Ron Paul revolution is well beyond the fringe

posted at 1:31 pm on May 28, 2012 by Craig Westover

After a lengthy analysis of the Ron Paul influence evident at the Minnesota GOP Convention May 18-19 in St. Cloud (“Libertarian surge remakes state GOP,” May 20), the burning question for the Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial Board was whether “a caucus-based political system that magnifies populist tides [and enabled Paul supporters to dominate the state convention] serves this state well.”

Couple that with a harsher Washington Post piece published in full online (“The party of Ron Paul?” May 24) — which labeled recently adopted planks in the Iowa Republican Party platform “wacky” and “nutty” and gleefully anticipated “a few highly visible fights” erupting over “Paulite positions in the national platform” — and it’s evident the Strib is a more than a little confused about what the Ron Paul revolution is all about.

Let me do what I can to clarify.

First, let’s understand what a “movement” or a “revolution” is. All movements — the Pat Robertson Republican coup in the 1980s, gay rights, women’s suffrage, civil rights and, yes, the Ron Paul movement — follow a common pattern.

Movements all begin at the margins with people who have little or nothing to lose. Unsuccessful movements never expand beyond the sloganeering fringe. Successful movements — those with an intellectual and moral basis — mature to attract a mainstream following.

The gay-rights movement is a great example. Shirtless hunks in leather tutus and motorcycling “Dykes on Bikes” are no longer the point of the gay-rights spear. It’s the gay lawyer/gay accountant, lesbian legislator/lesbian physician — same-sex couples with kids and fundamental concerns about faith, family and freedom — who are now the face of the movement.

Focusing commentary on the remnants of the gay-rights fringe is something the media would never do. But focusing on the fringe of the Ron Paul movement is exactly what the Strib and WaPo commentaries actually do.

Libertarians today are on that cusp between being all about the T-shirt and all about ideas. I was a libertarian before it was cool and a Republican when it wasn’t cool.

As a political force in the 1970s, libertarians had little to lose. They were the folks who couldn’t be Democrats because they believed their money was theirs to spend; but they couldn’t be Republicans because they wanted to spend it on drugs and prostitutes.

Times have changed.

Libertarians today are less about provocative issues and more about reversing the expanding scope of government. Government expansion is bad in itself, but the future consequences are worse: Without defined limits on government, our liberties, our American republic, are truly at risk.

But, says the Washington Post, Americans aren’t buying that argument. If it were, Ron Paul would get more than 15 percent of the primary vote.

The Strib offers its caucus-questioning advice to an implied majority of “voters who believe government remains a useful tool for improving people’s lives.” Unfortunately, that glass-half-empty perspective on the Ron Paul revolution misses a significant point.

In Ron Paul, you have a charisma-challenged old white guy who, without pandering or pushing prejudice, inspires young people with the always sexy message of monetary policy.

A viable presidential challenge built by sticking to principle, not telling people only what they want to hear, is a political story the Strib and the Washington Post would shout from the rooftops — if only the message were a message they wanted to hear.

The power of an idea, personal freedom, doesn’t lie in manufactured popularity.

What about that Paul-inspired “wacky,” “nutty” “constitutional fundamentalism” found in Republican Party platforms?

Sure, abolishing the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Reserve is not going to happen even under a President Paul. But a political party that seriously considers abolishing cabinet-level departments and unaccountable government entities is a political party that probably won’t advocate for a new cabinet-level “Department of the Internet” and is serious about monetary policy.

It’s a party that stands for something.

That brings us to the WaPo admonition that “Paulites” learn to compromise, lest, says the Strib, the philosophical gulf “that’s already proving difficult to bridge by those seeking to govern this state” grows even wider.

One does not compromise principle. It’s a cliché and a fallacy that, given two diametrically opposed points of view, the “truth” must necessarily lie somewhere in the middle.

The Republican problem is buying into the “compromise is good” argument and declaring victory for every move to the left that “could have been so much worse.”

Paulites won’t make that compromise.

Ron Paul delegates to the RNC will support the nominee. However, integral to that support is holding the candidate and the party to the fundamental principles of limited government and personal and economic freedom. Constancy to principle is the ultimate loyalty.

All that said, I urge our media friends to examine the default position that government is good and invite them to think for themselves. The Ron Paul revolution offers the media, the Republican Party and America that opportunity. Take it.

——–

Craig Westover is a Republican activist and a Ron Paul delegate to the Republican National Convention. Follow him on Twitter: @CraigWestover and Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/craig.westover.

This article originally appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune May 26. 2012.

