Ron Paul: This birth control debate is just “silly”

posted at 1:55 pm on March 2, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In an interview with Piers Morgan last night, Ron Paul called the debate about the Obama administration’s contraception mandate “silly.” Refusing to discuss the mandate in terms of either “women’s health” or “sexual morality,” Paul kept the focus squarely on the freedom-breaching nature of Obamacare in general. In this instance, Paul, who in his first career as an OBGYN delivered hundreds of babies and was paid to care for “women’s health,” possesses a special credibility — and his classic libertarian response was a model for how to handle the issue for those who don’t want to discuss the cultural underpinnings and implications of the administration’s mandate.

The birth control debate has been particularly interesting for the way it has both united conservative and progressive religious individuals against the Obama administration’s breach of the freedom of religion and has divided secular and religious conservatives over whether to revisit the seemingly long-ago settled question of what sexual norms society seeks to promote.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

*sigh* Things like this make me wish he weren’t an isolationist crank.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 1:56 PM

WE ARE ALL RON PAUL NOW.

Good Lt on March 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM

The difference between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum on how they handled this issue is staggering.

We don’t need to have a political conversation on what are the sexual norms society seeks to promote. Those shall arise spontaneously, without the intervention of the political realm.

The idea that everything is political is inherently totalitarian. That’s why politicians lecturing people on rules of behavior creeps out so many voters.

joana on March 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM

It’s only silly, if Catholics don’t give a damn.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 2, 2012 at 1:59 PM

And he was supposed to be the crazy one, right?

Archivarix on March 2, 2012 at 1:59 PM

*sigh* Things like this make me wish he weren’t an isolationist crank.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 1:56 PM

And that he didn’t sound like Jim Mora.

Birth Control?

Birth Control?

You wanna talk about Birth Control?

lorien1973 on March 2, 2012 at 2:00 PM

A smart libertarian would say “It’s not about birth conrol, or abortion, it’s about the 1st Amendment”.

Gosh, I’m beginning to hate the right as much as the left. What a bunch of weasels!

1000 Breitbarts are needed and the only one is dead.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2012 at 2:00 PM

The timer on the HA “You’re posting comments too quickly” is OFF.

Get rid of it anyway, but today it is off by about two minutes.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2012 at 2:00 PM

It is. But it isn’t Santorum’s camp who keeps harping on it, other than the mandate aspect of it (the mandate aspects being something the Tea Parties marched against.) It’s the media and those that want it to paint the whole picture of that camp.

michaelo on March 2, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Ron and I agree on something! Wish he weren’t such a nut on foreign issues. It would be interesting to see what he’d do economically.

Oh well.

kim roy on March 2, 2012 at 2:02 PM

WE ARE ALL RON PAUL NOW.

Good Lt on March 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Sort of. Virginian ABR HotAirers need to get on the gambit and start making their plans for getting Paul to win in Virginia as the ULTIMATE protest vote in years…

The Nerve on March 2, 2012 at 2:02 PM

In an interview with Piers Morgan last night, Ron Paul called the debate about the Obama administration’s contraception mandate “silly.” Refusing to discuss the mandate in terms of either “women’s health” or “sexual morality,” Paul kept the focus squarely on the freedom-breaching nature of Obamacare in general.

Yeah!!!!!

Why can’t any of our other candidates do this?

Chip on March 2, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Good ones, and you know who you are, you fell for RP’s balloney.

It is about the separation of church/state, not what the left want it be. It’s all about the 1st Amendment, which needs to be defended, fiercely. You’re being snookered by the left.

Yes, the subject must be changed, but to “separation of church/state”.

Otherwise Pelosi and her phoney Planned Parenthood “I need $3000/months of free contraceptives while at a fancy university” plant wins. YOU know she is a plant and not a student, I hope.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2012 at 2:05 PM

DRayRaven on March 2, 2012 at 2:06 PM

No, he didn’t. You’re snookered. Think, think, think. Change the topic, but put it straight onto the left. It’s the separation of church/state that Obama and Sibilius trampled on. This is a very big deal. Ooof, it hurts to have to defend the right, from what they should think, feel, live, breathe instinctively.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Yes, RuPaul dismisses this whole issue with the disdain it deserves. All the other candidates need to do the same thing. RS expecially has allowed himself to get mired in this by not giving short, to-the-point answers like this one.

GeorgiaBuckeye on March 2, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Ron Paul just set the “gold standard” on how to approach this issue.

