjoy meeting them.

        Come on, you don’t really think that Hillsdale students likeing Ron Paul is a “real flaw.” How silly – the guy is as principled as they come – even if you disagree with him, at
        least you know where he stands and where his logic flows from. I look forward to raising a drink to you when Rand Paul is sworn into the Senate…admit it, if you really are a
        conservative you are going to feel thrilled. You might even
        let out a, “FREEDOM!”

        personal note, have you watched Ron Paul’s speech
        at Liberty University? – I appreciated the fact that he gave
        a bit of his testimony of Christian faith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTU6o4X7fF8

        And here’s me performing some Hank Williams
        if you really want to be a stalker:

        I rewrote the tune…


      • Oh, and for yet another example of how you shoot your mouth off without knowing what you’re talking about, Ron Paul is actually quite popular here at Hillsdale. In my opinion, that’s the college’s only real flaw.

        Conform! Conform! Conform! There must be no diversity of opinion allowed at all. All must embrace the neoconservative establishment positions because our wise overlords are always fantastically correct! Case in point? The execution of our brilliantly conceived war in Iraq which we wrote on the back of a cocktail napkin at Applebee’s.

        My reputation of Hillsdale just went up a few notches.

        I think you missed the boat on my comment about Will and Blankley. The point wasn’t “I’m right because somebody said so” which I’m not sure how you came up with. The point was simply let’s not instinctively question the conservative credentials of anyone who opposes the Afghanistan war. Because there are many conservatives (including your favorite constitutionalist conservative!) who oppose it and realize there isn’t anything conservative about it at all.

        And as far as the Hannity comment, of course it wasn’t meant to be taken absolutely literally, but the larger point was I suspect you listen to the same repeating talking points every day. Even when you link to a website to try to disprove people like below, it’s to hotair.com or some other neocon site. It’d be like a liberal trying to prove a point and linking to the Dailykos for the FACTS. We’re obliged to take it with more than a grain of salt.

        And about the CIA bit, Glenn Beck picked it up and had Ron on his radio to talk it over and Beck disagreed at first but by the end of the clip he didn’t seem to disagree with Ron’s position. It’s on youtube somewhere if you actually wanted to hear Ron’s position in some context.


  9. I appreciate the complements, and I enjoyed the video 🙂

    But I cannot accept the proposition that Ron Paul is a respectable man, and Hillsdale’s biggest flaw is indeed that a fair amount of people here line up behind Ron Paul in spite of his lack of character, and without an understanding of just how awful his foreign policy is. No matter how friendly or engaging he might be in person, it cannot change his record.

    For one thing, while he does not personally say 9/11 was an inside job, he clearly lends undue credence to that movement, both by frequenting Alex Jones’ radio show, and by virtue of the fact that whenever somebody asks him about a new investigation into “what really happened,” he never sets the record straight; instead, he agrees that a new investigation would be a good idea. This is not the mark of a man with courage or principle.

    For another, his anti-war tirades are so preposterously over the top that I cannot fathom anyone taking him seriously. Can you really hear him talking about how the CIA has secretly taken over and started running everything behind the scenes, and *not* feel the slightest hint of embarrassment? (http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/01/ron-paul-theres-been-a-coup-by-the-cia-they-run-everything-we-need-to-take-them-out.html) What about the fact that, to him, even Barack Obama is a warmonger?

    Thirdly, his dogmatic obsession with blaming Islamic terror on US foreign policy frequently leads him to get his facts wrong – for instance, he says the Christmas Day attempt was in retaliation for US military strikes in Yemen, when in reality the plan was already underway before the US took action in Yemen. (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/29/ron-paul-on-the-airline-plot-theyre-terrorists-because-were-occupiers/)

    Lastly, whenever he says that we were misled into war, or that Iraq never had WMDs or terror ties, he is lying to the American people. This point has been extensively debated and investigated, and frankly should have been resolved to every objective, informed observer’s satisfaction no later than 2006 (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=88&type=issue). I can understand some private citizen being misinformed, but a United States Congressman? No. His job is to protect us. We pay him to know what’s going on with US foreign policy and national security, and to tell us the truth about it. He has no excuse not to know better. Either it’s deliberate, or he’s so incompetent that he shouldn’t be driving cars, much less representing a congressional district in Texas. Lying to the American people about national security matters should be the ultimate deal-breaker for any principled conservative.