 

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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 5 6 7 8

Islamists hate our freedoms and way of life. THAT is what motivated 9/11.
See how easy it is.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 29, 2012 at 1:43 AM

Wow. I didn’t think there was anyone alive who still buys into this propaganda lie.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Islamist’s don’t LIKE our culture, that’s true. But that’s not entirely what motivates them to kill themselves in order to attack us. What motivates them to attack us is our policies and aggression toward them dating back a very long time

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 3:45 AM

Complete and utter failure at the history of Islam and the US. Jeez, can’t you even use Google effectively? ANOTHER Paulbot college dropout…what’s the matter, the OWS crowd push you out of the tent?

lovingmyUSA on May 29, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Wow. I didn’t think there was anyone alive who still buys into this propaganda lie.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 7:40 AM

You must be thinking of the 3,000 of them who were murdered by Islamic Terrorists on 9/11/01.

kingsjester on May 29, 2012 at 7:45 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on May 29, 2012 at 1:43 AM

Wow. I didn’t think there was anyone alive who still buys into this propaganda lie.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Wow, I didnt think there was any thinking person alive who DIDN’T KNOW this…but then, thinking person and Paulbot=oxymoron.

lovingmyUSA on May 29, 2012 at 7:45 AM

Well, I see we’ve established that Mitt Romney’s Swiss bank account was named “Hitler2.”

I’m at a loss for words (mark that down, classy lady).

aryeung on May 29, 2012 at 6:59 AM

What the fluke are you babbling about now, oh ye of stunted vocabulary?

lovingmyUSA on May 29, 2012 at 7:48 AM

Ron Paul and his supporters. Even Neal Boortz thinks you’re extremist whack jobs.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 8:22 AM

What the fluke are you babbling about now, oh ye of stunted vocabulary?

lovingmyUSA on May 29, 2012 at 7:48 AM

Stunted vocabulary? What are you? Billy Shakespeare?

Come on, go for the head injury jab! I’m bracing myself.

aryeung on May 29, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Sure, abolishing the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Reserve is not going to happen even under a President Paul. But a political party that seriously considers abolishing cabinet-level departments and unaccountable government entities is a political party that probably won’t advocate for a new cabinet-level “Department of the Internet” and is serious about monetary policy.

What utter trash. A party that considers something that everyone knows is not going to happen is usually called “unserious”.

Give me a break.

Odd that nowhere in this little manifesto is any discussion of isolationism or the Bilderberg group conspiracy theories. How convenient. Ignoring the most extreme views of the Paulbots is not a recipe for winning over people who know very well how nutty they really are.

Ron Paul and his minions are not remotely serious on a national political party level. And pretending they are is not going to move the needle on that even a little.

deadrody on May 29, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Islamist’s don’t LIKE our culture, that’s true. But that’s not entirely what motivates them to kill themselves in order to attack us. What motivates them to attack us is our policies and aggression toward them dating back a very long time

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 3:45 AM

Sorry, but AnnoyingLittleTwerp is right.

Go educate yourself by reading “Milestones” by Qutb, and then come back to us. Islamists want world domination. Why don’t you read what their lovely holy book has to say about how non-believers should be treated.

Quit trying to rationalize or legitimize the evil, barbaric, Middle Ages-style behavior of subhuman religious zealots. How interesting that they are causing problems in the UK, France, the Netherlands, Africa, South Asia, etc… I guess the USA and Israel are to blame for all that, too? Gee, if only we kept our noses out of the Middle East, then all the Islamists would be good little Muslims and live in peace with their neighbors. Ha!

Ron Paul, sadly, is a borderline Islamic terrorism apologist. While the majority of his supporters are probably decent people, it’s no wonder that neo-nazi groups view Paul favorably, especially when you consider historical ties between Islamists and Nazism.

bluegill on May 29, 2012 at 8:29 AM

You really don’t know the history of the conflict that we have with Islamic extremism, do you?

I would like to recommend a book to you. It is written by Joel C. Rosenberg, “Inside the Revolution”. Read and learn. It is an excellent book that tells you how we got to where we are today. It goes back centuries.

Voter from WA State on May 29, 2012 at 1:59 AM

But he would have to read it – all the way through to gain any understanding. That’s hard. It’s easier to gobble up what a serial Presidential drop-out propagates as truth.

And it was written by a Joo. You think a Paulite would read anything written by a Joo?

And besides, only Paulite facts are facts.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Enough time spent on the un-serious matter of Ron Paul. It is not a “revolution”. The Paulites have elected no-one. The have affected no policy.

Tea Party? In just a few years, look at what a bunch of un-organized rabble have done. Because they aren’t nuts.

Enough.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 9:03 AM

What utter trash. A party that considers something that everyone knows is not going to happen is usually called “unserious” “in negotiations”.

deadrody on May 29, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Fixed, for those who are clearly clueless about how politics works.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 9:22 AM

why all of a sudden are ron paul and his followers NOT kooks?!

could it be because mittens and his litter will soon be wooing them after he’s done playing ‘kissyface’ with Trump?

double yuck and triple ick!

NOMITTNOBAMA 2012!

Pragmatic on May 29, 2012 at 9:23 AM

I would like to recommend a book to you. It is written by Joel C. Rosenberg, “Inside the Revolution”. Read and learn. It is an excellent book that tells you how we got to where we are today. It goes back centuries.

Voter from WA State on May 29, 2012 at 1:59 AM

Joel C Rosenberg’s bio…

A graduate of Syracuse University with a B.F.A. in film-making, he is married, has four sons, and lives near Washington, D.C.

Whew!! A whole Bachelor of Fine Arts… in FILM-MAKING even!!! And has NYT best-selling NOVELS to his credit.

Well, I can certainly see how seriouly some of us take this.