Sadly, Santorum and Rush Limbaugh are allowing the Dems to get away with demagoguing it.

DRayRaven on March 2, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Hey the blind squirrel found a nut!

Very good Paulus, now go away.

Rogue on March 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Otherwise Pelosi and her phoney Planned Parenthood “I need $3000/months of free contraceptives while at a fancy university” plant wins. YOU know she is a plant and not a student, I hope.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2012 at 2:05 PM

As plants go, they could have found a prettier one.

Archivarix on March 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM

It is. But it isn’t Santorum’s camp who keeps harping on it, other than the mandate aspect of it (the mandate aspects being something the Tea Parties marched against.) It’s the media and those that want it to paint the whole picture of that camp.

michaelo on March 2, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Santorum’s stepping on his own appendage via the JFK remark wasn’t just about sexual issues. It reflected his own interpetation of how much religion should influence the way an administration governs.

a capella on March 2, 2012 at 2:09 PM

He’s right, this whole thing is silly. Are there any social conservatives that want to ban contraception? No, not really, but this is what Obama’s presidency has devolved into. He Caddell and Shoen are right when they say that his only path to victory is by being so divisive that he will literally accomplish nothing of note in his second term.

Stop playing the game he wants to you play, Republicans. The answer is: I don’t think government should be able to regulate the conscience of the Catholic Church and 9 dollars a month is a price worth paying for religious freedom. This thing is absurd, show the people why it’s absurd.

Also, why is it that no one has pointed out that these Catholic employers are, well, employing people. You know, offering salary for work they do, which they could pay their 9 dollars a month prescription with.

cpaulus on March 2, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Ron Paul, well done, sir. Well done.

thirtyandseven on March 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Yeah!!!!!

Why can’t any of our other candidates do this?

Chip on March 2, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Probably because they agree with DC getting in the way of your personal freedoms.

lorien1973 on March 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Isolationist? I’m pretty sure RP wants to maintain embassies and continue trading with other nations.

Oh, that’s right. You’re a neocon. For you, “isolationist” means “a lack of eagerness to invade foreign lands.”

EddieC on March 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Here’s a link to the entire interview, which I haven’t watched yet:
http://www.dailypaul.com/217567/ron-paul-on-piers-morgan-tonight

FloatingRock on March 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Hey the blind squirrel found a nut!

Very good Paulus, now go away.

Rogue on March 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM

As usual, Paul is the only candidate who makes sense. And, as usual, his detractors can only sheepishly resort to quips and sloganeering.

Thanks for the contribution.

Inignort on March 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Stooooop!!! You’re falling for the trap the left has set for all of us.

Change the topic, but don’t drop it. If the 1st Amendment is trampled on, much else is lost.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Once again Ron Paul rocks. But I know you neocons that love endless and perpetual wars, and wasteful foreign aid don’t care for his non-interventionist views.

MoreLiberty on March 2, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Hey, we just paid $5 million bucks ransom to the Egyptians to get our citizens released.

Just sayin’

JPeterman on March 2, 2012 at 2:14 PM

If the Catholic Church, and those of you who give Obama and Sibilius, and the left, a break on the separtion of Church/State, Obama is deserved, in all his glory and power.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Tell that to Obama and minions.

mwbri on March 2, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Well, it *is* silly at the federal level. That should not be a question in which the federal government should be involved at all. The individual states should be setting policy on this issue. Not one thin dime of federal money should go to either enabling or inhibiting use of contraceptives.

crosspatch on March 2, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Once again Ron Paul rocks. But I know you neocons that love endless and perpetual wars, and wasteful foreign aid don’t care for his non-interventionist views.

MoreLiberty on March 2, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Oh, that’s right. You’re a neocon. For you, “isolationist” means “a lack of eagerness to invade foreign lands.”

EddieC on March 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I’m with you guys, but I think maybe we ought to chill out a bit as far as tone goes… works better for winning people over, IMO.

thirtyandseven on March 2, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Isn’t anyone thinking this through?

You simplify and dismiss such a big issue, at your peril.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Yeah!!!!!

Why can’t any of our other candidates do this?

Chip on March 2, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Probably because they agree with DC getting in the way of your personal freedoms.

lorien1973 on March 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I really hope that’s not the reason.