    Add it all up, and it becomes clear that there’s nothing principled about Ron Paul. To repeat: “Simply put, he’s a dime-store demagogue who figured out early on that becoming America’s voice of paranoia was a good way to get famous and get gullible people to pay him lots of money to give speeches.”


    • “Lastly, whenever he says that we were misled into war, or that Iraq never had WMDs or terror ties, he is lying to the American people. This point has been extensively debated and investigated, and frankly should have been resolved to every objective, informed observer’s satisfaction no later than 2006”

      Here is your former President refuting your lie:


      • Bush still maintains Saddam had the capacity to develop them, but as far as the WMDs he did have, Bush is notoriously bad at communication, and has a tendency to needlessly concede ground in certain areas because he thinks it will better help him defend ground in others. I gave you the link to all the evidence you could ever want — if you were objective.

        It’s called being informed. Try it sometime.


    • Calvin, Congressmen have a job, and it isn’t to protect their constituents, it is to defend and uphold the constitution of the United States.

      The Constitution does not authorize the expenditure of taxpayer money to subsidize foreign government’s domestic socialist programs, does it?

      If not, how can you defend foreign aid?

      Under the “war powers” of the executive?


  10. Calvin, thanks for at least one personal response to the music!

    I see that your view on foreign policy is what dominates your
    thoughts in this arena. It even causes you to make personal
    attacks which, I believe, you will repent of as you grow a little
    older and wiser…unless you are a paid political hack.

    You seem to have an absolute block in your mind about
    questioning anything that involves the military. It’s admirable
    to show loyalty–but loyalty can lead to blindness if is not checked. You have correctly pointed out that Obama is seen
    as a warmonger by Ron Paul. In this you are correct, he is increasing our presence in Afghan. and has excelerated the usage of drone attacks in Pakistan. I think it’s sad that you
    are unable to engage in an intelligent discussion of these topics. For example, I’m guessing that if I use the term, “Military Industrial Complex,” you immediately have all of these preconceived ideas – and go into attack mode. I’ll grant you, usually that does mean that you are dealing with a silly leftist pacifist. But not always, my friend. The term came from a great Republican, Eisenhower:
    This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

    Read the whole thing here in context:

    Do you deny the premise of this speech?

    Calvin, I must admit I’m going into teacher mode because
    of your baseless statement and attack, “there’s nothing principled about Ron Paul” Do you at least take that statement back? If not, you truly have blinded yourself with your own agenda. Just use some logic, the opposite of Ron Paul’s principles are pure Marxism or worse. What’s going on up there?


    • Calvin,
      I’m going to jump in here real quick and discourage you from bothering to respond to Aaron. You made several points in your friendly response to him and he chose to ignore all of them and instead continue his monologue.

      I’ve dealt with plenty of leftists and Paulastinians and when they start behaving like this then it becomes clear that they’re not worth your time. His response indicates that he’s interested in monologue, not dialogue. He’s interested in preaching to you his TRUTH, not exchanging ideas and debating in an intellectual manner. You shouldn’t feed the troll any more.



      • You’re probably right, David. This will be my last answer.

        Now, Aaron:

        “You seem to have an absolute block in your mind about questioning anything that involves the military. It’s admirable to show loyalty–but loyalty can lead to blindness if is not checked.”

        You have egregiously misdiagnosed me. I am motivated strictly by the facts. If I have said anything demonstrably false, you are welcome to demonstrate it.

        “You have correctly pointed out that Obama is seen as a warmonger by Ron Paul. In this you are correct, he is increasing our presence in Afghan. and has excelerated the usage of drone attacks in Pakistan.”

        You think Obama *desires* to be in Afghanistan? Why do you think he dragged his feet in acting upon his McChrystal’s request for additional troops? Do you think he’s secretly chomping at the bit to take out Iran, too? Regarding drone attacks, isn’t it *ever* okay to take out terrorists or their facilities?

        Please, don’t waste my time with this crap.

        Regarding the military industrial complex, how is this speech applicable to anything that’s going on today? Is Halliburton secretly calling the shots? I deal in facts, not platitudes.

        Considering that you have not substantively refuted a single word I have actually said about Ron Paul’s character and competence, methinks your arrogance about “engag[ing] in an intelligent discussion” and “teacher mode” is premature. “What’s going on up there?”


