Random Observations On 2012

RON PAUL'S supporters are often unfairly accused of disregarding electability. The truth is that electability matters greatly to us, but only if we have multiple candidates to choose from. Many of us are unwilling to support RINOs and known liars who

• have shown a willingness to tailor their message to the audience (and thus cannot be trusted to follow through on anything they claim to believe in),
• have embraced bigger, more intrusive government as the preferred solution to a host of social and economic ills,
• supported a government mandate to force Americans to purchase health insurance,
• eagerly look forward to sending more American soldiers into harm's way while having never served in the military themselves, and
• view the due process protections of the U.S. Constitution as bothersome details to be skirted by fair means or foul.

For us, there is only one choice. Every one of these statements applies to every Republican presidential candidate left in the race, except for Ron Paul.
If electability trumps principle so completely that these facts shouldn't matter, then what is the real purpose of this election? It would seem that Albert Nock was right when he wrote in 1936 that elections had become merely "a contest for control and management" of an ever-expanding bureaucratic apparatus and the power it afforded. Is this election about whose turn it is to run the big government, or is it about limiting the federal government?

ON THAT note, here's a thought for those of you who claim to believe in "small" government as opposed to "big" government. What makes government big: the price tag or the level of involvement in people's affairs? The Tea Party movement has rightly called much attention to the insanity of our government consistently spending more than its revenues. It has also argued effectively for the economic benefits of keeping money in the private sector where it can be used productively rather than destructively. But the election results so far indicate that many conservatives are willing to settle for promises of a more efficient government in lieu of a more limited one.
I submit that government is not made smaller by reducing spending, but by repealing excessive and unjust laws and regulations. A government which more efficiently intrudes itself into the affairs of individuals, families, businesses and foreign nations does not appeal to me.

DONATIONS from active duty military personnel to Ron Paul''s campaign in the last quarter totaled six times the amount given to all other Republican presidential candidates combined. Not bad for the one candidate who isn't afraid to criticize the unjust wars these men and women are being called on to wage. Come to think of it, maybe there's even a connection.



YOUNG VOTERS have overwhelmingly backed Ron Paul in the election thus far. Conventional wisdom (or its modern substitute) looks to youthful rebellion as the explanation. There's probably a bit of that, but as one who has rubbed shoulders with more Ron Paul supporters than most media pundits even know about, I think there's a more relevant explanation. Americans who are thirty and under, for the most part, are skeptical of the federal government's ability to deliver on the absurd promises our grandparents extorted from it. Many of us view entitlement programs as somewhere between a Ponzi scheme and a bad joke, rather than hallowed symbols of the American Way. We tend to be equally skeptical of the idea that the rest of the world longs to be liberated and democratized by an overwhelming application of military force, and perhaps less inclined to oblige even if such a desire exists. This is understandable, considering that we hope to inherit whatever is left of our country when the baby boomers are finished looting it.



DR. PAUL is often criticized for not promising to endorse the eventual nominee, whoever that is. Some GOP elites are on record saying that he should be thrown out of the party for his unwillingness to make such a commitment. Does anyone really think that any of these hypocrites would endorse Dr. Paul if he were the nominee? I didn't think so. Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich, among others , have indicated that they would vote for Obama rather than Paul. Hmmm.



AT THE RISK of sounding a bit conspiratorial, I can't help noting that:

• Ron Paul is the only candidate whose percentages in every caucus and primary, without a single exception, have gone down as the total percentage of votes reported goes up;
• Ron Paul was close to winning Iowa and close to second in Nevada;
• For the first time in history, Iowa's vote count was moved to a secret location;
• Iowa and Nevada both claim to be unable to report a precise count;
• Both caucuses were handled so badly (whether intentionally or not) that the Iowa GOP chair and the Nevada GOP chair both resigned afterward.

I'm just saying.