I’ll see your (snicker) Joel Rosenberg, and raise you a Robert Pape, and his fine work Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It.

Oh, Pape’s c.v….

Pape graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1982 from the University of Pittsburgh, where he was a Harry S Truman Scholar from the state of Pennsylvania, majoring in political science, and earned his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1988 in the same field. During his doctoral program he was a teaching assistant for a class taught by the high-profile realist international relations scholar John Mearsheimer. He taught international relations at Dartmouth College from 1994 to 1999 and air power strategy at the United States Air Force’s School of Advanced Airpower Studies from 1991 to 1994.

For those of you who wonder about such things, that is the resume of someone who isn’t a know-nothing hack.

Joel Rosenberg …. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Go educate yourself by reading “Milestones” by Qutb, and then come back to us. Islamists want world domination. Why don’t you read what their lovely holy book has to say about how non-believers should be treated.

bluegill on May 29, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Spend enough time reading our Holy Book, about how witches and gays are to be put to death.

And yet, only the most moronic of us take such suggestions literally.

As far as them wanting world domination, I want ice cream to not make me fat. Isn’t any more likely to happen than a bunch of clowns who can’t even get the oil markets right, taking over the globe.

But you make sure you go and check under your bed for those scary Muslims who are hiding there, plotting to take over the world.

Chicken Little.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 9:36 AM

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 9:00 AM

I agree with you on lots of things-but Rosenberg is an end of times loon.
Still doesn’t invalidate your argument.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 29, 2012 at 9:39 AM

But you make sure you go and check under your bed for those scary Muslims who are hiding there, plotting to take over the world.

Chicken Little.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Found one. He wasn’t under the bed but I found one.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/moscow-radio-host-slashed-after-criticizing-prophet-mohammed/#comments

I could go on all day linking to events like this but you guys are really hard wired to explain it away. So, just go ahead right now and claim you bested every single right wing nut job here who has concerns about extremist Islamism.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Islam is religion. Not Politics. Pape did a “study” on Suicide bombing. Nothing more. He has a hypothesis that says if “we” get out, “they” won’t blow anybody up anymore. How convenient. No wonder you cite him.

Pape, was, is and always be, misguided.

The whole history of Islam is to occupy and dominate others, if anyone survives. Yet Pape wants to through away that history and blame it on the west. Figures.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Found one. He wasn’t under the bed but I found one.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/moscow-radio-host-slashed-after-criticizing-prophet-mohammed/#comments

I could go on all day linking to events like this but you guys are really hard wired to explain it away. So, just go ahead right now and claim you bested every single right wing nut job here who has concerns about extremist Islamism.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Well, we’d better invade Moscow, then. Can’t let something like this get out of control… 6000 miles away.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Islam is religion. Not Politics. Pape did a “study” on Suicide bombing. Nothing more. He has a hypothesis that says if “we” get out, “they” won’t blow anybody up anymore. How convenient. No wonder you cite him.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 9:45 AM

I cite him, because he has an impressive academic career, is a noted expert with proven access to top policy makers, and because he isn’t in a habit of writing fiction.

Unlike Joel Rosenberg.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 9:49 AM

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Well, we’d better invade Moscow, then. Can’t let something like this get out of control… 6000 miles away.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 9:47 AM

That wasn’t your point. You made light of Islamic Extremists as if they were not a threat to anyone.

Talk about the classic strawman.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 9:50 AM

So, just go ahead right now and claim you bested every single right wing nut job here who has concerns about extremist Islamism.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I don’t need to brag. The neo-clowns make it obvious with each passing day, and each new heir apparent, like the (snicker) estimable Joel Rosenberg.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM

None so blind …

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM

lol, I rest my case.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I don’t need to brag. The neo-clowns make it obvious with each passing day, and each new heir apparent, like the (snicker) estimable Joel Rosenberg.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 9:52 AMBTW, where are all those right wing nut jobs you said were going to defect and go third party? Oh right, it’s the left wing Paul nut jobs who are talking about that.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 9:53 AM

That wasn’t your point. You made light of Islamic Extremists as if they were not a threat to anyone.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 9:50 AM

And apparently, you see threat as a digital function. I was trained to see it in analog.

Are Muslim extremists a threat? Sure. Ask Theo van Gogh. When you get a chance.

Are they a threat to take over the globe? Please. Stop. You’re killing me. I’m more at threat of dying from laughter about the idea of a Muslim takeover of the world, than I am dying from a Muslim takeover of the world.

Some loudmouth DJ getting cut in Moscow is no more a reason to wage worldwide war on Islam, than is some loudmouth DJ getting shot in Denver a reason to wage domestic war against neo-Nazis. Some acts of violence don’t rise above the level of criminal activity, no matter what one’s political agenda to the contrary says.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 9:52 AMBTW, where are all those right wing nut jobs you said were going to defect and go third party? Oh right, it’s the left wing Paul nut jobs who are talking about that.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I would hesitate to make any final judgement on how the GOP’s Paul problem washes out, until at least after the convention.

BTW, planning on voting Con Party this year, are you?

