UPDATE: Ron Paul Conspiracy Theory in Critical Condition

UPDATE: Bullet dodged.

Many of you are familiar with my Ron Paul baby conspiracy theory, which goes a little something like this:

–Ron Paul doesn’t care about the Republican Party. (He actually held a press conference including the Green Party candidate in 2008 to encourage people to avoid voting for the D or the R.)

–Ron Paul doesn’t think there’s much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats, therefore he doesn’t see a Mitt Romney victory over Barack Obama as all that important.

–Ron Paul is old and isn’t running for congress anymore. This is essentially his last political act.

–Ron Paul obviously is not winning the Republican nomination, but will still raise a lot of money.

–Ron Paul never completely rules out a third party run.

–Ron Paul will drop out of the Republican race at the last minute, walk into the Libertarian convention, and run as their presidential candidate.

I call it my baby conspiracy theory, because I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it was going to happen, and I have to stretch on certain aspects of the theory, while ignoring some other evidence to make it work. In other words, I don’t take it that seriously.

But, I do think it could happen, and would essentially hand the presidency to Barack Obama for four more years. Some people have suggested that Paul might wind up running as an independent, but the ballot access rules make an independent run such a pain, that I don’t think he’d go that route. On the other hand, the Libertarian Party offers ballot access in close to 50 states automatically. It also offers a convention format that would basically allow him to stroll in whenever he wants and become the nominee, assuming he could win a vote among hardcore libertarian activists.(Is there even a question he’d win that?)

As his last major political act, I think Paul could quite likely believe that introducing his ideas on a stage bigger than ever before could be worth the political hits he’d take. Could he win? No, but he could get in the debates, and perform as well as any third party candidate since Perot. That might be enough for him. (The only thing really stopping this would be fear for his son Rand’s career. Republicans will surely punish him, fair or not, if daddy goes down this road.)

Well, luckily—the faint highlight of a conspiracy theory is beginning to fade. This weekend is the Libertarian convention. So, if Monday’s news is not littered with reports of a Ron Paul third party candidacy—we’ve dodged that mythical bullet.

According to some correspondence with Libertarian Party insiders, Ron Paul would have to make his move in the next couple of days, collect his tokens (that’s how they vote), and then win the nomination Saturday. If not, they pick somebody else like Gary Johnson, and Ron is left to try to influence the GOP platform at the convention and leave the long term message tied to his son Rand.

I watched the Libertarian convention last year, and I assume it will be on CSPAN again this weekend. It is an interesting event to say the least. Check it out, and see if Mitt Romney clears his most immediate hurdle on the way to the White House. Conspiracy theorists unite!

  • Anonymous

    Funny thing

    There are a lot of RP supporters who insist the only way to save America is to reduce us to rubble and start again with their anarcho capitalist, stateless pipe dream.

    Guess we will find out soon enough if RP is the voluntaryist THEY believe he is and whether he thinks we should be rubble by whether he enables the known rubble-maker.

    “In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown
    that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.”  –Graham Wright, Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist, found on the Mises Institute website.

    God bless

    “It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy .” –Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 9, November 21, 1787

    • greywolfrs

      You are completely full of shit, I have followed Ron Paul for decades and he has NEVER said anything about anarchy. He is far from advocating “voluntaryism,” freedom should only be limited to whether it hurts another person or not. People like you think you have the right to tell others what is good them and what is not, but god forbid anyone tell you that. You are a hypocrite.

  • Anonymous

        You did not mention how your theory (s) might affect Senator Rand Paul.  Do you think Ron Paul has that little regard for his son’s possible future political aspirations?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7KBRQCZKACEPZOATIBBESHXVVU Tod

    Romney is the “lesser of two evils”, when do we start the “unusual” of doing the right thing according to The Constitution and vote for the best candidate?
    GOP and Demoncraps are one in the same these days, big government, big spend.
    Romney is not the answer.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2CY7V3743RRO7MJTI5NROJHLLQ Ken

      Exactly! I will not vote for a “lesser of two evils.” I will be voting for the candidate I believe will turn this train wreck around – Ron Paul. I will write his name in if I have to.

      • JayTee

         You will waste your vote.  Do yourself a favor, just stay home and watch TV.

        • Don Bosch

          How can a vote placed upon one’s belief be considered a wasted vote? Are you saying that a man should believe in a cause, but if he cannot win, he needs to change his beliefs? Wow.no wonder the U.S. is where it is today.

        • Sunshine Kid

          If everybody thought like you, everybody would be a pack of lemmings.

          Democrats are going nuts and Republicans no longer have any.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MFI2DBY4KKKEWREWWMF5Z73RGI Mary

    We are a two party system. As long as that is true, I’m going to support the conservative hijacking of the GOP to counteract the insane socialist hijacking of the Democratic party. A LOTE is better than an anti-America Marxist.

    • Anonymous

      is it? is it really?

      and as long as we still have people like you, who are just going to keep going along with a two party system without the courage to stand up for what you actually believe, limiting yourself between 2 bad choices after 2 bad choices after 2 bad choices, then this two party system is all we’re ever going to have.

      The world never, ever, changed for the better, by the actions of “that’s the way the world is” types. Only “the world is what you make it” types have the strength to make the change.

      If you’re not willing to do that, then you’re a coward, and you deserve the gov’t you keep voting for.

      — Smoov

  • Anonymous

    People ned to worry about the REAL conspiracy , the one that saw to it that Obamass was elected without being properly vetted because of his marxist upbringing and background . This massive conspiracy was perpetuated by progressive DEMONRATS , the same ones that hid behind the Hillary Clinton invented republican conspiracy theory .   Indeed it was a theory , because the only REAL conspiracy was being implemented by the DEMONRATS . Nor is Barack Romney the answer , the answer is  ”  RON PAUL  ”   !!!

    • Anonymous


      Which is worse, a bull in a china closet like BHO,or a nation infested with army ants like what Paul would unleash?

      Paul, End the Fed:  “In reality, the Constitution itself is
      incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no
      matter how well written.”

      • greywolfrs

        The Constitution leaves far too many things that one could interpret to be anything they want, so in this sense, the man is correct. Take the “general welfare” part, Democraps have used that to put entitlements programs into place that will bankrupt this country. I know, keep spouting the stupidity and not using your own brain to dicern what the guy is saying.

        • Anonymous

          I am confident you know the premise of original intent, etc, and the writing of the Founders make it very clear what the “general welfare” clause was about…it was not an open door, but an added restriction for the use of any of the delegated powers.

          What do you think RP is talking about in this interview:
          ADAM KOKESH:

          So you’ve described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us
          what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?
          RON PAUL:
          Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people’s
          habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you’re looking at.

          ADAM KOKESH:
          Do you think we have a chance of achieving a society based on
          those ideals in America?

          RON PAUL:
          Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritarian approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government
          tells us everything we can do and can’t do. [..]

          • greywolfrs

            Yeah, and where is he wrong? The only thing you point out is that you NEED the government to control you, because you lack self-control.

          • Anonymous

             Re:  The only thing you point out is that you NEED the government to control you, because you lack self-control.