Chip on March 2, 2012 at 2:18 PM

I’m with you guys, but I think maybe we ought to chill out a bit as far as tone goes… works better for winning people over, IMO.

thirtyandseven on March 2, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Do you remember on The Simpsons when Principal Skinner tells Stephen Hawking that he doesn’t like his tone? That was funny.

EddieC on March 2, 2012 at 2:20 PM

*sigh* Things like this make me wish he weren’t an isolationist crank.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 1:56 PM

He’s not an isolationist; he’s a non-interventionist. They are two different things.

Dante on March 2, 2012 at 2:20 PM

This is about the First Amendment!

If you don’t recognize that, then you’re falling into the Leftist trap.

As an added bonus, Obama and Seb get to force abortifacients on people.

It’s reprehensible for Ron Paul to label it as silly.

INC on March 2, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Oh, that’s right. You’re a neocon. For you, “isolationist” means “a lack of eagerness to invade foreign lands.”

EddieC on March 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Oh, that’s right. You’re a paleocon. For you, closing all our bases and bringing all our troops home will have no consequences whatsoever.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM

A smart libertarian would say “It’s not about birth conrol, or abortion, it’s about the 1st Amendment”.

Gosh, I’m beginning to hate the right as much as the left. What a bunch of weasels!

1000 Breitbarts are needed and the only one is dead.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2012 at 2:00 PM

It’s not even about the First Amendment; it’s about the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does Congress have this power.

Dante on March 2, 2012 at 2:24 PM

He’s not an isolationist; he’s a non-interventionist. They are two different things.

Dante on March 2, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Communism works on paper, but cultures like Russia messed it up.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I don’t care if Romney has this wrapped up by the time the primary hits California, I’m still voting Ron Paul – the only consistent, Constitutional Conservative in the race.

Decoski on March 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Communism works on paper, but cultures like Russia messed it up.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Ah, trying to change the subject. I see.

Dante on March 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Stooooop!!! You’re falling for the trap the left has set for all of us.

Change the topic, but don’t drop it. If the 1st Amendment is trampled on, much else is lost.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Speaking of which:

Obama Adviser: ‘References to Size, Power or Sexual Potency…Could be Banned From Automobile Advertising’
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-adviser-references-size-power-or-sexual-potency-could-be-banned-automobile

(CNSNews.com) – John P. Holdren, the White House science adviser to President Barack Obama, wrote in a book he co-authored with population control advocates Paul and Anne Ehrlich that “ways must be found to control advertising” and that possible means for doing so would be banning utility companies from promoting the use of energy and prohibiting “references to size, power or sexual potency” in automobile advertising.

Why does the Downgrade Administration seem to have nothing but sex on their collective minds?

Chip on March 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM

“non-interventionist”, “isolationist”….etc, etc, etc. He is just a loon when it comes to any interface with any country at all.

ultracon on March 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Do you remember on The Simpsons when Principal Skinner tells Stephen Hawking that he doesn’t like his tone? That was funny.

EddieC on March 2, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Lol. Fair enough. Just sayin’, as a relatively recent convert, might be a good idea to think about it.

thirtyandseven on March 2, 2012 at 2:27 PM

As usual, Paul is the only candidate who makes sense. And, as usual, his detractors can only sheepishly resort to quips and sloganeering.

Thanks for the contribution.

Inignort on March 2, 2012 at 2:11 PM

As usual Paul is an insane hypocritical, racist dishonest kook, and as usual, his cultists can only resort to quips and sloganeering.

Thanks for the contribution, now go smoke your bong, find something new to blame Israel for and game an online poll.

Rogue on March 2, 2012 at 2:27 PM

It’s not even about the First Amendment; it’s about the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does Congress have this power.

Dante on March 2, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I’d say it’s both, but the common element is the Constitution and the rule of law – which the current regime is trying to downgrade.

Chip on March 2, 2012 at 2:29 PM

The problem with Paul – sometimes he X’s it.

Then again he also let’s loose a whole bunch of fliers.

CorporatePiggy on March 2, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Old bumper sticker: Honk if I’m paying for your mortgage!
New bumper sticker: Honk if I’m paying for your birth control pills!

monalisa on March 2, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Gotte give the good Doktor props on this one.

catmman on March 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Why does the Downgrade Administration seem to have nothing but sex on their collective minds?

Chip on March 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Because they’re eunuchs, envying real men.

p.s. hardly such on the right either

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM

In an interview with Piers Morgan last night, Ron Paul called the debate about the Obama administration’s contraception mandate “silly.” Refusing to discuss the mandate in terms of either “women’s health” or “sexual morality,” Paul kept the focus squarely on the freedom-breaching nature of Obamacare in general.Yeah!!!!!