That is your party, isn’t it?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Out of curiosity, hd, are you also gleaning your IR advice from Joel Rosenberg?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I cite him, because he has an impressive academic career, is a noted expert with proven access to top policy makers, and because he isn’t in a habit of writing fiction.

Unlike Joel Rosenberg.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 9:49 AM

What do you think an Islamist would tell Pape when asked the question “will you stop blowing people up if we get out of your country?”

The fiction here is taking a hypothesis as truth.

What fiction did Joel Rosenberg write in his book? Is the whole history of Islam a fiction? Was it all our (the west and Christianity’s fault?) Are Islamic people responsible for anything they do?

Pape says if we leave, the bombings stop. Why don’t the Islamists leave Israel alone then? Israel doesn’t occupy anything.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 10:03 AM

And apparently, you see threat as a digital function. I was trained to see it in analog.

Are Muslim extremists a threat? Sure. Ask Theo van Gogh. When you get a chance.

I should probably quit here since you continue to make my points for me. But I am stupid. You’ve said so.

Are they a threat to take over the globe?

Ask Europe.

Please. Stop. You’re killing me. I’m more at threat of dying from laughter about the idea of a Muslim takeover of the world, than I am dying from a Muslim takeover of the world.

Ask an Indonesian.

Some loudmouth DJ getting cut in Moscow is no more a reason to wage worldwide war on Islam, than is some loudmouth DJ getting shot in Denver a reason to wage domestic war against neo-Nazis. Some acts of violence don’t rise above the level of criminal activity, no matter what one’s political agenda to the contrary says.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Great rationalization. He had it coming? lol

Have a great day fringe dude.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 10:03 AM

How’s ’bout we take the Ron Paul Revolution completely and with great enthusiasm on his economic policy.

How’s ’bout we denounce him, shame him and his supporters, and spit in their faces with utter disgust for their wholly anti-American, Islamo-Fascist embracing, Human Rights-hating views on foreign policy.

Ron Paul and his followers: They’re 100% right on 50% of their policies.

LIBERTARIANS FOR ROMNEY!

ericdondero on May 29, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Ron Paul and his followers: They’re 100% right on 50% of their policies.

LIBERTARIANS FOR ROMNEY!

ericdondero on May 29, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Nope. With Ron Paul and his followers, it’s all or nothing. Give them everything of what they want or they will run away crying.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Out of curiosity, hd, are you also gleaning your IR advice from Joel Rosenberg?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 10:02 AM

No earthly idea what your point is. But carry on. You’re dismissed, troop.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 10:07 AM

ericdondero on May 29, 2012 at 10:04 AM

How about we just ignore the dingbat and his Mosleyite followers?

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 10:12 AM

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Ask Europe.

Lot of Islamic-centric governments in Europe, are there? Even the Islamic countries are governed by secular governments. FAIL.

Ask an Indonesian.

You mean the country that was colonized for 200 years? Not by the British. Not by the French. But by the Dutch! Now, are you telling me this is the land I should be on the watch for a worldwide revolution and takeover springing from? Sorry, but Djakarta doesn’t quite strike me as Berlin or Beijing. FAIL.

Great rationalization. He had it coming?

He was a victim of a crime, not of a worldwide revolution. Despite what those who have a vested interest in American fear have to say about the matter.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Out of curiosity, hd, are you also gleaning your IR advice from Joel Rosenberg?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 10:02 AM

No earthly idea what your point is. But carry on. You’re dismissed, troop.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 10:07 AM

That you don’t know who Joel Rosenberg is speaks well of you.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM

ericdondero on May 29, 2012 at 10:04 AM

How about we just ignore the dingbat and his Mosleyite followers?

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I recall ericds comments from way back. He is as reserved and respectful as Paul supporters get. I’ve learned more about Paul from single comments from guys like him than rants all day by Paul’s more extreme supporters. The difference between stating opinions that you actually believe benefit the country rather than mindlessly bleating on the Paul movement dogma.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM

This thread sure took off after being moved from the Green Room.

I haven’t read it, but I assume Ron Paul’s fringe supporters on HA are trying to convince everyone they are not fringe. If this thread ran true to course, they used their persuasive powers to alienate everyone else, creating a thread with hundreds of comments.

farsighted on May 29, 2012 at 10:22 AM

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Although Paul’s economic views may not be insane, I have found that, give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take a mile.

First, it would be economics, then …? I prefer stability – if I can get it.

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 10:26 AM

A crime? He wasn’t robbed. He was slashed.

According to the police report, on late Monday evening an unknown man called to Aslanyan’s flat over the building intercom and called him outside for a talk. When the journalist stepped out of the entranceway he was knocked over the head with a heavy object, after which the assailant brought the knife into play.

Aslanyan claimed that the attacker was shouting “you don’t love Allah” while slashing at the victim.

Let’s call him stupid and deserving now since he went to meet him.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 10:27 AM

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 10:26 A

I don’t disagree with you OE. I was mainly talking about eric. He’s a pretty good commenter.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 10:28 AM

If Ron Paul was honest, he’d run as a Libertarian, not as a Republican.

If Ron Paul was honest, he’d run as an Anti-War/Isolationist Liberal, not as a Republican.