            Great…now, let me ask you:  do you support the principles outlined in the Declaration of independence?

            Well, what does this phrase mean:

            “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

            Who or what was the threat to liberty that made government necessary?

            What did Madison mean when he said this:

            “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections
            on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If
            angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government
            would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men
            over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the
            government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control
            itself. ”  –James Madison, Federalist 51

            If we all have self control, and there was no such thing as mob dynamics (ala French Revolution) why did he say “you must first enable the government to control the governed…”?

            Do you believe we are angels, or do you believe there is something inside human nature that needs government, and that what makes us unique is that we recognized that did not change simply because someone attained power?

            Its a human nature question…and we MUST get that one right.

            God bless

          • greywolfrs

            Human nature? So, you are saying that, by nature, we need to be controlled? I disagree, the only reason for government is to keep honest people, honest. PERIOD. The government was also to provide for the “general welfare.” The “general welfare” benefits EVERYONE. (the military, roads,etc)
            One can not stop everyone from doing things that hurt others, that’s the point of government, but to think that it should take away freedom, for that reason, is false. That’s like putting someone on trial for a thought…

          • Anonymous

            Re:  Human nature? So, you are saying that, by nature, we need to be controlled?

            If you read the Federalist Papers, John Locke, and the others, you will find that human nature was seen as both worth of freedom and liberty, and also bearing a darker side that must be controlled.

            We ALL give up part of our liberty, as we would have alone on an island, in order to reap the fruits of society where we gain what we never could alone.

            The only request in our nation is that people respect the law. Unfortunately, there are those who believe it just doesn’t apply to them…tyrants, criminals, and anarchists.

            Just the the way it is:

            God bless

            “To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to
            model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquility would be to calculate on the weaker springs of human character.”  –Alexander
            Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 34 January 4, 1788

        • Anonymous

          Re:  the Constitution leaves….

          Actually, it doesn’t if you read its explanation by the men who wrote it, rather than use the “common sense” you taut which is what opens that door.

          So, to use your example, here is what James Madison said about the General Welfare clause:

          “With respect to the words general welfare, I have
          always regarded them as qualified by the details of powers (enumerated in the
          Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited
          sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there
          is a host of proof was not contemplated by its creators. I cannot undertake to
          lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to
          Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their
          constituents.” –James Madison, the principal author of
          the Constitution.

          The words “general welfare” are a RESTRICTION on the powers delegated to congress.  In other words, when they exercise any of them, that exercise must be for the General Welfare of the nation, not something specific.

          Now, you tell me: it is the problem the Constitution, as you insist, or is the problem with not abiding by its actual meaning?

          God bless

  • James Hughes

    All that matters is that Ron Paul doesnt drop out of the race, and for everythign that Glenn has said about the constitution and limited government, I still just dont understand why he doesnt throw his support behind Ron Paul. Everyone fears the truth, and that sad thruth is that most Americans can’t stand on their own two feet without government help. The ones who can are our military, and why not support the candidate who recieves more support than all the others combined?  There won’ t be a change when Romney is elected, the bullsh*t cycle starts all over again with the talking points, fox says this, msnbc says that,  oh the hypocrisy they will all say. It is truly childish to see our President act in the manner he does, I stand behind our President as it is my duty as an American, I am however, extremly embarrassed by his actions and partisan laced speeches that do nothing but create a further divide amongst my brothers and sisters coast to coast. Voting for Ron Paul doesnt mean we are planning on scrapping everything thats happened in the last century, but isn’t it gosh darn time to step back and really look and see what our lawmakers have done with the last hundred years and keep whats important to our nation? Our borders are porous, schools are failing, military are still dying, and our debt is so bad I can’t in good faith even call it a joke. Lets bring the men and women in our armed forces home for good, lets stop sending billions of dollars to countries that hate us, lets stop illeal immigration and help our neighbors to the south and overseas migrate here, legally and morally correctly. If everyone that didnt support Dr. Paul would spend some time to read the mans words, listen to his speeches, and have an honest attempt to think outside our own little boxes, I think he could change peoples lives. The more our government or any government is involved in our daily lives, the worse off we all are, wether it be republicans hating minorities, or democrats bankrupting our childrens futures by paying for illegals and sluts and everyone else who honestly doesnt deserve our money, our money is in the hands of those that are incapable of making rational decisions based on whats actually good for the country as a whole. Abraham Lincoln said that “almost any man can withstand adversity, if you truly wish to test a man’s character, give him power.” I think we can all agree that on all the blogs, and websites, and newspapers, and tv, one thing is for certain, those that are in power in congress, certainly don’t have the character necessary to uphold their positions. Please vote Ron Paul 2012, I swear to you that your individual, moral vote for this man will not be a waste.   

    • Anonymous


      Re:  All that matters is that Ron Paul doesn’t drop out of the race, and for
      everything that Glenn has said about the constitution and limited
      government, I still just don’t understand why he doesn’t throw his support
      behind Ron Paul.

      Could it be that a lot of people know something about Ron Paul that his followers either don’t know, or hide?

      Check out the video “Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist” found on the Mises Institute website, which, BTW was founded by RP’s former congressional chief of staff Lew Rockwell.

      Make sure and read the thread below that video cause its a Q/A as to whether RP should come out of the closet and drop the anarchist bomb on his fans.

      Do you agree with that?

      Well, note the caption to that video:
      “In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown
      that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.”  –Graham Wright, Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist.

      Remember, these are his friends and supporters.

      Are YOU one of those who think there is a real danger he will create too many “We the People” types instead of anarcho capitalists?

      Well, its decision time.  Either you are with them,or with the Founders, and they are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

      Good luck

      Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.  –John Adams, An Essay on Man’s
      Lust for Power, August 29, 1763

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6RROGQYVQU7LKVPJYEASUXJ53U 4hunter

        “Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy” Sapient1 did you know that the word democracy is not found in the US Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence? Did you know that the US is not a democracy? And if we were a democracy then no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty would be secure because all it would take to lose them would be 51% of the people deciding to take them.

        • greywolfrs

          SHHHH…this idiot does not realize that we are a Representative Republic or Constitutional Republic, if you will. Representative Republic is probably closer, with the electoral college.

          • Anonymous

            That is hardly the case.  Adams knew the difference, and so do I.  And, we both know where anarchy leads, which is the point of the quotation.

            The issue is that a constitutional republic recognizes the necessity of government.  

          • greywolfrs

            Nobody, even Ron Paul, is saying that government is not necessary, but the bloated incarnation we have now is simply unacceptable. The reason the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in the manner which they were was to limit the Federal Government. The founding fathers KNEW what an out-of-control Federal government was capable of. That does not mean they did not see the need for it.

          • Anonymous


            re:  Nobody, even Ron Paul, is saying that government is not necessary,

            Wanna bet?

            You seem like a reasonable guy who knows the principles of the nation, etc.

            Don’t just listen to me ,but push RP supporters a bit in this regard and see if you are really on the same page.

            I will bet you are not.

            Just because RP uses the words liberty and Constitution does not mean he is on the same page as you are.

            Its called deception.   Look up the word “voluntaryist” and see what you find.