      • Are you the Daddy here, David? Of course anyone who responds on a blog is going to talk about their “TRUTH” as you call it. Your goals here are now very clear – you just want to dominate and streamline any discussion here. I’m an activist, I won’t deny it. I’ve set up pro-life and conservative groups all over the west with the Leadership Institute and other conservative think-tanks and organizations. I’d say everything I’ve brought up is a very healthy in-house debate for the conservative movement to have. What are you scared of David? Maybe you are concerned that Calvin is attending a Tea Party meeting with me, is now frantically reading “End the Fed” and various posts on http://mises.org/ (that’s how I knew you were cool, Calvin)
        – in a joking spirit, Aaron


    • Well, you’ve finally said one thing I agree with — standing up to your unprincipled candidate and his suicidal, simplistic vision is a healthy in-house conservative endeavor. But your comments are growing increasingly bizarre and unrelated to anything anybody’s actually said – Tea Parties? Mises.org? Where did David say anything about the tea parties or free-market economics? Or does your ideology mandate that anybody who questions Ron Paul must also be a traitor to those things, too?


      • Calvin, it was a joke – I saw a link to Mises.org on the right of your post – maybe this is automatically generated? That’s my favorite free market website. I just thought you were a fan – and, yes, I do have what you might call a “bizarre” stream of conscious way of writing off the cuff. Sorry.


    • “Why We Fight”? Are you serious? Yes, of course you are. Let me guess what other leftist documentaries you’re going to throw my way… “The Power of Nightmares”? “Fahrenheit 9/11”? “Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War”? Yeah, I loved all of them when I was a leftist in college.

      What next? Are you going to encourage me to read “Imperial Hubris” by Michael Scheuer? Maybe “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn? Other Paulastinians have recommended that anti-American text to me.

      Paulastinians should be embarrassed that they’ve adopted the exact same foreign policy analysis of the Anti-American Left. But they’re too dense to even realize it.


      • You’ve got a small point here, David – “Why We Fight.”
        is a leftist thing in general – that doesn’t mean the Military Industrial Complex isn’t real though. I’m a paleo-con – you know why we keep coming back to these blogs, right? – to watch you guys implode! Take care.


      • It’s very simple: we “warmongering neo-cons” are more concerned about Islamofascism as the primary threat facing America. You Paulastinian crackpots and the leftists who share your foreign policy analysis are more concerned about the imaginary “military industrial complex.” If you understood Islam and jihad then perhaps you’d be closer to our position.

        And the reason you come to our blogs is to proselytize your crypto-religious political faith. But you can keep doing it. Whenever we run posts about Ron Paul at NewsReal then we get a bunch of you people coming to correct us. All it does is give us more traffic. You’re just boosting our ad revenue and our Alexa ranking. So thanks for your support.


      • Will do, David. It’s a win-win for both of us. You get the ad revenue, and we convert all to our side in the comments section except for the blog poster. It’s how it worked during the campaign.


      • Mike,
        That you think your online Paulastinian evangelism in the comments section is somehow effective is further evidence of how delusional you guys are. Show me one person who used to comment at NewsReal Blog but who has since abandoned us for the DailyPaul after one of the descents of the Paulastinian locusts. You can’t do it.

        The online bad behavior of the Paulastinian cult is without precedent or comparison in politics. The way Paulastinians swarm any blog that so much as mentions The Master is unique. It only affirms the conception that Paul’s supporters are unhinged.


  11. You Neo-Cons are definitely in denial. Who the hell told you that being Pro-War is Pro-American? For your information, the liberal left actually remains more consistent with their traditional philosophy of being pro-war than the right. Liberals have traditionally supported large-scale warfare, as long as the war was started by a member of their party. Remember that U.S. involvement in WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and Viet Nam was initiated in each case by a liberal Democratic president with the support of a Democratic majority in Congress. Conservative Republicans have been elected to end the wars and nation building. (Bush, Nixon, Eisenhower). Here are more videos for your education. Please watch because you definitely need much more education than I thought.