Ron Paul is the guy Cicero warned about:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.

There’s no doubt in MY mind, Ron Paul, and his following, are nothing more than Socialists, trying to steal votes from Republicans, to insure an Obama victory.

franksalterego on May 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM

One does not compromise principle. It’s a cliché and a fallacy that, given two diametrically opposed points of view, the “truth” must necessarily lie somewhere in the middle.

Yet the Paulites are asking the Republican party to do just that on foreign policy – compromise your principles.

If you have the votes, elect Gary Johnson. Or write in Ron Paul. Anything else means the destruction of the Republican party, which is exactly what the goal has been from the beginning.

If you can’t compromise your principles, and you can’t get the votes, why would you expect everyone else to compromise their principles and just bow down before you?

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM

A crime? He wasn’t robbed. He was slashed.

According to the police report, on late Monday evening an unknown man called to Aslanyan’s flat over the building intercom and called him outside for a talk. When the journalist stepped out of the entranceway he was knocked over the head with a heavy object, after which the assailant brought the knife into play.

Aslanyan claimed that the attacker was shouting “you don’t love Allah” while slashing at the victim.

Let’s call him stupid and deserving now since he went to meet him.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 10:27 AM

And…?

Berg was shot by neo-Nazis. Something tells me they hurled a few epithets while pulling the trigger. Does that now constitute a threat to overthrow the USG, and establish a neo-Nazi caliphate?

Or is it, as the USDOJ and the courts found, a criminal act, committed by criminal perpetrators?

Sometimes, crazy Islamic psychopaths are just that… crazy psychopaths, who happen to be Muslim. Doesn’t mean I’m going to want policy shaped around them.

Because that would be truly crazy, and truly criminal.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 10:33 AM

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Thanks, hawk. I’ll be honest and admit that I tend to ignore Paul threads, since I know the trend. I, also, have no beef with eric’s comment per se, just taking it that bit further.

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Come on, go for the head injury jab! I’m bracing myself.

aryeung on May 29, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Man, you are starting to be so much fun…you and your little one track mind. Or are the meds starting to kick in…

lovingmyUSA on May 29, 2012 at 10:36 AM

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 10:33 AM

You have heard about the shot that went around the world, haven’t you?

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 10:38 AM

If you have the votes, elect Gary Johnson. Or write in Ron Paul. Anything else means the destruction of the Republican party, which is exactly what the goal has been from the beginning.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Really? Because I was planning on voting for the nominee of our party… Mitt Romney. And now you’re telling me it means the destruction of the GOP.

Which I had a sneaky suspicion of. I had merely written it off as paranoia, however…

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Just one story, FD. If I had all day, I’d post examples all day. But you go ahead posting about how you’re more afraid of The Bible. Christians are running around slashing folks so much, I’m afraid they’ll outlaw the faith.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM

You have heard about the shot that went around the world, haven’t you?

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 10:38 AM

It may have been heard ’round the world, but it sure looks like it stopped at the Pacific Ocean (apologies to HI residents).

And even then, I have yet to see anything come out of the Islamic world that comes close to matching the genius of Jefferson, Madison, or Washington. It was their brilliance that makes us safe, from a non-existent threat like worldwide Islamic takeover by a bunch of people who have a very clearly demonstrated lack of such brilliance.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 10:43 AM

In Ron Paul, you have a charisma-challenged old white guy who, without pandering or pushing prejudice, inspires young people with the always sexy message of monetary policy.

Well, no.

Paul panders to isolationists and pacifists.

He slandered conservative opponents as ‘wanting to go to war with all 1 billion muslims’.

That’s an atrocious mis-characterization of those who have a problem with Islamo-fascist regimes going nuclear.

But that’s Ron Paul.

Paul has railed against the cost of our military (a legitimate function of government). Not so much against the much greater expenditures of the welfare state, though. But again, that’s what we’ve come to expect from Ron Paul. Political posturing for MSM attention.

Be it in a GOP primary or in a debate over a war already authorized by Congress, Paul’s attacks are usually brought against whoever is the leading conservative of the time. When the heat of battle is on, you will see Ron Paul trashing the more conservative camp. (Perhaps Paul is jealous of those whom he sees as less ‘pure’ and yet who still have conservative accomplishments on their resume. An interesting point for reflection, there.)

From what I’ve seen, this great movement is composed of pacifists and pot enthusiasts. But who knows? Something good may yet come of it, though I’m certainly not hopeful.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Picky – I didn’t want two “heards” in one sentence.

Your idols no longer exist – this is a new, unstable world.

For clarification, I don’t think that any Muslim nation or nations will take over the world, either, but, their Sharia law is already making inroads. Allow them sufficient time …

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Which I had a sneaky suspicion of. I had merely written it off as paranoia, however…

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Yet this whole post is built on the idea that if the Republican party doesn’t do what you want, were doomed.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Paul has railed against the cost of our military (a legitimate function of government). Not so much against the much greater expenditures of the welfare state, though. But again, that’s what we’ve come to expect from Ron Paul. Political posturing for MSM attention.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM

As soon as the MSM finds out through polling that there are just as many votes or more coming from would-be Democrat voters going to Johnson and Paul, Ron Paul will cease to be their useful idiot. Just watch the destruction when it happens.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM

My one last question for supporters of Ron Paul. Have you ever disagreed with anything the man has said?