          • greywolfrs

            I am educated and know what it means. You are simply trying to make it mean whatever you want. I have been to the voluntaryist website and no where in there are they saying that NO GOVERNMENT is the answer. Nice try, but I have been around the block a few hundred times and the shit will not work on me. They advocate a FREE society, no where do they advocate anarchy, as you would have me believe. No where do they advocate that it is OK to hurt others, because of freedom. Stop making up lies and thinking that I will believe them.

          • Anonymous


            I assume you are educated.

            So, let me ask you a question.  When you say “No where do they advocate that it is OK to hurt others, because of freedom”

            Does “not hurting others” include observing the laws, ie restrictions on liberty, that the majority, in due process, determine are proper for the good of the whole…such as disturbing the peace, fire zones, drug laws, etc?  For example, if there are 1000 people who live in a community, and for their own safety 999 via their representatives, determine to have fire zones so the fire department can have quick access to save life and property…

            …does that one have the right to say “that is a violation of my liberty and it is immoral for someone to force me to move.”

            In other words, can that one act as tyrant over the 999?

            Now, i ask that because I am describing a real, live conversation with a WHOLE BUNCH of voluntaryists who insist that IS precisely their right.

            God bless

        • Anonymous

           Of course I know the difference between a democracy and a republic.  The key is the description of anarchy…”such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and
          no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and
          every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination
          of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of
          wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious
          will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.”

          We have plenty among us who think that is a good thing 

        • Anonymous

          Re:  The US being a democracy.

          Of course.  The point is that RP advocate anarchy which that quote ALSO deals with.

          You do know that he is a voluntaryist and what that means?
          If not, then check it out.

          Good luck

      • http://twitter.com/MasterLionheart Brett Smith

        Anyone can distort quotes. The media and newspapers do it all the time. How about we get the entire passage of what he wrote? Understand our roots. Understand that the founders were actually very similar to Paul. There are differences yes, but not a lot. There is a reason so many people, even those who don’t support him, call him the modern day Thomas Jefferson.

        Actually, Democracies tend to degenerate into totalitarianism. It’s why the Founders formed the nation as a REPUBLIC.  It wasn’t until the last 100 or so years that we started calling ourselves a Democracy. You know, the last 100 years that Glenn so loves to talk about?

    • JayTee

       ABSOLUTELY WRONG when some say there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Romney and Obama.  For heaven’s sake, look at any facet that’s relevant.  They’re not even in the same league, and Paul supporters who contend that they’re equivalent not only do the country a disservice, but make themselves look absurd.

      • Anonymous

        They have a hidden agenda which is why they seem absurd.  They have to twist and turn to hide it.

        Watch out for redefinition of common terms like liberty, etc.  Ask them what they think of the Federalist Papers, or Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.

        You might be surprised just how adverse they are to it.

        • JayTee

           What do you mean “they?”  Don’t buy into every rumor and supposition that comes down the pike.  I’m afraid a vote for anyone but Romney will actually be a vote for Oblahblah.  We have suffered enough, and can’t tolerate another 4 years of obamanation.

          • greywolfrs

            No, a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for whomever it is. That straw man doesn’t fly.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2CY7V3743RRO7MJTI5NROJHLLQ Ken

            How about a vote for the best person to turn our country around? Why compromise your beliefs? Look how well that did in 2008 with McCain.

          • JayTee

             As I said before, I like Ron Paul’s positions on many issues  . . . but the sad fact is, he’s NEVER going to be president.  If he were running in the general election, it would be an Obama landslide.  Saying he’s the ONLY one who could make radical and needed changes is basically naive.  Like I say, his greatest service to the country would be for him to align himself with Romney and provide inside influence.  I still can’t understand people who say he’s the only one who can administer many of his ideas.  And again, when someone says he’s equivalent to Obama, it’s just a stupid statement that makes his whole campaign look like a grand self-serving farce.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, and look how well Ross Perot’s third party bid turned out. Which compromises your beliefs more–a “protest” vote for Paul or having Obama as president for 4 more years. Be realistic.

          • http://twitter.com/MasterLionheart Brett Smith

            “We have suffered enough, and can’t tolerate another 4 years…” Where have I heard that before? How about every presidential run for god knows how long. It’s why we are in this mess. We vote for the opposite party hoping for something different and instead we get the same thing with a few differences. This is why Ron Paul Supporters are so passionate. We see through the smoke and fog. We see that we won’t see any real change.

          • JayTee

             Campaign rhetoric being what it is, we don’t know exactly how Romney would be as president . . . and we don’t really know how Ron Paul would be either.  But, we do know how Obama is, because we have a three-and-a-half-year track record.  There are many facets to being an effective president, and I think you’re making a mistake when you say Romney would be thus and such way because of what he did in Mass.  He basically did what the people wanted him to do there, and they seem to be basically happy with it.  But, he’s quick to note that those policies wouldn’t be right for the whole nation.  Is he afraid to take a hard stand on issues, and sometimes go against the tide.  Definitely.  He’s probably the strongest candidate when it comes to the issue of the unauthorized invasion of this homeland, and that’s the kind of emphatic and explicit stance we need.

          • http://www.facebook.com/greg.matre Greg Matre’

            Allen West/2012

          • Anonymous

            When i say “they” I mean that there are two types of RP supporters: those who are good Americans interested in restoring the nation to the Constitutional Republic it was intended to be, and those who are after something far different, and unfortunately, reflect the real thinking of RP.

            RP and the Founders are 180 degrees apart.

            Would he, or they buy this, from George Washington?

            “This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.  The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.”  —George Washington, Farewell Address.

            No, they do not.
            Hence the problem.

            God bless

          • http://www.facebook.com/matt.nichols.1297 Matt Nichols

            And I suppose we should be taking advice from someone who thinks they are Captain America?

            Give me a break!  I’m a southern baptist, Texan, former USMC officer, current Texas National Guardsman, combat veteran of Iraq, and a [r]epublican.  I am a Ron Paul supporter, 100%.  I also entirely agree with everything in Washington’s farewell address. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who even understands what the founder’s ideas about liberty were.  And it has nothing to do with “worshipping” Ron Paul.  If Romney held the same positions as RP then I would throw my support behind him.  You clowns will never get it, and that’s why this country is doomed!

            Stop pontificating as if you know anything about Ron Paul’s supporters and who they are.  Maybe you should try doing some research instead of being fed the lies that the MSM gives you through your feeding tube every day!

          • Anonymous


            Re:  I’m a southern baptist, Texan, former USMC officer, current Texas
            National Guardsman, combat veteran of Iraq, and a republican.

            First, let me thank you for your service.

            Now, I would be more than glad to discuss the Founders idea of liberty with you v that of RP if you like.

            Now, just for the record, I am not pro anyone but the Constitution and the principles that it is founded on as explained by the men who wrote it, and likewise I oppose those who are out of line with that.  I took the same oath you did.

            Before we discuss this, may I ask which founders you will accept as authoritative in this regard, and which you will not, so that if there is a difference between them and their thinking, and that of RP you will accept your responsibility to defend them and shun RP?

            Who is good enough for you?