Ron Paul and Abortion - In His Own Words

I was working on a post addressing Ron Paul's commitment to life and ending the practice of abortion, when I found this. I've said for a long time that Dr. Paul's pro-life record is stronger and more respectable than can be said for most of his critics on this point, especially when one turns from their rhetoric to examine their behavior. The most relevant example in the context of this election cycle would be Rick Santorum, who misses no opportunity to trot out his pro-life ratings and cultivate his image as a champion of the unborn. As a Pennsylvanian who remembers his unprincipled endorsement of the belligerently pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey in 2004 (an endorsement which arguably cost Toomey the election and set the stage for Specter's predictable mid-term switch from big-government Republican to big-government Democrat), I find Santorum unconvincing, not to say - well, I won't say. But back to Ron Paul: here is his position on the right to life, in his own words. All I have to add is that, as usual, his own words aren't just words, they are backed by a consistent and active thirty year record that is unmatched by any other candidate in the race.

Ron Paul Life Pledge

December 19, 2011

As a pro-life OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I have always opposed abortion. Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents.

While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you can’t have Liberty without Life.

I don’t just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law.

Today, I want to tell you a bit more about my views on life than the attached pledge really allows me to explain. I think it is important for us all to describe our views on life in our own words.

I believe the attached pledge is important. The fight for the Right to Life is unlike any other in our society right now, and I am proud to be a soldier in that fight.

But it is also important to fight every battle with principle. At this point, I think I am well-known for my constitutional views and sticking to my principles, even when doing so is hard and forces me to stand alone. Both this pledge and the pro-life issue itself require some careful thought from my fellow pro-lifers so we can avoid the trap of throwing out the Constitution in our effort to save lives. Just as we cannot have liberty without life, I believe the opposite is also true: we must keep the Constitution and liberty in mind when fighting for the rights of the unborn. Otherwise, we undermine the entire system our Founders put their lives on the line to create in order to protect life and liberty.

I guarantee you that no one would work harder to be the most ardent and active pro-life President in history. I do not say that lightly. My entire life’s work has touched on this issue in a way few others have. So as I pondered this pledge, as I do all pledges, I had to ensure I would continue to stand with the Constitution.

I have previously sponsored a Human Life Amendment while in Congress, and though I ultimately do not believe this is how we will end abortion, achieving such an amendment is certainly a laudable goal. Of course, Presidents do not sign constitutional amendments – another reason I cannot guarantee what would happen on this issue.

A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does – through state laws.

To summarize my views – I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.

I don’t see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues. The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a “Federal Department of Abortion.” Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.

As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state.

I would place a priority in my administration on ending federal abortion funding, defunding Planned Parenthood, and defunding any state department or UN agency that encourages abortion in their “family planning” activities. As a Congressman, I have consistently voted against giving federal funds to any organization that performs abortions or engages in “family planning” activities, and I have offered legislation on the floor of the House to defund all international family planning programs.

No one has ever completely defunded these programs, because they weren’t willing to undertake the fight that would result from vetoing the spending bills. I will veto these bills every time it takes until no taxpayer dollars go to abortion.

I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans.

In addition, I will only put pro-life judges who adhere to the Constitution on the federal bench.
Finally, I will fight back against our depraved culture by ending all federal programs that undermine the family and our traditional American values of respect for life and personal responsibility. I will lead by example, as I have done every day in my medical practice and in Congress.

We CAN both fight for life AND liberty. We can remain true to our principle of following the Constitution while also fighting for our moral values. In fact, we must.

I ask for the support of every one of my fellow pro-lifers. This is an important moment in history. You can vote for any of the many folks who will sign a pledge, or you can vote for the one who stands by everything he has ever said on this critical issue over the years. You can choose the candidate whose principles and consistency are unquestioned, and whose record is unmatched.

You can vote for BOTH a pro-life champion and a different kind of President, who will end business as usual all across Washington, fix our budget mess, and strengthen our families by restoring jobs and upholding our values.
Thank you for your consideration.