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

As soon as the MSM finds out through polling that there are just as many votes or more coming from would-be Democrat voters going to Johnson and Paul, Ron Paul will cease to be their useful idiot. Just watch the destruction when it happens.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM

An excellent point, oldroy.

By running 3rd party Paul could knock out Obama.

It says a lot that Paul chooses not to do so.

But that’s Ron Paul. He’d rather trash an ‘impure’ conservative than defeat a liberal. We’ve seen it over and over again.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

That would be heresy, don’t ya know!

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Picky – I didn’t want two “heards” in one sentence.

And I didn’t want to be overly pedantic. But this is a difference with a distinction. They all heard of our rev0lut10n. Many have, for whatever reasons, chosen not to follow our path.

Your idols no longer exist – this is a new, unstable world.

Yeah. Once again, sounds like that whole “end of history” thing, except now being sung from the Right’s hymn book.

The nation-state is still the dominant unit on this planet. The most important variable within that unit, WRT its ability to affect international balances of power, is economic output. The Islamic world, for all its ability to cause death through suicide terror, is an economic basket case.

For clarification, I don’t think that any Muslim nation or nations will take over the world, either, but, their Sharia law is already making inroads. Allow them sufficient time …

Hate to take the neo-Keynesian route here, but in the long run, we’re all dead.

Allow sufficient time, and events which we cannot possibly foresee will alter the course of world events in ways which we cannot plan for, and must deal with then, based on the knowledge we have then. The best way we can do that is to leave our progeny a nation capable of dealing with threats as they arise, and not be so saddled with debt from fighting a phantom menace that their options are truly limited by debt, when a real threat arises.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM

My one last question for supporters of Ron Paul. Have you ever disagreed with anything the man has said?

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I disagree with him that the war in Iraq was unconstitutional. Bush went to Congress, and they signed off. The Constitution leaves the question of “What is a declaration of war?” rather open. And I suspect the Framers did so deliberately.

That it was constitutional, however, does not make it wise.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

That would be heresy, don’t ya know!

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Yep. Cult of personality.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM

My one last question for supporters of Ron Paul. Have you ever disagreed with anything the man has said?

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I think what’s interesting about Paul is that his followers don’t care what he says.

Paul’s followers know that, no matter what he says, Paul is a pacifist.

They know Paul is critical of true conservatives.

They know Paul would just as soon legalize pot.

A lot of the fiscal restraint is a smokescreen which Paul supporters see right through. They know Paul and they will support him no matter what because of his real views.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Paul’s followers know that, no matter what he says, Paul is a pacifist.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM

The man served in the armed forces. How, exactly, does one square that with the circle of pacifism?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM

We have that knowledge now – their intent is clear. As for the economic side of the war against Islam, England has started to give in to Sharia without a shot being fired – as are other Western countries.

I agree that a debt-ridden country is in no position to ward off unwelcome inroads, but current American thinking did not allow for the successful completion of the two wars – in very short order and low cost. America should have gone in, killed as many as required, broke their infrastructure, and left.

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Ron Paul has a lot of good to say on domestic issues. On the international front, he’s lost his lunch. Sorry guys, but that’s the simple reality. Anyone who cannot recognize the face and the nature of the enemy simply does not belong in the White House. Obama is already giving away the store; we need to reverse that trend not amplify it.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Paul’s followers know that, no matter what he says, Paul is a pacifist.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM

The man served in the armed forces. How, exactly, does one square that with the circle of pacifism?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Paul’s supporters have seen him sabotage the war effort in Iraq.

They’ve heard Paul trash military spending out of proportion to the much greater welfare spending.

They’ve seen Paul distort the view that to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Islamo-fascists is to want to ‘kill all 1.8 billion muslims.’

Paul’s supporters get his isolationist message loud and clear.

Do you get it, Galt? That Paul served in the military decades ago has nothing to do with his current pacifism. Most of his followers and the MSM see his isolationism/pacifism, and that is why Paul gets the kid glove treatment from so many.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM

That Paul served in the military decades ago has nothing to do with his current pacifism. Most of his followers and the MSM see his isolationism/pacifism, and that is why Paul gets the kid glove treatment from so many.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Really? How about his own proposed budget? The one where he called for $500 billion per year to be spent on the Dept of Defense.

Is this what you call pacifism? Because the Quakers would be appalled.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Who is John Galt?

Really, who are the Ron Paul followers? The irony is that libertarians are by their own definition self-interested and think-for-yourself people. Yet Ron Paul “libertarians” follow Ron Paul dogmatically.

If John Galt doesn’t know who he is unless he follows Ron Paul, he isn’t really John Galt.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I like that the only posts on this site that ever go above 300 comments are about sarah palin and ron paul. The 2 “jokes” of the republican party are the only 2 people repulicans want to talk about. Kinda funny.

snoopicus on May 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

America should have gone in, killed as many as required, broke their infrastructure, and left.