    • No rebuttal Calvin, good I must have struck a nerve. You see being a Conservative has nothing to do with being a war-monger. As you can see that is why Bush got elected in 2000 because he ran his campaign on a non-intervention non-nation building foreign policy. Unfortunately you like so many Neo-Cons and Liberals have been convinced to love war no matter what the cost is. I know you are young, but I leave you with this; please read your history on Conservatism, you just might find the liberty and freedom you seek. Here is a good aricle and book to get you started: http://www.antiwar.com/raimondo/book1.html


      • You simply can’t be reasoned with, Branden. Your post that you think was so impressive is a pointless stream-of-consciousness ramble that addresses nothing I’ve said.

        Seek professional mental help. I beg you.


      • Leftists call conservatives “war-mongers.” You use the same insults as my Naderite friend. And you seem to be totally oblivious to this.

        It boils down to this question: which is worse, war or totalitarianism? Is it worse to have to fight a war or to live under a totalitarian state? War is indeed hell, but totalitarianism is a far hotter hell.

        And only war can defeat totalitarianism. War defeated communism and Nazism. And it will defeat Islamofascism. (And let me guess – the Paulastinians are probably going to challenge me on saying that war defeated communism. Whatever. I don’t feel the need to explain it to them. They can do their own history homework.)

        The unpleasant practical effect of an “anti-war” policy is to be “pro-totalitarianism.” The anti-war activism of the ’60s and ’70s which resulted in us withdrawing from Vietnam led to millions of deaths. A disengagement with Islamofascism as the anti-war/anti-American Left and Right demand will have the same effect. But they’re too dense and utopian to realize it. Oh well. We don’t need their support to win this war.


  12. David: I know a bit more about Islamofascism than you might think. Obviously, we are both conservative activists – I want
    to stress to those observing these posts that this really is an important in-house debate in the conservative movement. And, yes, we are both guilty of name calling–as you have pointed out–though you don’t have to admit it because your generalizations and name calling are here for all to see. (Sorry, David – we just can’t stop attacking each other, can we!?) Back to my point, I actually helped bring former terrorist, Walid Shoebat to speak at UNR: This is my video report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emoN_6ynAZ0 I had dinner with Kamal and Walid and believe it or not, they didn’t think I was crazy in my beliefs. (I know we have an enemy. You and I just differ in some of our tactics–and probably not as much as you might think.) – Walid and Kamal even agreed with me that often it’s our country’s propping up of oppressive regimes around the world that stirs up and inspires terrorist groups. (Saudi Arabia, for example) I’m guessing you like these guys, right? I do too.

    We aren’t all a monolithic group of “crypto-religious, Paulastinian crackpots” as you entertainingly would like to lead people to believe. I’m active with pro-life groups and conservative groups across the spectrum. I just humbly submit that it is you guys, in this case who are not using logic and are painting with an extremely large brush. I reiterate the fact that you are incapable of engaging on a very real issue which you call the “imaginary military industrial complex.”

    I’ve already shown how this isn’t a liberal concept – it’s a logical conservative/liberty issue. Do you agree with Calvin, that there is no application to today for this concern as articulated by Eisenhower? – And don’t bring up Halliburton – I’m not talking about anything like that…I’m talking about logical concerns about the nature of secrecy and government.

    By the way, while I don’t agree totally with Michael Scheuer (conservative who agrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy who happens to be a top ex CIA guy), I think he’s a good example of a guy who calls it like he sees it – he’s all about squashing Islamofascism if that was what was really going on – but that is NOT what is really going on.

    And I suppose we have a fundamental disagreement with your belief of “Islamofascism as the primary threat facing America.”

    I’d say, we are more in danger of an economic collapse caused
    by the, gasp, welfare/warfare state. A conservative skepticism about a rush to war is not really that odd. I’m not claiming Ronald Reagan is 100% on my side with this but he did state quite clearly, “I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely?” More clips of Reagan here:

    Let the debate continue – good night.


    • This isn’t an “important in-house debate” among conservatives. Given the results of every presidential primary he’s run in, Ron Paul is a marginal figure in American politics.

      I don’t really feel any need to debate with or convert Paulastinians to my point of view. Understanding the crypto-religious mentality of the Left I know that when you’re dealing with those deeply possessed of the Radical Spirit that intellectual discussion is futile.

      I just poke at you guys for my own amusement and to see in your responses further evidence for my analysis against the sanity of Ron Paul’s supporters.