For Life and Liberty,

Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul, Foreign Policy and the Military

Probably the most common objection to Dr. Ron Paul heard from conservative voters is the well-worn line: “I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.” This isn’t because the typical Republican voter agrees with the current Bush-Clinton-Obama foreign policy: a November CBS News poll found nearly three-fourths of Republicans believe “the U.S. should not try to change dictatorships to democracies…” More likely, it is because they hear the same drivel incessantly repeated by people they have been accustomed to respect. A delusional Dick Morris, speaking on the O’Reilly Factor, recently claimed that Ron Paul is a “left-wing radical” who “wants to dismantle the military” and “blame[s] America for 9/11.” Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann called his foreign policy ideas “dangerous,” while Newt Gingrich pompously announced that “Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.”

Really?

Perhaps we should clarify that “Ron Paul’s views” aren’t just random gleanings from the Huffington Post. Unlike Santorum, whose chief foreign policy adviser might as well be Toby Keith, Ron Paul is one of the most well-informed people in the beltway when it comes to the Middle East, its history and America’s involvement there. Even if you don’t agree with his conclusions, you can’t help noticing the depth of his knowledge when he warms up to this subject. His thorough historical studies and his own observations over the last 35 years form a solid basis for understanding world events. His advisers have included Michael Scheuer, a 22 year CIA veteran who spent over 17 years focused exclusively on Bin Laden- and Al Qaeda-related intelligence analysis, and who for some time headed the “Bin Laden desk” at the CIA, and Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and contributing editor for The American Conservative. His foreign policy views are more or less those of George Washington, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Sen. Robert Taft, Russell Kirk – even William F. Buckley’s views on foreign policy come closer to Ron Paul’s than those of any other current presidential candidate. With that said, let’s take a closer look at these “extreme” views.

Ron Paul’s budget calls for cutting defense spending back to 2006 levels. That’s right, the same spending levels we had four years into the so-called War on Terror and three years into the Iraq War. If that were done, our defense budget would only amount to 35-40% of the entire world’s military spending, approximately equal to the next ten countries combined (Russia, China, UK, France, etc.). It is beyond difficult to imagine that Dick Morris is unaware of this fact, so he must be either nuts or disingenuous.

On “blaming America for 9/11,” Paul has merely pointed out that our policies and actions in the Middle East have – predictably - caused an extreme backlash among Muslims, of which 9/11 was a result. To the neocon hawks who measure the strength of America’s defenses by the number of bombs we drop in a given week, this view may sound extreme and radical. It is shared, however, by the previously mentioned left-wing radicals – sorry, I meant intelligence experts - Scheuer and Giraldi. It is also the view expressed by the 9-11 Commission and by many of the counter-terrorism experts who testified during its investigation. Even more relevant to the absurd claims of Dick Morris is the prediction conservative icon Russell Kirk delivered back in 1991 in a speech to the Heritage Foundation. Speaking of the Gulf War and the policies pursued by the first President Bush, Kirk warned that “We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States — even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary …”

Those of us who have admired Ron Paul for years were entirely unsurprised to hear him say that 9/11 reflected a backlash to American policies. After all, he had called for President Clinton’s impeachment in 1998 after the Sudan and Iraq bombings, noting that “our national security is jeopardized by allowing this to happen… We’re liable to have more attacks … by terrorists. ” Many Republicans agreed with him at the time. Prior to September 2001, Dr. Paul had repeatedly predicted that the arrogant course we pursued since the 1950s in the Middle East would lead to increasingly deadly terrorist attacks. His warnings were largely ignored, but given the accuracy of his predictions, those who ignored them should not be astonished that he still maintains the same views.

Speaking to Sean Hannity back in October, Rick Santorum credited Ron Paul with extensive experience and a “deep” understanding of foreign policy issues; and, while noting that he and Paul had “different viewpoints,” added that “when the phone rings at three in the morning” Paul would likely know the history and the characters and have a plan to handle the situation. But last week he called Paul “dangerous,” falsely accusing him of saying that a nuclear Iran is not a threat to Israel. Actually, Paul has said that a nuclear Iran does not pose a credible threat to America, and that Israel has both the right and the capability to respond should they determine that Iran poses a risk to them.