Why can’t any of our other candidates do this?

Chip on March 2, 2012 at 2:04 PM

This is what I wanted to hear from Rush, but didn’t.

antisense on March 2, 2012 at 2:33 PM

It’s not even about the First Amendment; it’s about the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does Congress have this power.

Dante on March 2, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Thank you. It’s both. Why are so many here not seeing the bigger picture? It’s down right scary for the land, and for ‘humanity’.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Mandating abortifacient coverage is silly? He betrays a huge Constitutional obtuseness. RP on the ticket could be the one thing to make me stay home on election day.

paul1149 on March 2, 2012 at 2:36 PM

The Big Man on the right suggested today that the democratics are trying to change their principal womens’ issue from abortion to contraception, -a sign that they have lost the debate over abortion.

slickwillie2001 on March 2, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Take it from the Kooky Old Bigot

He knows silly when he sees it.

SD Tom on March 2, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Ron Paul: This birth control debate is just “silly”

Ron Paul is right on this, but the leftists who invented this won’t shut up.

…So let’s turn it around:

Why do the extremist Democrats want to deny poor college students the right to bear children???

(Two can play “reductio ad absurbum”)

landlines on March 2, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Ah, trying to change the subject. I see.

Dante on March 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Not if the subject is “worn-out lines that don’t really address the issue”. That seemed to be the one you were interested in.

In a global economy, like it or not, non-interventionism is not an option. If we close our bases and bring all our troops home, do you believe there will be no consequences?

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 2:39 PM

At least there’s one candidate that’s right on fiscal issues.

halfastro on March 2, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Communism works on paper, but cultures like Russia messed it up.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 2:24 PM

This doesn’t really work, does it? I mean logically.

halfastro on March 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM

In an interview with Piers Morgan last night, Ron Paul called the debate about the Obama administration’s contraception mandate “silly.” Refusing to discuss the mandate in terms of either “women’s health” or “sexual morality,” Paul kept the focus squarely on the freedom-breaching nature of Obamacare in general.

Yeah!!!!!

Why can’t any of our other candidates do this?

Chip on March 2, 2012 at 2:04 PM

santorum:”i want to destroy libertarian influences in the GOP”
*facepalm*

nathor on March 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Not if the subject is “worn-out lines that don’t really address the issue”. That seemed to be the one you were interested in.

No, the subject was your incorrectly calling Paul an isolationist when he is a non-interventionist. The two are not synonyms and are not interchangeable.

In a global economy, like it or not, non-interventionism is not an option. If we close our bases and bring all our troops home, do you believe there will be no consequences?

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Global economy has nothing to do with non-interventionism. Isolationism, yes; non-interventionism, no. I know you’re giddy over the no consequences question, but it’s ironic that it was my question in the first place, but in regards to interventionism and “blame America first” ridiculousness, and one you didn’t answer (although in fairness, it wasn’t addressed to you).

Of course there will be consequences; but largely they’ll be consequences for the nation’s in which we have our bases or our spending our lives and treasure defending. But that’s for them to deal with, not us. Fiscally and morally, the consequences will be positive for us. So in light of the “blame America,” – the context for the original question – what could we possibly be justly blamed for with a non-interventionist foreign policy?

Dante on March 2, 2012 at 2:48 PM

The way that the Dems orchestrated this so that Santorum would lead the so-con charge is evidence of how much they would live to face him in November.

Priscilla on March 2, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Fiscally and morally, the consequences will be positive for us.

Dante on March 2, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Explain.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM

*sigh* Things like this make me wish he weren’t an isolationist crank.

You mean a Jew-hating nazi colonel, right? You said yourself that Ron Paul’s real agenda is to get out of the way of anyone who wants to kill the Jews. That’s a special kind of neocon paranoia right there.

I say Paul’s real agenda is to stop spending tax money, especially federal tax money to prop up either foreign regimes, take down foreign regimes, or try to protect foreign cultures from the oppression their own people have created.

And that is what most people in the West generally agree on – especially after 10 years of pointlessness, especially the pointlessness of Afghanistan – the “good war” – where we are still trying to prop up a culture where dog fights are part of its rich, cultural heritage.