            God bless

          • Anonymous

            “” Awareness of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom””… Socrates. 
            I can’t believe that anyone could be so uninformed as to suppose that “we’d be speaking German”.  that is precisely why we are a civilization in decline.  The Germans in ww2 never ever wanted  war.  they had a legitimate border dispute with poland. And we attacked them. the Germans had a standing offer to stop the war at any time.  But we insisted on “unconditional surrender”
            We fought and died for “uncle” Joe Stalin.  He was the only real winner in that European war.  The supposition that Germany ever wanted even one acre of land in the West is utterly and completely stupid.  They were forced to invade France because France had declared war on them.  They were forced to invade other parts of Western Europe to protect themselves from the English and Canadians etc. who had declared war on them.
            They were forced to invade the USSR because stalin was preparing to invade Germany.  PERIOD.

          • JayTee

             I don’t think Ron Paul is fool enough to buy into what you’ve just stated.  If he is, then it’s amazing that he’s done as well as he has so far.  If you really think Hitler is a saint and never an aggressor, you would fit right in with the current leadership in Iran.  There isn’t 1% of the  civilized world that believes this stuff, and those that do are still trying to revive the KKK, because they think Adolph was the leader of the ages.  Are you serious?

          • Anonymous


            re:  they were forced…

            What forced them to build those pesky death camps?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=717226715 Scott Bieser

            If a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obummer, then isn’t a vote for anyone but Obummer also a vote for Romney? Why do Republicans think they own my vote?

          • Anonymous

            Bingo Jay. The problem is that Ron cannot win it at this point and it would definitely ensure a win for Obama. We can’t handle four more years. He has already said he will be “more flexible”…..to sell the country out.

          • Anonymous

            You sound just like all the idiots that said NO ONE CAN BE AS BAD AS BUSH and Obama proved THAT theory wrong.  With Ron Paul YOU can COUNT on what he is going to do NO SURPRISES and NOTHING UN-constitutional.  He is the ONLY one with a plan to fix this economy.   The ONLY one you can trust representing you and not wall street. 

            My GOD man I can’t believe there is even an argument as to which one of these two men is the right one for the job.   If Romney wasn’t evil he wouldn’t be the lesser of the two evils.  There IS another choice and an OBVIOUS BETTER ONE TO MAKE.  You have got to slap yourself into reality man WAKE UP! THIS IS THE LAST CHANCE WE GOT AS NO OTHER CANDIDATE LIKE PAUL EXISTS WITH THAT MUCH EXPERIENCE SAYING NO TO CORRUPTION.  Romney is a CROOK and I don’t care whether he is YOUR crook or not a Crook is a Crook when what is NEEDED IS EXACTLY UNDER YOUR NOSE AND HIS NAME IS RON PAUL.

          • Anonymous

             You said “Campaign rhetoric being what it is, we don’t know exactly how Romney
            would be as president . . . and we don’t really know how Ron Paul would
            be either. ”

            Yes WE DO KNOW HOW RON PAUL WOULD BE AS PRESIDENT AND GOT THIRTY YEARS OF A STRAIGHT HONEST AND CONSTITUTIONALLY CORRECT VOTING RECORD.   He isn’t going to change that but he WILL CHANGE Washington and THIS TIME you can Count on it because we can count on Ron Paul’s principled integrity.  That is something NONE of them in the house and senate have demonstrated for as long as i can remember and I have been around since JFK.

          • Anonymous

            Check out Mr. “Tax Payers’ Best Friend” re earmarks when the rest of the GOP honored their constituents’ demand that they stop.
            RP did not.
            Don’t believe his press. Check it out for yourself.  Google “Ron Paul Earmarks” and see.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6RROGQYVQU7LKVPJYEASUXJ53U 4hunter

        They’re both proponents of big government socialized medicine, they’re both anti-gun, and they’re both pro abortion. They both are for endless wars causing runaway debt that is destroying the dollar. Jay Tee you tell me what the difference is between the two? Or are the above facets not relevant to you?

        • JayTee

           Romney is for states’ rights, and if states want some state-run medical program or something else, he’s not about mandate that the Federal government forbid it.  I hope he’s not a war monger, but only time will tell.  Obama is pure racist, socialist, and communist, and believes that the Federal government should run everything.  Plus, he doesn’t understand productivity and where economic growth comes from.  Big differences.

          • Anonymous

            Clearly Ron Paul doesn’t believe that Romney and Obama are the same. The point is that evil vs. lesser evil doesn’t matter if either option is going to cause the fall of the country.

          • JayTee

             Here we go with the rash assumption that “either option is going to cause the fall of the country.”  What?  Like I say, I like a lot of Ron Paul’s positions, but even he gets a bit screwy sometimes, as do all candidates.  For example, I think Vietnam and the Middle East were huge intrusions and a waste of everything.  But to say the same thing about WWI and WWII is absurd.  If we hadn’t been involved in those two, and probably as soon as we did, you’d be speaking German and goose-stepping right now.  The “war on drugs” is a non-winner all the way around, but we’ve GOT to take a hard stance regarding the invasion of this homeland, or we’re doomed.  I’m a Libertarian in many of my stances, but you’ve got to work with the system and population as it is, not as you wish it were.

          • Anonymous

            Jay Tee, have you read the bible? did Jesus say “stab in the back and shoot in the face those who despitefully use you? No this is not an unfair comparison, it is an application of truth! RP 2012

          • Anonymous

             you hope he is not a war monger? You are not paying attention..He is getting advised by the same neocons (Kagan abrams, bolten) lunatics who got us into this mess.Stop hoping and wakeup..Hope got us Obama

          • Anonymous

            Re “invasion of this homeland”: Ron Paul is one of the strongest defenders of the national defense and border security you’ll find, check out Ronald Regan’s endorsement to that effect. He just says that having troops patrolling other country’s borders, instead of our own, makes us higher-profile target (think Ancient Greece).

          • Dave Garry

            How do you know what Romney is “for”? He changes his positions all the time. He has no guiding principles.

            Ron Paul or none at all.

        • EDWARDS

          How can Romney be anti-gun when is loves to hunt?????