      It’s quite simple: if you possess the foreign policy understanding of America that those on the Left do then you’re not a conservative. Paulastinians cannot even for one moment stop and ask themselves why it is that those on the Left who openly hate America have such similar understandings of these issues as they do.

      The answer is not pleasant. The paleo-conservative, Pat Buchanan Right and the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul Libertarian movement have this in common with the Zinnian/Chomskyite Left: all three groups hate America as it is now. The only real difference between the Buchananites/Paulastinians and the Chomskyites is that each group longs for a different America. The Paulastinians are in love with what they imagine America to have been 200 years ago. And the Chomskyites are in love with an America of 200 years in the future after all their policies have been implemented and “social justice” (the leftist version of Sharia law) attained.

      That’s why they share the same understanding of America as it is now and what we should do foreign policy-wise.

      “Warmongering Neo-Cons” like Calvin and myself love America as it is today — for all her flaws — and seek to protect her from Islamization. But neither the Paulastinians nor the Chomskyites see this as a particularly important task. Oh well. We’ll carry on without you — but with the support of the American people who are on our side, not yours. The last 30 years of electoral results make this pretty clear to all but the most indoctrinated Paulastinian.


      • Well said. The anti-war, paleocon/libertarian Right actually resembles nothing so much as progressivism in that it seizes upon leaders that tell them what they want to hear without regard for those leaders’ integrity or competence, it seeks to build a near-utopia on earth (all-encompassing govt on the Left, virtually no government on the Right), and it desperately clings to simple answers to complex problems, seeing dogmatic ideological purity as a magic bullet that will solve all, without regard for circumstances as they actually are in the real world.


  13. RE: Mike,

    “Conform! Conform! Conform! There must be no diversity of opinion allowed at all.”

    It’s not about conformity; it’s about critical thinking. Honest, well-informed people cannot support Ron Paul in good conscience.

    If you value honesty so little that you will so egregiously distort my words, why should anyone bother discussing anything with you?

    “The execution of our brilliantly conceived war in Iraq which we wrote on the back of a cocktail napkin at Applebee’s.”

    Another lie. Many conservatives who actually know a thing or two about the way the world works (i.e., not you or Paul) have also been fierce critics of the way Iraq was handled.

    “I suspect you listen to the same repeating talking points every day.”

    That’s strike three. If you want me to keep publishing your comments, I really must insist you make some attempt at a little thing called honesty.

    “Even when you link to a website to try to disprove people like below, it’s to hotair.com or some other neocon site.”

    Ah, so anything you label as “neocon” you automatically get to ignore. It really must make your world so much easier to pick and choose which information sources you can arbitrarily ignore.

    You guys do realize that with your every comment, you’re making me respect Ron Paul’s supporters even less, right?


    • The idea that diversity of opinion is not permitted is absurd — and only reflects how little one understands Conservatism.

      I hired Calvin to write for us at NewsReal Blog knowing full well that he and I had disagreements. Calvin comes from a traditional Christian background. And I’m an ex-leftist still very much engaged with counterculturalism. He’s pro-life and I’m pro-choice. He’s pro-traditional marriage and I’m pro-gay marriage. We can disagree about this issues and still agree on the greater fundamentals about conservatism’s understanding of economics, human nature, the founders, etc. etc.

      Similarly at NewsReal Blog we have disagreements on the best ways to fight Islamofascism. One of our bloggers, John Work, argues that we should withdraw from Afghanistan. He has different ideas about how we should fight Islamofascism (compelling and challenging tactical prescriptions) — but he still recognizes it as the #1 issue of the day.

      So the idea that diversity is not permitted is a lie. There’s plenty of diversity. But Paulastinians — who embrace identical foreign policies to the Left — are not welcome. They fall well beyond the bounds of acceptable diversity. Sorry.


      • Exactly. Not that they ever will, but the Paulastinians also need to recognize two things: 1.) the way you guys almost always express your disagreement — illogic, ignoring facts, and hostility right out of the gate — is as big a turn-off as your views themselves; and 2.) separate from the merits of Paul’s foreign policy views, none of you ever seem to care about the various ways he as an individual has shown to be dubious.

        As an aside, David, I’d be fascinated to start a back-and-forth over the abortion disagreement in particular some time 🙂


      • Yeah, Calvin, we should have that back-and-forth sometime. At NRB we’ll be launching the sub-blogs hopefully next week and one of them will be oriented toward inter-blog debate and discussion (it’ll be our own variant of the Corner.) Perhaps that will be a good venue for a productive dialogue on the abortion issue.