Paul’s Achilles heel is the fact that he would, if given his druthers, reduce FDR’s and LBJ’s legacy to nothing. And that scares all liberals to death, and most conservatives. Thus his 15% ceiling.

keep the change on March 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Let the Paultards have this one.

Trying to make them see how effed up they are isn’t going to work. It hasn’t ever worked, trying now is just a waste of time and effort.

Their Dear Leader finally said something relevant and right and managed to say it without stepping on his d!$&.

They’ve less than a week before its pretty much over anyway.

Give them their moment.

catmman on March 2, 2012 at 2:58 PM

kept the focus squarely on the freedom-breaching nature of Obamacare in general.Yeah!!!!!

Why can’t any of our other candidates do this?

Chip on March 2, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Huh?? Besides the msm spin, thats what they have been pointing to. The 1st Amendment.
Who, other than the leftie liberals and the msm, keep trying to barricade the topic on the contraception shtick?

Mimzey on March 2, 2012 at 3:01 PM

With 10 million plus people still out of work, I don’t give a fig about “social issues”. I don’t like either the Left or the Right telling me what to do in my own home.

Old Fritz on March 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Once we get the government to stop interfering with insurance companies, mandating we pay for birth control, can we please keep going and start lifting this Leviathan off our backs?

AshleyTKing on March 2, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Communism works on paper, but cultures like Russia messed it up.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Kinda sounds like our foreign policy too.

Notorious GOP on March 2, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Ron Paul is right.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

I’m sick of my only option being which establishment candidate can you stomach the most? How many times will we have to say “I don’t really like any of them, but…” and vote right down party line. I’m 29. I voted for the “compassionate conservative” Bush in 2000 because he was the republican. I defended the hell out of him and voted for him again in 2004, obviously, because he was the republican. Same in ’08. I naively wanted Romney, but voted McCain (like there is any difference) so I could help the team win.

I listened to Rush and Levin and Glenn. I watched Foxnews and only Foxnews, regularly. I’d brag about how “I don’t watch the mainstream media” unable to see the irony that Fox has more viewers than every other cable news channel combined. I would go to Drudge multiple times daily and keep up with only the news cycle that he peddled. I was informed. I knew I was informed. Liberals know nothing, liberals hate and are destroying this country, liberals don’t care about patriotism OR the constitution OR freedom, blah, blah, blah. While that’s true, they don’t :D I was never looking at the other side of the same coin. Why hadn’t they informed me of the path of destruction, debt, and disregard for our Constitution that the “conservative” majority Congress and Bush had actively been undertaking for the last two decades? Why don’t they ever talk about how deficit spending really started under Reagan, ramped up with Clinton, and then exploded with Bush? And why wasn’t I smart enough to see through it?

The reason is that the “conservative” party was hijacked long before many of us were ever born and we’ve never gotten a chance to truly appreciate or learn about what REAL conservatism is. We get accustomed to getting our news from comfortable sources. Sources that reinforce our beliefs, regardless of whether or not they are right. Here’s something everyone should know: Ron Paul is the last remnant of what, for the majority of our nation’s history, was considered conservative.

You hear Rush or Levin say “neo-cons” and immediately you think of the David Frums or David Brooks or Bill Kristols. But in reality, they don’t even realize that they should be looking in the mirror. It’s every program on Fox; it’s all the talk radio personalities “conservatives” adore as these brilliant beacons of truth and knowledge. Hannity is one of the most vocal with his, “I’m not a republican, I’m a conservative.” Whether its self-delusion or just ignorance, I couldn’t tell you. Do I think these guys lack intelligence? Absolutely not. They have accrued a lifetime of knowledge and on many subjects, they are spot on. The problem is that very often they are not right and their influence is so pervasive that many people blindly follow them regardless. Myself included for a long time.

My awakening came just last spring when I got into an argument over our foreign policy. I rattled off all the talking points I had come to know as truth. “The world needs us to keep them safe. They might act like they hate us, but we’ll see who they call when they need help. The terrorists attacked us for our freedom, our ideals, our culture, etc.” It wasn’t until I decided to open a book to better educate myself on why I believed, what I believed, that I realized how misinformed I had been. Have you ever said, “I like Ron Paul, except for his foreign policy?” I did too, frequently. If you ask the average GOP voter to describe RP’s foreign policy in one word the most frequent responses would be “crazy” “dangerous” or “isolationist.”

How could a guy so spot on about economic and domestic policy be so wrong on foreign policy? To better understand this I decided to read his book The Revolution: A Manifesto and got to see his views straight from his pen, without the bias.