          • Anonymous

             Romney Lied about his hunting and was busted for that lie also

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FVONTN7NFYTGM7O4B4QIGRMWAU Ling Ling

          I don’t think anybody is PRO abortion.  That would be sick.  But I do think they play a role in making people fight against it, purposely.  If only you could see, you would know that their ultimate goal is to cause white women to become breeding slaves.  I know it sounds ridiculous, but you will see. (top down, bottom up)

      • Anonymous

        You’re right, there is a significant difference between them, but not enough of a difference to right the ship.  Romney will certainly slow down the nose dive we are taking to hell, but we will still get there.  Ron Paul is willing to reverse all engines

      • James Hughes

         If Ron Paul supporters look absurd because we feel like theres an obligation to follow the guidelines originally set forth for our country in the constitution, then I guess I’m in that boat buddy. There are plenty of differences between Rom and Obam but my point is that if we can’t escape the never ending cycle of D vs. R as a country we will never win. Dems will always vote one way and Repubs the opposite, look at the health care debacle, that my friend was absurd, is that the way you’d have our country continue on? Constant protests, our nation divided apart because of what letters are in front of a reps name. We all know people that party vote and dont think for themselves, because fox news says the gop is good, and msnbc says the repubs are evil and will kill all minorities on sight. This is the kind of crap I want thrown out, I want my fellow countrymen to stand together for the greater good of a nation, not a political party. And I certainly meant no offense to anyone when I stated Americans cant stand on their own two feet, I live in a very depressed area filled with illegals and sympathizers that are happy to waste billions every year to support free-loading men and women who are obviously gaming the system, and yes they have told me as such to my face. Illegals arent stupid, contrary to the popular belief that they all belong in a landscaping or mcdonalds position. They are my friends, neighbors, and brothers I will fight to defend as they are good people, but will not continue to finance their destruction of our economy and school system.  Finally Jay, there are huge differences between Obama and Romney in individual arguments sure, but whats the overall end result going to be? I’ll tell you, half the country pissed off at the other half. Once again the two party system isn’t necessarily failing, but its also putting all in a lesser of two evils situation, at least in our own minds. God bless you sir for sticking with your beliefs and thoughts, thats all I wish for anyone, is to think, dont be a zombie, dont be cattle, I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong, and on this one, I still havent heard enough evidence to convince me that dollar for dollar Ron Paul wouldn’t be the best thing for our country, I know that in my neighborhood, the man has the answers to all the questions I’ve ever asked.

      • Anonymous

        They are both big government goons, but the bottom line is, Romney wouldn’t be allowed to step on the gas without being challenged by Republicans. His party affiliation won’t make him immune and the fact that he is white means there would be no question of his removal should he get out of hand like Obama has. Ron Paul on the other hand is just a nut job who has anarchists following him. And every Ron Paul supporter starts a sentence in the same way….”Ron Paul is the only candidate who…………” ad nauseum. If he was going to accomplish it, why hasn’t he? He is a career politician with a little bit of  a God complex. And why wouldn’t he have one? Some people slobber and their eyes glaze over when he talks.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000092772791 Nathan Erzal

         actually they are both big government and support bailouts…..trust me…no ones as bad as barack obama…but for god sakes they both support the ndaa bill….there aren’t many differences…both parties controlled by the same elites…ron paul gets completely ignored, probably because he doesn’t get money from goldman sachs like Obama AND Romney…Oh wait, he gets the most donations from the MILITARY..but his foreign policy is crazy haha….wow wake up people!

      • Kendra Row

        The differences between the two won’t matter in the grand scheme of things.  We thought voting for McCain was the right thing to do, because he was better than Obama.  Now look at what he’s done (besides lose).  Romney said the NDAA was the right thing to do, he won’t touch the Federal Reserve, he’ll keep us engaged in unconstitutional war, he will keep encroaching on our freedom he’s bought by the same banks that Obama is bought by, and you can’t trust anything he says because he is a notorious flip-flopper.  AND if he couldn’t win against McCain, and McCain couldn’t win against Obama, then what makes us think Romney can beat Obama (without more than a little help from those holding his strings)?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FVONTN7NFYTGM7O4B4QIGRMWAU Ling Ling

        Romney and Obama are like “top down, bottom up”.

      • Anonymous

         You are the one looking absurd pal.  My God how many times do you people have to fall for the lesser of two evils logical fallacy.  On the BIG Issues they are EXACTLY THE SAME.  Romney has appointed more liberal Judges than Obama but he also supports Obama care because Romney INVENTED IT.  Romney supports the NDAA, The Patriot act, interventionist war, a Police State, he supported the Bailouts, Tarp and the Stimulus.   Most anything else you might as well flip a coin because you never know what he is going to flip flop on next.  You say we are doing the country a dis service?/

        I think you may end up, thanking Ron Paul and his supporters for getting this Country back into the hands of the People and OUT of the hands of the Bankers, which by the way are the same ones that bought Obama, OWN Romney too. That is why they never gave a rats butt who you vote for AS LONG AS IT ISN’T RON PAUL, they don’t care because they hedge their bets buying both of them.  The one they couldn’t buy and believe me they tried ask Jack Abramoff but they couldn’t buy, corrupt, intimidate or blackmail RON PAUL. 

        You know what someone with that kind of integrity and character, used to be called back in the day when Honesty and integrity used to mean something? 

        They called it E-L-E-C-T-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y . 

        That was back when the word “honorable” was more than just the heading on their congressional stationery.

        Ironic isn’t it.  That scumbag liars like Obama and Romney are what we are given as electable choices while they call someone like Ron Paul un-electable. 

        My God man, if Ron Paul isn’t electable., then what are the other two sleazeballs supposed to be? 

        The alternative?

        yeah Riiiight

    • Anonymous

      Beck will not support Ron Paul because he is afraid that Paul would not help defend Israel, or deal with the threat from Iran.  I heartily disagree that most Americans cannot stand on their own two feet without the government.  Sorry, but that is just so far from the truth, and the arguments that liberals like to make.  I would say that 70 – 80 percent of Americans do stand on their own two feet without government assistance.  Then again, if you include corporations, that number would probably drop with all the subsidies they receive.

      • Anonymous

        If Ron Paul is a Mason, he would have a hard time reconciling that with support of Isreal.  The truth is out there!

    • Anonymous

      Glenn Beck doesn’t support Ron Paul because his foremost priority is Israel and what is best for that country. No other conclusion can possibly be drawn. I heard him say on the radio over the course of several days or weeks that our country was heading off a cliff, that we are in real danger of losing the US as we know it and he admitted that Ron Paul is the only candidate who seems to understand this fact and furthermore has the wherewithal to solve the problem and the political “cajones” to act upon the solution, such as cutting 1 trillion dollars in real money (not increases) his first year in office. So Glenn points all of this out and I am heartened – wow! he gets it! And then he says, sadly, while I picture him shaking his head, but Israel, Israel. I just can’t vote for him because he would abandon Israel. (Which, as an aside, is completely false. RP has said he would not go to war FOR Israel, but he would be on their side should they, as a sovereign nation, decide to wage war on their own behalf. What Glenn and the others wring their hands over is that the US, under a RP administration would not wage preemptive war on Israel’s behalf, sending our dollars and our boys over to fight a war that Israel is fully capable of fighting themselves.) So, Glenn has chosen a foreign country over the well-being of his own and that is why he does not support Ron Paul.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2CY7V3743RRO7MJTI5NROJHLLQ Ken

        Exactly! I have lost some respect for Beck through this. He even calls what Paul stands for is a conservative “wet dream.” Yet he completely shoves this aside for someone he thinks is more positive toward Israel. This is in spite of the fact that Paul would probably be better for Israel in the long run.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Conroy/100000695756376 Jan Conroy

    If “the answer is ‘RON PAUL'” then the question must be:  Who wants to destroy America by giving a Marxist four more years in the White House?

    • Anonymous


  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul has some great ideas however he is just un-electable. Period. I left him and supported someone else and will now support Mitt Romney because of RP’s push to legalize drugs…ALL drugs. That’s just insane.