Other than you leaving out the part about installing a leader capable of doing what needs to be done, I agree completely. If you go in, that’s what you do. The problem is, we never really needed to go in, in the first place.

We have that knowledge now – their intent is clear.

And my intent is to eat ice cream and not get fat. Much like nations that rigorously apply the tenets of Islam as state policy competing on the world stage…

Isn’t

Gonna

Happen!

As for the economic side of the war against Islam, England has started to give in to Sharia without a shot being fired – as are other Western countries.

The UK outlaw the charging of compound interest and the drinking of whiskey, did they?

Must have missed it in the newspapers.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Or to put it more plainly: If a libertarian doesn’t know what to think until Ron Paul tells him what to think, he isn’t really a libertarian.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I like that the only posts on this site that ever go above 300 comments are about sarah palin and ron paul. The 2 “jokes” of the republican party are the only 2 people repulicans want to talk about. Kinda funny.

snoopicus on May 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

You forget the birth certificate posts.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM

And the Paulestianians’ Hot Air campaign moves into its second day of fighting. They still haven’t made it off the beaches but they’re stubbornly holding onto Falsehood Pointe. Will this turn into an Overlord or a Dieppe? I’m thinking the latter.

Dunedainn on May 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Really? How about his own proposed budget? The one where he called for $500 billion per year to be spent on the Dept of Defense.

Is this what you call pacifism? Because the Quakers would be appalled.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Paul is smart enough to know that he can’t completely gut the military in one fell swoop and still expect to get elected. And let me explain what I mean by ‘pacifism’, Galt.

By ‘pacifism’, I mean someone who is opposed to US military actions.

Who wants to gut the military.

Who undercuts morale in a time of war because he is angry with and jealous of the ‘impure’ conservative who is in charge.

Who slanders and trashes those who want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Islamo-fascists.

Who claims that the US can withdraw from the world stage and that there would be no consequences.

(All of the above usually done, by the way, behind a smokescreen of fiscal concern.)

So Ron Paul is not a pacifist in the Quaker sense, but in the ‘anti-American-military/isolationist’ sense.

Do you see now, Galt, why it doesn’t matter than Paul served in the military, or that he claims to only support ‘constitutional’ wars? It doesn’t matter what Paul claims. He’s an isolationist/pacifist. Most of his supporters know this.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

The 2 “jokes” of the republican party are the only 2 people repulicans want to talk about. Kinda funny.

snoopicus on May 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

And one of those “jokes” has more sense than the entire warmongering looney-bin lot of them. I don’t see what’s so funny, because it’s evidence that the Demobrats are likely to win again and ruin us beyond all hope of repair.

MelonCollie on May 29, 2012 at 11:49 AM

The UK outlaw the charging of compound interest and the drinking of whiskey, did they?

Must have missed it in the newspapers.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 11:38 AM

It begins with Sharia being applied in Muslim strongholds – to Muslims, and will spread if allowed.

As for the ice-cream thingy, why allow them to try?

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Or to put it more plainly: If a libertarian doesn’t know what to think until Ron Paul tells him what to think, he isn’t really a libertarian.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I was a libertarian years before I knew who the hell Ron Paul was. Only some time after I’d left the official party (due to the unchecked immigration of potheads) did I find out about him.

MelonCollie on May 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared
franksalterego on May 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM

thats about how i would describe a very good portion of the GOP and the DONKS!!!

svs22422 on May 29, 2012 at 11:54 AM

And one of those “jokes” has more sense than the entire warmongering looney-bin lot of them.

MelonCollie on May 29, 2012 at 11:49 AM

MelonCollie is a Paul supporter who sees through the fiscal smokescreen and understands Ron Paul for the pacifist/isolationist he is.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM

MelonCollie is a Paul supporter who sees through the fiscal smokescreen and understands Ron Paul for the pacifist/isolationist he is.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM

FTFY. And if it’s fiscal stuff you’re worried about, prepare to be disappointed with Romney unless the right wins big time in Congress. Then we might have a prayer.

MelonCollie on May 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM

As for the ice-cream thingy, why allow them to try?

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM

A fine argument for English, and Continentals, and Anglo-Americans for that matter, having more babies. That logic is inescapable. However, it is a poor rationale for dropping more bombs, or God forbid, invading more countries.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM

By ‘pacifism’, I mean…

(blather excised for brevity’s sake)…

So Ron Paul is not a pacifist in the Quaker sense, but in the ‘anti-American-military/isolationist’ sense.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Uh huh. So, it’s not “pacifism” pacifism.

Got it.

It’s your loose use of the English language that is to blame.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM

They know Paul would just as soon legalize pot.
shinty on May 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM

OH my, legalize somthing that 100 million have done or do.
might want to look up justice scalia and thomas on these issue’s. you know,since they have had the reputation as being the most conservative on the bench!! i think you will find that people like you are more of a threat to the consititution than someone who smokes weed!!

100 million american’s.

svs22422 on May 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Agree with not invading further – it wouldn’t be done properly. I would prefer that we stop giving in to them through legitimising their religion/culture – both are alien to Western thought.

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM

100 million american’s.

svs22422 on May 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM

That explains a lot!