Consider my amazement when he tried to defend his positions by quoting from the founding fathers: Washington, Jefferson, and Adams. Wait…what? That can’t be. These same founding fathers that we hold in such high esteem shared the same foreign policy views as “crazy, isolationist” Ron Paul? It couldn’t be, yet it was staring me right in the face. If you don’t believe me, look it up for yourself. I read on. He considered himself not an isolationist, but a noninterventionist. If you’re anything like I was, you’re probably thinking, what’s the difference?

Consider this quote:

“It is easy to dismiss the noninterventionist view as the quaint aspiration of men who lived in a less complicated world, but it’s not so easy to demonstrate how current policies serve any national interest at all. Perhaps an honest examination of the history of American interventionism in the twentieth century, from Korea to Kosovo to the Middle East, would reveal that the Founding Fathers foresaw more than we think.

Anyone who advocates the noninterventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers can expect to be derided as an isolationist. I myself have never been an isolationist. I favor the exact opposite of isolation: diplomacy, free trade, and freedom of travel. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seeking change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example. The real isolationists are those who isolate their country in the court of world opinion by pursuing needless belligerence and war that have nothing to do with legitimate national security concerns.”

That was enlightening truth straight from the mind of Ron Paul. Have any of you ever heard his foreign policy presented like that? I hadn’t. If you have and still consider him nuts, than I’m sorry I’ve wasted your time and you can just quit reading because I doubt anything else I can say will sway you. When you understand that though and really think about it, it’s no wonder the soldiers overwhelmingly support him, receiving five times the military donations as every other candidate combined. Unlike EVERY OTHER candidate who are all bankrolled by giant corporations and Wall Street, Ron Paul’s top 3 donors come from individuals in the US Army, US Air Force, and US Navy. Maybe instead of throwing that yellow ribbon on the back of your car, you actually listen to and support the troops. You know those same troops who support Ron Paul. Its sad how those who rail on about the injustices and dangers of governmental intervention in our country, fail to even question when we pursue the same actions overseas.

After understanding his views and finding myself agreeing with them, I decided to consider the whole package. Here we have a candidate who went to Washington D.C. having already served a lifetime in the private sector as an OB/GYN. Spurred to action by a deep understanding of history, our Constitution and sound economic policy and foreseeing the dangers inherent in the direction the country was headed, set out to make a difference. His principles were grounded in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and knowledge of Austrian Economics. It’s easy to be consistent when you know what you believe in and have a framework on which you base your decisions, the Constitution. He never once voted to raise taxes, never once voted for an unbalanced budget, never once voted for anything he wasn’t expressly permitted to by his oath of office to that founding document.

There’s a reason he is never attacked on his record, it’s because they can’t. It’s flawless and purely consistent. There’s a reason he was the lone no vote in congress, over and over again, on bill after bill. He didn’t have the authority. Imagine how much integrity and personal courage it took to take that stand, time and time again, all the while knowing he was going to be labeled a kook or unpatriotic because of it. Imagine the patience of this man, surrounded by the cesspool of corrupt, ignorant, opportunists in politics only for the fame and fortune, shining the beacon of individual liberty and steadfastly moving onward converting followers’ one person at a time. They say that once you become a Ron Paul supporter, you’re a supporter for life. I believe that to be true. The message of true liberty, once understood, is too powerful.

It’s because of Dr. Ron Paul that for the first time in my life I’ve donated politically, volunteered for a campaign, sought to educate myself more fully on economics, history, the Constitution, the dangers of the Federal Reserve and interventionism (foreign and domestic) and why I believe what I believe. Finally, I’ve got a candidate that I want to vote for; I’m excited to vote for and will do what I can to inspire others to vote for. That’s why myself and millions like me will be voting for Ron Paul and no one else. The GOP can once again nominate whatever puppet, establishment candidate, they’d like. And when Obama wins re-election, you can all stand around scratching your heads and pondering why, but just remember that I tried to warn you.