  14. Stop the Press! Calvin, no joke, I spoke about our goofy (mine included) comments here on your blog with a friend of mine…and he freaked out because he knows you!? Jeff Meyer. He’s studying here at IU now and goes to my church. It is a crazy small world!
    I’m sure you’ll be sad to hear that he’s a “Paulastinian” too–as far as I can tell. Politics aside, that’s just pretty cool.


  15. If the Tea Party is a Crusade and not a Party, as those who say they are speaking for it lay claim, then those who are engaged in it have many choices. They are the lone ones speaking about it.


  16. Wow. Even with massive budget and trade deficits, a tanking dollar and doubts about its future as the world’s primary reserve currency, huge unemloyment, and finance displacing manufacturing as US % GDP – Islamofascism is “the primary threat facing America” according to your buddy, whose foreign policy views you have consistently backed up here.

    The same buddy who thinks war brought down communism. But no defense to back up that claim? Shucks, I was hoping to hear how someone could possibly twist history to defend a blatant lie like that. It does illustrate the willingness the two of you have to not let the facts get in the way of your pre-established beliefs…

    That statement suggests that the centralized supply model is an economically viable alternative to capitalism (and it’s more watered down EU forms) and would have persisted indefinitely without external interference. Anyone with the most basic knowledge of Soviet history knows that’s a lie – Brezhnev’s tenure merely exacerbated the flaws at the heart of the model and set the USSR well on it’s way towards the inevitable collapse. But Paul supporters are the ones who need to learn history? Funny!

    It’s almost as much of a shame that you’re absolutely terrified of some backwards ragheads with AKs on the other side of the world, as it is that you think the only way to end the conflict with them is by killing anyone who takes up arms against foreign troops on their soil. I’d be doing the same to the Arabs if their drones were bombing the local church because they thought there might be a “Christian-o-fascist” inside. I think we’ve proven that we can destroy them at will, so why shouldn’t we leave them the hell alone and give them a chance to sit in the corner and behave themselves?

    Since you’re so into the founding principles maybe you could give some examples of the founders supporting war on foreign soil. I’ve looked, but the only ones I could find were these –

    The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force. – Thomas Jefferson

    Governments constantly choose between telling lies and fighting wars, with the end result always being the same. One will always lead to the other. – TJ

    Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service… – John Adams

    All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones. – Benjamin Franklin


      • Just one typo there Calvin, I’ll correct it for you:

        “Your dubious reading of David’s comments, Islamic terror, and the Cold War (none of us ever suggested Communism was “viable”) aren’t worth my time, but I’m glad you invoked the Founders.”

        There, that’s better. You know what I notice about this Paulastinian evangelist’s comment? Not only are his foreign policy views identical to leftists but he also adopts the same condescending approach. And he’s so dense he doesn’t even realize his arrogance sabotages any hope of meaningful intellectual exchange.

        Ultimately the Paulastinians’ commenting orgies are little more than masturbation. I’m sure they enjoy it quite a bit but it’s not really accomplishing anything.


      • Well hello there. Just stopped by to say “Neener neener!” Didn’t want to make my taunts too highbrow or your buddy might think I was being condescending again. That’s a good one considering how ridiculously supercilious both of your writing styles are!

        I never held out any hope for a meaningful intellectual exchange with either of you. Know your type, blogged yourself into a corner and would rather die than publicly admit any ideological error. But I do enjoy a chance to show any visitors here the irony of big government, interventionist foreign policy “conservatives”.

        BTW, your linked article was a pathetic attempt, I count one actual quote which could be interpreted to support Paul’s position as easily as it could yours. Followed of course by a bunch more of your BS hot-air “interpretations”. Seems to me like you have more in common with Jackson than Jefferson, but then those two didn’t get along. Do keep it up though, if this is the best the opposition has to offer, Rand has a long and fruitful career ahead of him! Ahhh…


  17. Just Tanger,

    I notice you haven’t offered a single word of substance refuting ANY of the substantive critiques made against the Pauls. Which is all I’ve come to expect about what I expect from partisan whores like you.

    Rand Paul could be caught with a pound of heroin and a dead intern, and none of your ilk would give a damn.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s