A little known fact bears mentioning here: when Israel bombed two Iraqi nuclear reactors in 1981, the United States Congress passed an almost unanimous resolution condemning Israel’s actions as reckless and unjustified. I said almost unanimous – Ron Paul was the only vote against the resolution. He opposed it on the grounds that Israel had a right to defend itself and that America should stay out of their affairs unless our involvement was requested.

Santorum also recently attacked Paul’s assertion that military aid to Pakistan is not in America’s best interest, arguing that because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, America has no choice but to buy Pakistan’s allegiance, whatever it takes. There is a lesson here if one can get past the embarrassment of a presidential candidate making such a cowardly argument in public. Maybe Rick doesn’t realize this, but if he is smart enough to make the connection between Pakistan’s nukes and the billions of dollars their political and military leaders siphon away from American workers, you can bet the Iranians are too. As Dr. Paul has pointed out before, we talked Gaddafi out of his nuclear ambitions and then turned on him. Bomb = aid; no bomb = lots of bombs dumped on you; what possible motivation have we left Iran for abandoning a nuclear weapons program, if indeed they have one?

But Newt Gingrich stands out in the lineup of Paul bashers. His sweeping, all-inclusive, and arrogant attacks are earning him the disrespect of many, if not most, Americans. Imagine that you are a soldier in Afghanistan, or a sailor in the Persian Gulf, and a Ron Paul supporter. You’ve gone beyond merely supporting him; you’ve given a chunk of your shamefully low combat pay to his campaign. You’ve made this sacrifice, along with thousands of your fellow fighting men and women, precisely because of Paul’s views on foreign policy. You know why active duty military personnel are far and away the largest group (by employer) among his supporters. You know why he has received more in donations from military men and women than all the other GOP candidates combined. You are living the war on terror; your life is on the line every day; you’ve seen firsthand how the effort to win hearts and minds in the Middle East really works; and you believe Ron Paul is right when he says we are less safe because of our military adventurism. Now a narcissistic career politician and lobbyist who studiously avoided military service in Viet Nam declares those views - your views – to be “totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.” How exactly does that feel?

Which brings to mind one thing I really don’t like about Ron Paul: he is way too kind to Gingrich and his ilk. He tends to stick to his own argument even when seemingly irresistible opportunities present themselves for showing up windbags like Newt. He did finally call Newt out as a chickenhawk last Saturday night, which brought an angry reaction from the former Speaker: he denied using college deferments to avoid the draft, claiming that he was married with a child and thus wouldn’t have been eligible anyway. To which Paul responded icily, “When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went.”

And one more thing for the record, Newt: he’s still married.

_______________________________________________

Here's a great article by John Nichols on why Ron Paul isn’t just a conservative, he’s the only conservative running for President this election cycle:

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/22/144122913/the-nation-why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Hammers And Nails: Getting Things Done

With Republicans taking control of the House for the next two years, a tired old template for debate inside the beltway has been rediscovered: it's now time to put aside the rhetoric and partisanship and focus on getting things done for the American people. New polls assure lawmakers that a majority of Americans want compromise for the sake of "progress" (a helpfully vague ideal that is almost never given a definite meaning). This concept is nothing new: principled legislators like Ron "Dr. No" Paul or Pennsylvania's Sam Rohrer are often criticized for their failure to "get things done" - usually defined as authoring legislation which will ultimately become law. As with most political debate, the underlying question (what are legislators for?) is never asked unless in a rhetorical sense; the assumption is nearly always that the legislator's first responsibility is to come up with additional laws.

There's an old proverb that applies here: to a man with nothing but a hammer everything looks like a nail. Lawmakers are always happy to indulge, even when the public really doesn't want them to. As early as 1834, a profligate Congress drew this rebuke from William Leggett in the New York Evening Post:

"One of the great practical evils of our system arises from a superabundance of legislation. ... Putting the acts of Congress and those of the State legislature together, they amount to some thousands annually. Is it possible that the good people of the United States require to be hampered and pestered by such a multiplicity of fetters as this: or that they cannot be kept in order without being manacled every year by new laws and regulations? Every superfluous law is a wanton and unnecessary innovation of the [people's] freedom of action... [yet our] legislative bodies have been regularly and systematically employed in frittering away, under a thousand pretenses, the whole fabric of the reserved rights of the people."