*Letter written by KingDiz, via DailyPaul

dom89031 on March 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Serious question: I think Paul’s isolationism is not practical in the 21st century but really how much damage would he really do on that front in four years? I vote in about two weeks and my options are crap (Romney) and crappier (Santorum, Gingrich), and it’s making Uncle Crazy seem almost palatable.

alchemist19 on March 2, 2012 at 3:13 PM

You said yourself that Ron Paul’s real agenda is to get out of the way of anyone who wants to kill the Jews. That’s a special kind of neocon paranoia right there.

keep the change on March 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Ah-ah-ah…nice try, but no cigar, f**khead. After you stated that neocons like to “kill” anything they don’t like(an incredibly stupid and insulting statement, even for you), I made a statement equally repellant. Which, of course, you and your ilk seized upon and screamed about, like the f**king hypocrites you are. At no time in that exchange did I even mention Ron Paul, you lying sack of dog s**t.

I’m genuinely sorry that you’re so stupid that I had to explain this to you.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Ah-ah-ah…nice try, but no cigar, f**khead. After you stated that neocons like to “kill” anything they don’t like(an incredibly stupid and insulting statement, even for you), I made a statement equally repellant. Which, of course, you and your ilk seized upon and screamed about, like the f**king hypocrites you are. At no time in that exchange did I even mention Ron Paul, you lying sack of dog s**t.

I’m genuinely sorry that you’re so stupid that I had to explain this to you.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Hey MadisonConservative…Why dont you try reading some James Madison. Here are a few of his isolationist, crazy, nutjob quotes:

The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.

~James Madison

All men having power ought to be mistrusted.

~James Madison

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

~James Madison

About the quote: This quote is from the period he served as a US Congressman (he represented Virginia from 1789-1797).

War…should only be declared by the authority of the people…instead of the government which is to reap its fruits.

~James Madison

The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.

~James Madison

It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.

~James Madison

The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.

~James Madison

War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement

~James Madison

About the quote: from “Political Observations,” April 20, 1795.

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

~James Madison

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps the most to be dreaded because it compromises and develops the germ of every other.

~James Madison

About the quote: from “Political Observations,” 1795.

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

~James Madison

About the quote: from “Political Observations,” 1795

The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it.

~James Madison

About the quote: as written in a letter to Thomas Jefferson. You can read more about this in Thomas E. Woods, Jr’s article “Presidential War Powers” on http://www.LewRockwell.com.

A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.

~James Madison

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

~James Madison

About the quote: This quote is from the period he served as a US Congressman (he represented Virginia from 1789-1797).

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

~James Madison

dom89031 on March 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

dom89031 on March 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

My moniker indicates that I live in Madison, Wisconsin…not that I am a follower of James Madison. Not that I expect you to know that, since I have no idea who the f**k you are.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

catmman on March 2, 2012 at 2:58 PM

As usual, you have nothing of substance to say other than to make rude comments about Ron Paul and his supporters.

iwasbornwithit on March 2, 2012 at 3:24 PM

My moniker indicates that I live in Madison, Wisconsin…not that I am a follower of James Madison. Not that I expect you to know that, since I have no idea who the f**k you are.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Well then I guess it’s ok to dismiss Madison and the rest of the Founders on this topic.

iwasbornwithit on March 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Well then I guess it’s ok to dismiss Madison and the rest of the Founders on this topic.

iwasbornwithit on March 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM

The rest of the Founders haven’t been quoted, so how can I dismiss them? I’m not dismissing Madison, either. I’m just not interpreting the Founder’s words in the same way you are.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM

dom89031 on March 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Yeahthatsnice…and?
Ron Paul would be able to do..what exactly? Veto everything?..invalidate all the existing structures that have led to where we are?? Ron Paul is one of the most ineffective people in government. He complains about the federal reserve, but is head of the federal reserves oversight committee. For all the talk, and with it being a major focus of his ire, whats he gotten done to correct it?

All Ron Paul is doing is peddling another flavor of fairyland Utopia.

Mimzey on March 2, 2012 at 3:31 PM

iwasbornwithit on March 2, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Listen Paultard, I did give Herr Doktor props in an earlier comment. My next comment was being snarky about you Paultard morons – it wasn’t meant to be ‘substantive’. It was meant exactly how you took it.

catmman on March 2, 2012 at 3:32 PM

The birth control debate alone is going to carry Obama into a second term. I’ve never been more positive of that this past week. I’ve made peace with that since I totally understand it now.

stingray9813 on March 2, 2012 at 3:39 PM

…calling Paul an isolationist when he is a non-interventionist.

Yeah, and Obama is a centrist democrat.
Maybe Paul is really a non-non-isolationist, or a semi-interventionist.