    • JayTee

       I think Ron is exactly on when it comes to the “war on drugs” and the other unconstitutional, unaffordable, and unwinnable wars we get ourselves into.  However, I agree that he’s not going to make it, so he could best serve the country by lending his support to Mitt Romney.  If we’re going to see any measurable change anytime soon, it’s going to come from Romney.

      • Anonymous

        Re:  unwinnable wars.

        Are there some wars you fight, difficult though they might be, because the consequences of not doing so is unthinkable?

        Re Churchill

        Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as
        slaves.  ~Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm.

        As unpopular as it might see, some things are worth fighting for.

        Our liberty is one of them, and yes, drugs threatens that for the vast majority who do not do them.

        • JayTee

           Unfortunately, the crap in the Middle East has nothing to do with our freedom and/or liberty, and everything to do with “defense contractors” lobbying Washington.  If we really cared about liberty, we’d be stopping the invasion across the southern border of our own homeland–but no, we’d rather spend hundreds of billions we don’t have squabbling with the peasants in the Middle East.  This “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” is totally retarded logic.  Keep the kooks off our territory, because it’s impossible to control every mind and person on the globe.  Some wars are necessary, some are a total waste.  Like Vietnam:  nearly 60,000 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars (plus lots of Asian deaths), and we didn’t get one damn thing out of it.  Now Vietnam is one of our major trading partners in world.  Sometimes there’s no substitute for good judgment and functional intelligence.

          We will never win the “war on drugs,” but we spend billions and billions messing with it.  Meanwhile, it situations where innocent people get hurt without their choice, we still allow the most abused drug of all (alcohol) on the roads, and can’t seem to clean it up where it really counts.

        • greywolfrs

          Another day and you are still spouting this garbage.

          • Anonymous

            Good afternoon
            I see you are at it as well…isn’t liberty nice?

            So, as with anyone, I will extend to you the offer to discuss principles, if that can be done without name calling, etc.  

            You either know what you are talking about or not past name calling, and bumper stickers

            Up to you.

          • greywolfrs

            Cry some more. I call a spade, a spade. I know you don’t like that, but the truth is what it is.

    • greywolfrs

      Yeah, that’s insane,because the government should have every right to tell you how to live. People like you want big government, until you don’t. I have better idea, why not just take personal responsibility and teach your kids that drugs are bad. That’s the real issue, you think government should do that job for you. So, you take away others freedom, because you are too lazy to teach your own kids. By the way, the drug war has cost us billions and billions and, guess what, those drugs are still here. The kids are still doing them.

      P.S. I really wish people like you would stop with the “unelectable” B S. The only person that is “unelectable” is the one who does not run. Obamao, case in point.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rich-Bees/648400542 Rich Bees

    Don’t you think if Ron Paul could have won as a Libertarian, he would have stayed a Libertarian?  He can’t possibly believe he can win now as a Libertarian any more than he could have in ’88.  And if he does think he can win, that’s the type of ego you NEVER want running the country (like the one we have now).

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul couldn’t even win his district if he admitted what he is for. Lived there for 20 years and he would have been gone a long time ago except for outside money.

      Hmmm…guess that means he really doesn’t represent his constituents but monied interests huh?

      Check out who took earmarks when the rest of the GOP honored the voters insistence that they be halted.  Yep–Ron Paul, the Tax Payers best friend.

      He is NOT what he would have you believe.

      • greywolfrs

        Outside money? That’s the only reason he won? At some point, he would still have to get the votes, nevermind that though, that doesn’t fit into your stupidity.

      • Anonymous

        Wow…you’re party is really afraid of RP..but which party?

        • Anonymous

           Re:  really afraid of RP.

          Right down to my socks, and you should be too, and would be if you will find out who he is.  Research “voluntaryism” the anarchist branch of the libertarian party he hails from.

          if you are FOR what the Founders designed and the principles upon which our nation is actually built, you cannot be for Paul for they are opposites….law of non contradiction.

          Words mean things and we must always be wary of those who redefine them.

          As Lincoln asked:  how many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?  Answer:  4.  Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.

          Same here.  Calling “everyone doing what is right in their own eyes and no government “liberty” does not make it that.  Its still the anarchy the Founders warned against, AND designed against, no matter what someone calls it..

          Re:  but what party.
          The party that seeks to restore our nation to its design as a Constitutional Republic.


  • Anonymous

    The only thing our multi party system does is give the politicians someone to blame for thier lack of performance and keeping of campaign promises.
    They do nothing for the middle class, all the while lining thier pockets with the fruits of our labor.. 

    Ron Paul is far from perfect, but he is the only hope for those that do not want socialism.   

    • Anonymous

       Stone pony

      FWIW:  the Founders understood there were TWO threats to our liberty not just one:  Tyranny AND anarchy.

      RP thinks there is only one–tyranny.

      Who is right?  Ron Paul or Hamilton / Madison / Jay / Washington / Jefferson / Franklin, etc

      • greywolfrs

        That is lie, as I stated before, Ron Paul has never advocated anarchy.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RCATMJ4FL4VZBWNEG6MODUD7VQ Gordon

    If the Ron Paul supporters can count the polls they will find a loss in every scenario. It is very good to believe in the system: one person=one vote, that the electors will vote for the candidate that had won for their area. In no reasonable way can Paul, Cain, Santorum, Bachman or Gingrich expect to win as third party choices.
    The Republican’s must change to a more Constitutionally based party.
    Can you name the last third party win in Amercan History. Can’t. That’s the reason to get behind Romney.
    One more term for Obama is the end for small business. Who do you work for.
    Do you duty for the Constitution. Protect it with your vote. Forget the distractions of the past and look to the Election and the ones after that. If you want change you and I have to work together. We can take it all back over time and erase our losses. Rally around our flag. Rally your friends and relations. Force back the foe.

    • greywolfrs

      Oh please, you are another fool who actually thinks there is a difference between Democraps and Republicans. Prime example, GWB and Republicans passed and signed the Patriot Act, with plenty of Democrap support. Democraps and Obamao passed and signed the NDAA, with plenty of support. Democraps extended the Patriot Act. So, where is the difference? The answer: there isn’t.

      We have to work together? You mean we have to compromise our principles and vote for whoever the establishment Republican is. No thanks, I can think for myself and do not need the media/establishment to tell who is best.

  • Anonymous

    OMG, the corporatism that runs our country feeds off the military industrial complex because they are the same thing. From FOR PROFIT hospitals/ big pharma/Farma down to the education systems whether it be public or if your paying for the brainwashing and desensitization of murder(war). These people are the same. Romney Obama. Does anyone listen to what they say. It’s so vauge. They beat around the bush. Left right left. Come on. They are all fake. At least Ron Paul understands that he needs to infiltrate them to get his name out there. Democrats and republicans were created to divert the public from real isuess all the while they change laws to favor their family members industries. FACT!!

    The sad part is the more people I talk to the more I’ve found they are awake although terrified and unsure what to do. And for those who think that voting for someone who ‘can’t’ win is a wasted vote. WASTE IT!!! Do what’s morally right. War is murder. Murder is wrong. Plain and simple.