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 12:24 PM

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Supporting a candidate does not equate to dogmatically following them. This is very different from your dogmatically following Hannity and Rush and BOR.

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Did you really just link to your own blog to support your point? What a pathetic dork.

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 3:14 AM

No, I cited my blog so that you can follow the links which refers you to the information I’m using to support my arguments.

If to link every fact I’m citing in Hot Air, it would turn into its own blog article every time.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I would prefer that we stop giving in to them through legitimising their religion/culture – both are alien to Western thought.

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM

There is a billion and a half of them… they aren’t going away anytime soon. And while the most productive Muslim states (Turkey, Malaysia) are firmly in secular hands, the fact is that states like the KSA and Iran are ruled to a greater or lesser extent by believers, and in some cases, fanatics. You have to be prepared to deal with them diplomatically.

And the problem, as I see it, is not that their culture is alien to Western thought. It is that Western thought is alien to their culture. They never experienced the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. They never had a Reformation. The intellectual and social growth we experienced, and that has allowed us to advance as far as we have, simply doesn’t exist in much of the Islamic world.

Which explains why, even sitting on top of oceans of the world’s most important resource, the Arab world can’t even get the petroleum markets straight.

I’m really not that worried.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Uh huh. So, it’s not “pacifism” pacifism.

Got it.

It’s your loose use of the English language that is to blame.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Galt, most of your fellow Paul supporters realize RP tends toward pacifism and isolationism.

Splitting semantic hairs won’t change it for you.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Supporting a candidate does not equate to dogmatically following them. This is very different from your dogmatically following Hannity and Rush and BOR.

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Show one mention of Hannity, BOR or Rush from me.

Hannity – not my cup of tea – to nasal whiny. BOR – come on really – he’s just a bloviating pinhead – likes to hear himself talk. Rush – I sometimes get a chance to listen to him. I usually agree with him, and it’s great fun to listen. Sometimes Rush goes over the top and should just let things go, knowing that he is a daily target for the media.

As asked before, what do you disagree with Ron Paul on?

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Galt, most of your fellow Paul supporters realize RP tends toward pacifism and isolationism.

Splitting semantic hairs won’t change it for you.

shinty on May 29, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I’ve never seen you post anything accurate about Paul. Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. The terms are not synonymous. As for pacifism, Paul, being libertarian, believes that force shouldn’t be used against those who have not themselves initiated force. That isn’t pacifism.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 1:02 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:51 PM

It doesn’t matter how many there are – I don’t want them interfering in my life. If they would stay in their own hell-holes and shut up, all would be bright – but they won’t, hence the need to subdue them.

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 1:02 PM

You must be thinking of the 3,000 of them who were murdered by Islamic Terrorists on 9/11/01.

kingsjester on May 29, 2012 at 7:45 AM

Bankrupting America and sacrificing the future of our children in the pursuit of invading and rebuilding our enemy’s nations around the world isn’t the solution, and the people who have supported that failed policy don’t have exclusive ownership of outrage about 9/11. The fact is that Iraq was a huge and expensive distraction from what should have been our response to 9/11. There is no evidence that Iraq or Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, and Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan for all those years, just like most of us always figured. So why did we go into Iraq instead? Now that we are out of Iraq, Iran is moving in. Why is that such a good thing, making it worth so much blood and treasure?

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I’ve never seen you post anything accurate about Paul. Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. The terms are not synonymous. As for pacifism, Paul, being libertarian, believes that force shouldn’t be used against those who have not themselves initiated force. That isn’t pacifism.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Glad we got that cleared up. That should change a whole lot of peoples minds.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I can see the campaign adds now.

“Ron Paul isn’t an Isolationist, he is a non-interventionist – oh he’s not running any more, but he wants to tear apart the Republican party and tell you it sucks.”

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Tea Party? In just a few years, look at what a bunch of un-organized rabble have done. Because they aren’t nuts.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 9:03 AM

They haven’t done anything, what are you talking about? All they’ve done, aside from a few of the tea party freshmen, is vote in lock-step with the rest of the GOP establishment just like the losers they replaced. The tea party has been a failure, now the GOP is even more liberal than ever, supporting a candidate that invented Obamacare.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:16 PM

The tea party has been a failure, now the GOP is even more liberal than ever, supporting a candidate that invented Obamacare.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Mitt Romney isn’t the father of ObamaCare. Heritage Foundation is.

Get your facts straight.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 1:18 PM

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:16 PM

As opposed to the massive traction gained, action taken, and candidates elected during Ron Paul’s decades in politics?

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM

You haven’t thought it through then, because anybody with half a brain would realize that the charge of isolationism is false. It’s only a few people like you who believe your own propaganda that fall for that crap.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:06 PM

You’re straying just a little bit. The ridiculous claim is that they hate us because we’re free (or some permutation of the phrase). The fact is, they hate us because we’re there. Instead of buying into the propaganda, all one has to do is read bin Laden’s declaration of war published in 1996, in which he specifically states why … and it’s not because we’re free.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Mitt Romney isn’t the father of ObamaCare. Heritage Foundation is.

Get your facts straight.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 1:18 PM

They didn’t sign the bill, Romney did.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8