Good thing our great-grandparents put a stop to that. Imagine what our country would look like if Congress and the Pennsylvania General Assembly still enacted "some thousands of new laws annually."

Oh wait - they still do that.

The most overlooked consequence of nearly all legislation today is, embarrassingly, its primary purpose. Generally speaking, a new law means a new crime. It is precisely for this reason that unnecessary laws are so destructive to freedom and economic growth. Whether a law's purpose is to ban a substance, levy a tax, create a license, or impose a reporting requirement, it has invented a new crime where none existed before. This is not to say that laws are bad, only that unnecessary laws are bad.

I'd like to suggest that legislators aren't elected to make laws. Their responsibility is to see that only good and necessary laws are made. If no new laws are needed, then their responsibility is to prevent bad laws from being made (obstructionism, if you please). If bad laws have already been made, then their responsibility is to undo them.

Is there any doubt that this last is the situation we find ourselves in today? Almost everyone, regardless of their political opinions, thinks that we have bad laws on the books. But when the political class is confronted with the problems caused by their collective OCD, they don't undo anything, they just do more of it. It's time for that to change. The American voters took the legislative hammer away from a significant number of politicians on November 2nd; now we need to keep the pressure on those replacing them to start pulling nails instead of driving more. And instead of cringing in fear when others label us "the party of no," why don't we remind them that a "no" to the Nanny State is a "yes" to freedom, not just for Republicans, but for all Americans?

Hello, GOP ...

I sent this letter to a slew of editors, but no one was willing to publish it. So ... I will!

_________________________________________

In Thursday’s republican presidential debate in South Carolina, Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron questioned Dr. Ron Paul’s electability, implying that his positions were incompatible with those of the Republican Party. As a Republican voter, I agree with Ron Paul that our party has lost its way. The current GOP platform would be unrecognizable to the republicans of Reagan’s day. Even so, many of the sentiments in this pitiable mutation of conservative principles sound oddly similar to those defended by Congressman Paul. Consider the following quote: “As tagging and tracking citizens is inconsistent with American freedom, we oppose the creation of a national identification card or system.”

Really? Paul is the only GOP presidential candidate who opposes the REAL ID program; or in other words, he is the only candidate whose position on this issue is consistent with his party’s platform.

How about this astute observation regarding foreign aid: “Development aid has often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating misery.” That sounds like a quote from the Doctor’s weekly column. Why do the other republican candidates unite in deriding Ron Paul for statements like this?

Here’s an interesting quote: “As Republicans, we trust people to make decisions about how to spend, save, and invest their own money. We want individuals to own and control their income... making their own choices and directing their own future. …the problem is not that the American people are taxed too little but that the federal government spends too much.” Paul is the only candidate who has called for allowing young Americans like me to completely opt out of the Social Security System. Why are the other candidates so reluctant to agree?

The platform has this to say about education: “We recognize that under the American Constitutional system, education is a state, local, and family responsibility, not a federal obligation.” So why do the other candidates and the media laugh when Ron Paul says what every involved parent knows: that the federal Department of Education is wasteful and unconstitutional?

Earlier this week Jay Leno asked Dr. Paul why Fox News has consistently tried to marginalize and exclude him, noting that after all, he was a Republican. Paul responded, “Yes, but – they’re not!” I think he is absolutely right. If Carl Cameron would focus less on polls and more on principles, he would likely conclude that, electable or no, Ron Paul is the only real Republican candidate.

Politics or Principles?

As a serious history student, I frequently find myself drawing comparisons between current and historical events, people and societal trends. The conclusions warranted by this method are often offensive to those who suffer from the delusion that “things are different today.” But as our national politics slip beyond their previously explored frontiers of degeneracy, I find myself thinking again on the vast difference between a statesman and a politician.