  • The Floorguy

    I don’t see Romney supporters, with the same willingness to participate and see him when he makes an announced public appearance.

    Thousands showed up here, at the LBJ Library, to see Ron Paul.  I don’t know the official head count, but it would have been standing room only in DKR. Memorial Stadium.

  • Anonymous

    World and National events are like playing a game of 3 dimensional chess.  When you think you have one level figured out, the second or third throws all your assumptions to the wind.  Do the American voters ever truly know the person they’re voting for?  Are we ever given ALL the information about ALL their associations?  The American voter has become soft and lazy in that we have become dependent on other people’s opinion’s instead of doing our own homework.  I’m not for, or against, Rep. Ron Paul.  But I, like a lot of other voter’s, still don’t know the essence of the man.

  • http://twitter.com/Whick12 Whicket Williams

    Well,  I guess the US is finished, and now it goes as foretold in the Bible” the great gentile nation over the sea which kills it’s children will be destroyed”

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul thinks only of Ron Paul. I like his son Rand Paul much better.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DBLFQMMRHVXJ7H4JLA4JY7NEHA Aram

    OBAMNEY or ROMBAMA what’s the difference same ideology same crap.
      2 0 1 2

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DBLFQMMRHVXJ7H4JLA4JY7NEHA Aram

    ROMney is a mormon and Glenn is a mormon too.

    • JayTee

       So what?  Good to know what you’re talking about before you talk.

  • http://www.facebook.com/neworleansreggae Keb Radics

    Your not half as smart as you think you are. First of all. You’re making a lot of assumptions. You think there is a difference between Obama and Romney and there is but only in what they say. What these guys do when they get in to office is nearly the same thing. They ignore all of their promises made and do the exact opposite. That area we call reality is where these guys differ. Their rhetoric means nothing. They are both financed by Wall St. and the Central banks.

    In the same way your rhetoric about the constitution means nothing. You support NeoCons like Romney and Santorim that want to keep on this path with the FED and all of these wars. Man you take the cake. Your first wrong assumption is that your smarter than us. Your second incorrect assumption is that we were ever going to vote for any NeoCon or Socialist progressive anyway. We were never going to vote for those people Glenn so you never had our vote to count on anyway. Dr. Paul isn’t stealing votes from any party. Our votes don’t belong to any party Glenn. They belong to us. So if Obama get’s elected it isn’t going to be Dr. Paul’s fault it is going to be the republican party’s fault for giving us another Fake-Conservative NeoCon. We know what these people do when they get in office Glenn and it isn’t that much different than when the Dems are in office. Do I need to go through the list of Federal Agencies started by Republicans Glenn? Good for you Glenn you’re Mr. Media but man to tell you the truth to me your the biggest let down ever. I never understood how dangerous you are until you started calling Dr. Paul names and denigrating his character on the air with you pals. We all know Glenn the reason you can’t stand Dr. Paul is becasue he doesn’t want to be the puppet of Israel like you do. He doesn’t want to give any one forigen aid and you can’t stand that becasue you’re more worried about the security of Israel than you are about the security and economy of the USA. It has to do with your religion and that is what really sucks. Because your realty all revolves around Christian and Mormon prophecy and that is just Bat Guano Crazy

    • JayTee

       People make a huge mistake when they are so eager to put others in definite categories, without ever defining what those categories really are.  Conservative?  Liberal? Leftist? Progressive?  Neo-con?  Tea Party?  How can you say Romney is a “neo-con?”  Is it because he doesn’t step aside and let Dr. Paul take over?  Is it because he chums with some mainstream folk?  And in case you want to enhance your awareness, you should know that “Mormon” is another brand of Christianity, just as is Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.  Just because someone is a self-proclaimed Christian doesn’t give them the authority to define what Christianity is.  This is as asinine as Ford coming out and saying that Chevy and Chrysler are not really cars.  Time to get some enhanced awareness.

    • greywolfrs

      Well, there is a bit of difference. I do not believe that Romney or Santorum are communists. I do believe Obamao is.

  • http://twitter.com/cevans93 Christian Evans

    I don’t quite get why it’s so obvious that he’s losing. Just look at what’s happening in Louisiana, Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Maine, Missouri, and Massachusetts.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2CY7V3743RRO7MJTI5NROJHLLQ Ken

    Actually if Romney gets the nomination, Obama gets re-elected. All one has to do is look at John McCain. People voted for him because they thought he could beat Obama. Never mind that they compromised their beliefs. Ron Paul supporters are a very enthusiastic bunch and will write his name in if they have to. In addition, polls show that Ron Paul would beat Obama.

    • Anonymous

      People voted for Mccain because they thought national security was more important and the economy ended up trumping that….

      And polls showing on realclearpolotics DONT HAVE PAUL BEATING ANYONE.

      WAKE UP!


      If you want influence with people your silly “spin” doesnt help. Paul has good positions, there is no need for your act!

      • greywolfrs

        So, before the last election (for president) all the polls had Billary smoking EVERYONE from both sides. How did that work out?

        The thing you fail to realize is that neither side can get elected without Independents. Ron Paul is the only one that can get enough Independents to win. Besides, he would get quite a few disgruntled democraps also.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=756508915 Ron Arnold

    Gary Johnson is going to get the Libertarian nod. A move I don’t disagree with. He’s just as ideal a candidate for me as Dr. Paul. As far as Rand goes – when he makes his move for the Oval Office, he has my support. As far as Glenn goes, he talks a lot about the Constitution, but doesn’t support Paul. I don’t get that, but then, hey – he’s a radio host, not a candidate. I ain’t votin’ for Glenn Beck. 

  • Anonymous

    I love Glenn, but his non-support of Ron Paul is solely due to the fact that he loves Israel more than the U.S. Constitution.  I support Israel, and so does Ron Paul… he just wants to stop foreign aid to Israel (and everyone else) and doesn’t feel that our troops should be giving their lives for any nation but America.

  • Anonymous

    Insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and expecting a different outcome, thus we have the GOP sheep.  I have played the fear game with them all I am going to (if you don’t vote for this guy the other guy is going to win).  The sheep in the GOP have to be the biggest cowards on the planet.  I will not vote for Romney i never again will vote for a liberal i don’t care what party they belong to and if the rest of you are so afraid of losing to Obama then you had better get on board.  It works both ways.   I am sick and tired of listening to the so called  conservatives that sit back and cry about losing the rights and do nothing to secure them.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you, thank you thank you thank you!!!! A vote for Ron Paul is not wasted! a vote for principal is never wasted!! even if Obama wins! what does not kill you makes you stronger. If we keep standing when the GOP tells us to stand and sitting when they tell us to sit, how can we say we love freedom and liberty if we make ourselves voluntary slaves to the system! BECAUSE WE FEAR OBAMA!!! Fear gets us NOWHERE! Fear is the cause of the irrational! I know most people reading this are bible thumping Christians, and if you are Mormon you probably thump more than just the Bible, to your Christian beliefs I now appeal. 
       If you have ever read what Jesus taught you would know that you should “Love your enemies,” Do good to those who despitefuly use you,” “turn the other cheek.” Our current foreign policy is the opposite. Our current foreign policy in a nutshell goes like this: Poke a gun in everyones face and say, “As long as nobody moves we can be friends.” We cannot do this and be a nation under God, we cannot do this and expect no one to get pissed off at us, we cannot continue under this devilish foreign policy endorsed by mainstream GOP and expect anything but constant war. Again, I say a vote for what you believe in is NEVER a vote wasted, NO EXCEPTIONS!!! Even if it means Obama will go to the white house. I personally cannot picture “Obama might have been president” as a good excuse to give God at the judgment day when he asked why I compromised my morals and principals. 
      Again, thank you WhatWillYouDoWithoutFreedom for a great post. 