Mimzey on March 2, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Listen Paultard, I did give Herr Doktor props in an earlier comment. My next comment was being snarky about you Paultard morons – it wasn’t meant to be ‘substantive’. It was meant exactly how you took it.

catmman on March 2, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Whatever, commie.

iwasbornwithit on March 2, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Ah-ah-ah…nice try, but no cigar, f**khead. After you stated that neocons like to “kill” anything they don’t like(an incredibly stupid and insulting statement, even for you), I made a statement equally repellant. Which, of course, you and your ilk seized upon and screamed about, like the f**king hypocrites you are. At no time in that exchange did I even mention Ron Paul, you lying sack of dog s**t.

I’m genuinely sorry that you’re so stupid that I had to explain this to you.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 3:13 PM

How mature.

Dante on March 2, 2012 at 4:01 PM

The argument that an activist foreign policy, even to promote freedom abroad, aggrandizes the executive, distorts the constitutional intent, and ironically, tragically, contributes to a loss of domestic liberty, has been made for generations if not longer. If RP stopped at this moral calculus I’d respect him even if I reached a different conclusion. But no, he has to claim that there are no costs to non-interventionism, only benefits. The world will simply adore us if we just mind our own business. Moreover,
interventionists aren’t just wrong, they’re gullible dupes at best, immoral conspirators at worst.

It’s serene, self-righteous complacency in search of a rationalization. Even without the earmarks.

Seth Halpern on March 2, 2012 at 4:15 PM

He’s right, this whole thing is silly. Are there any social conservatives that want to ban contraception? No, not really, but this is what Obama’s presidency has devolved into.

For him to talk about a vicious attack on freedom of conscience as silly birth control business is to expose his lack of understanding of the real issue.
First of all, forcing citizen to be conplicit in the legal murder of innocent human life isn’t “birth control”
53 million such slaughter of individuals have stained America’s soul far more than that of all the 20th century despots combined.
If we are foolish enough to assume this is just any other political issue, we’ve committed suicide. These folks are serious and aggressively intent upon taking America down(the rest of the way)and they aren’t about to stop.
Anyone who focuses on just jobs or the economy as the big problem, might soon find themselves working for the most dictatorial government in history. Who is there to stop them? How many addicted by the left’s free lunches and sex, care who dictates their freedom away? They have for decades now softened our underbellies like dirty old men with free candy(sex and government checks)and we’ll vote our freedom away just like that.
These are the most dangerous times of my seven plus decades in this nation and I want to shed tears at the blindness of my fellow citizens. What part of infanticide and death panels don’t you understand?

Don L on March 2, 2012 at 4:26 PM

The rest of the Founders haven’t been quoted, so how can I dismiss them? I’m not dismissing Madison, either. I’m just not interpreting the Founder’s words in the same way you are.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Leaving the rest of the Founders out of it for now, what in Madison’s quotes above leads you to “interpret” that he would support our current interventionist policies?

iwasbornwithit on March 2, 2012 at 4:26 PM

. But no, he has to claim that there are no costs to non-interventionism, only benefits. The world will simply adore us if we just mind our own business.

Seth Halpern on March 2, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I don’t recall his ever saying the first part, and I know he hasn’t said the second part.

I think this is a poor interpretation of his argument.

Dante on March 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM

That’s a pretty good point: CommuSocialProgrssivLiberalism is evil. Period.

If you complain about any ONE fact, like how Obamacare persecutes religious organizations, or how Obamacare is legalized theft, or death panels, or killing babies, ect., etc., etc…. The liberals (never known for keeping more than one thought in their head at one time) always assume that you’re agreeing that everything ELSE about Obamacare is perfectly OK.

logis on March 2, 2012 at 4:29 PM

How mature.

Dante on March 2, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Too chickens**t to explain your earlier statement? Big surprise.

“I will skullf**k anyone who misrepresents what I say,” he said.

Andrew Breitbart

Shocker of the day: I prefer Andrew Breitbart’s opinions to yours.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Leaving the rest of the Founders out of it for now, what in Madison’s quotes above leads you to “interpret” that he would support our current interventionist policies?

iwasbornwithit on March 2, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Not sure where I said I interpreted James Madison as being interventionist.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM

If it were between Obama and Paul, I just wouldn’t vote. I think one is just about as bad as the other. Neither of them would give me any feel of security.

Voter from WA State on March 2, 2012 at 4:32 PM

I feel the same fear about Oromney -the man of a million temporary principles.

Don L on March 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2