Contrary to the opinions of much of the religious right, the distinction does not lie in the volume of one’s profession of faith. As a matter of fact, true statesmen have been found among the ranks of nearly every denomination of the Christian Church, among numerous false religions, and even professing atheists. Nor does the distinction lie in political creed – throughout history, true (though often mistaken) statesmen have defended forms of government ranging from absolute monarchy to utopian communism.

The difference is simple: a statesman is one who loves his country more than himself or his political affiliations. His goal is the good of his country, and his political positions and actions, however mistaken or uninformed they may be, are taken for that purpose. In a nutshell, his loyalty is to his country.

A politician, on the other hand, to the extent that he possesses that virtue at all, is loyal either to his party or to himself (generally some combination of the two). His positions and actions are taken with an eye to the advancement of his party and/or his own ambitions. He may now and then pause to consider their effects on the nation as a whole, but his first priority is to consolidate his own position against the efforts of the opposition.

The current antics of our elected officials on Capitol Hill and in the White House are a supremely disgusting illustration of the latter. Our representatives in congress are wasting their time debating and voting on a bill to increase funding for embryonic stem cell research even though they know it will be vetoed. They justify this exercise in futility by citing a need to put the President on record as opposing “the will of the people,” even though his position on this issue is already clear. Their real purpose, however, is to bolster the Democratic Party’s position in the next election. And taxpayers’ hard-earned money is being used to fund this charade.

The federal district attorney firings and the accompanying furor provide another example of shameless political gaming by all sides. It is obvious that the Justice Department made appointments based on political loyalties, though this practice is not new. It is also plain that they used the pretext of the war on terror to avoid the oversight, and presumably the criticism, of congress when making replacements. On the other hand, the self-righteous clamor of the opposing party seems carefully oriented toward the approaching elections, and their ethically laced demands for the Attorney General’s resignation are hollow at best. They know that replacing Gonzales would require confirmation hearings, and that those hearings would be an ideal venue for lowering this administration still further in the public esteem. Which is precisely why they want Gonzales to resign, and more to the point, is precisely why he won’t resign.

If there are any national issues that ought to be addressed without regard to party politics, the war in Iraq deserves to be at the top of the list. Yet no other issue is so politically charged at present, and American soldiers are currently being treated as pawns by the ass and the elephant alike. The invasion and occupation received bipartisan support until the dreaded threat of low approval ratings began to rear its head. The White House, being controlled by politicians (not statesmen) who are painfully aware that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster, has no choice but to “stay the course” until either conditions improve or a Democratic president arrives to take the blame for the consequences. Meanwhile, the Democratic hopefuls, knowing what awaits them if they step into the Oval office before the inevitable pullout, present a comical picture as they try everything short of funding cuts to convince the President that the troops should come home now.

The most ironic aspect of this circus is that the obvious constitutional option to end the war is to cut the funding, and that is precisely the option Congress is afraid of. To force the return of American troops over the President’s veto would place the blame for the ensuing disintegration of Iraq firmly on the heads of the Democratic leadership. But a pullout ordered by a Democratic president would yield similar results. Their only hope is to convince the current administration to accept responsibility for the failure of both parties, something the administration isn’t about to do. So the troops will stay where they should never have gone, while our leaders peer over their spectacles at the latest polling data and casualty reports as they desperately search for a way to leave Iraq without leaving D.C.

Contrast their behavior with that of Congressman Ron Paul, and one immediately recognizes the vast difference. Unlike the party faithful, Congressman Paul strenuously opposed the unconstitutional nature of the invasion. He spoke and wrote extensively on the dangers of empire building and the falsity of the various justifications for war. In doing so, he brought on himself the disdain of his colleagues and was icily ignored by the mainstream media. Now that he is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, he continues to speak the truth on those issues that are most likely to prevent him from reaching the Oval office. Political pundits question whether he is “presidential material,” but the real problem is their inability to comprehend genuine statesmanship.