    • Anonymous

       Re:  Losing their rights a.nd do nothing to secure then.

      Good deal, and BTW I am as vehemently opposed to RINOs and Liberals as you.

      Now, let me ask a question re the Declaration of Independence:

      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
      that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
      that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
      That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
      deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

      What was the threat to our rights that made government a necessary institution in order to secure them?  And, mind you, this was written by men just coming out from a tyrant.

      What was that threat? If you have read their writings, then you know what that danger and still want to guard against it as they did.  If you do not, then you liable to make grave errors that do indeed jeopardize the nation.

      God bless

      • Anonymous

         I have read everything that you have posted and what a truth spinster you are. 

        To start with you base your whole argument on a lie and then you trow out all these great truths (quotes) from people that you know that we respect and you expect that to convince us that you are right. 

        You may confuse most people because they keep reading and forget that your whole premise is based on a lie.  When the truth is; in a conversation you would never be able to get these words out because you couldn’t get past the lie to start with. 

        Ron Paul has 30 yrs to show what he believes and no where is he anti Gov, but he is for limited Gov.

        the government fears the people, there is liberty.  When the people
        fear the government, there is tyranny.  Thomas Jefferson

        Take your spin over to MSN or CNN maybe you can find some weak minds over there.  By the way that is exactly what the devil did in the Garden of Eden.  A little truth a little lie and Eve was confused.  Are you two related?

        • Anonymous

          re:  To start with you base your whole argument on a lie

          So, tell me which lie my whole argument is based on…and, just to be objective, you can’t use Ron Paul as the standard as he is the one in question.

          Do you, for example, agree with Hamilton when he said, in The Farmer Refuted:

          “Civil liberty is only natural liberty, modified and secured by the
          sanctions of civil society.” 
          –Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

          Do you believe a person should ever be in danger of losing their right to life, liberty, or property based on the actions of the majority under the Constitution through the Government?

          • Anonymous

             Why don’t we just cut to the chase and you tell all us common people what kind of a Gov you believe in.

          • Anonymous

            I am more than glad to do that, and I have repeatedly:  I am for a Constitutional Republic as designed by our Founders, and based on those principles..These are well discussed in the Federalist Papers and voluminous other writings by the Founders and the sources they drew from such as the Bible, Locke, Blackstone, Montesquieu, Burke.

            The problem is, those are NOT the principles Ron Paul and most of his followers are pushing, but something far different.

            Just as knowing what real money looks like enables an agent to spot the counterfeit, so here too.

            So, if you believe I am lying as to the principles I am holding up, you are welcome to point that out…but, you cannot use Ron Paul as HE is NOT the standard on what the Founders did.  They are.

            Oh…while you are at it…let me know if there are founders you do not accept as authoritative.  RP and his followers have great problems with some of them.

            So, let me know.

          • Anonymous

            You make it sound like I have poster on my wall with Paul’s
            picture that says perfect president.  Maybe
            these are not 100% the principles of Paul, but he leans that direction more
            than any other candidate.  That does not
            mean that he would not make a good president. 
            The point is he would obey the constitution instead of trying to rewrite

            “let me know if there are founders you do not accept as

            You sound like the founders where Gods or something.  None of them where perfect but as a whole
            they came up with a great Constitution. 
            They are, but mere men, great men, men of courage and wisdom, but still
            just men.  So yes I can find fault with
            some of what they write but it is irrelevant. 
            I’m not voting to hold onto any one idea but their collective reasoning
            and RP does that better than anyone else up there.

            “RP and his followers have great problems with some of them”

            Now you an authority on RP followers. You make the assumption that you know the RP followers and
            by your comments it’s easy to say that you don’t have a clue.  In this election I am behind Paul and you
            seem to think the majority of the RP followers are the one’s making the most
            noise.  I.e. young people with lots of
            energy.  Most of my friends that believe
            as I do will never get on a forum and debate, they are too busy working and
            raising a family.

            If we have someone that will uphold the constitution, then
            the checks and balances that our founders put in place will give us
            balance.  We didn’t have that with Bush,
            Obama, and we will not have that with Romney. 
            The reason I put Bush out there is because he gave us the Patriot Act.

            It easy to spout the words that you are saying and a whole
            different thing to back them up.

            So I guess the real question is not what you believe, but who
            are you voting for?

            Sorry I couldn’t post this in its proper order, but the system wouldn’t let me.

          • Anonymous

             Not to worry…we all have problems with the system

            Now, as you mentioned, there is room for error on somethings ,but there is NO room for error on others.

            Ron Paul bases  his whole argument on the libertarian principles of “:You can use force only when
            somebody uses force against you.”Do you believe that?Think it through…the Founders certainly didn’t yet it is the key stone of RP’s philosophy.Get that wrong, its like missing the first button on your shirt…the rest are automatically wrong.What about government, which is force ,that derives its just powers from the “consent of the governed”?  How is that consent to be determined, and if, lets say, its via a representative majority, can the minority who refuse to comply be sanctioned–ie forced to comply so for the good of the civil society, or can they claim their “rights” have been violated….like, lets say, the majority determines there should be  no loud parties after 10pm for the PEACE of everyone…but someone doesn’t want to?Can force be used then…they are not using force,only refusing to comply with the rules of the civil society……or trespassing?The list goes on forever of non force issues that must still be dealt with.How is that to occur so that a civil society is maintained?

      • greywolfrs

        Another day and still spouting your B S.

  • Anonymous

    If he runs I will vote for him. There are bigger things at play than even Glenn fully understands right now. He is getting closer to the truth but things are much worse than he knows.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ty-OToole/1045507595 Ty O’Toole

    I voted
    Libertarian for President until Perot. The media thought they could make fun of
    him call him crazy but Perot was smarter than they were and turned it on them.
    Then in the next presidential election Perot had some momentum and I was
    excited but the media dropped the ultimate hammer on him, silence. Just like
    they do Glenn Beck and the information he brings the American public everyday
    with GBTV. If it wasn’t for Glenn Beck I would be crazy by now thinking I was
    all alone. The media is getting away with what might eventually be murder. We
    need to find a way to shame them or at least hold them accountable. I am
    writing a book that has some ideas that I hope to have out this fall –
    MEDIAOCRACY – And the Cure

  • Anonymous

    Really, it’s either Ron Paul or the end of America. Romney and Obama will both only spend us to oblivion. That will cause hyperinflation, end of our currency, then end of our sovereign nation. People are too dependent on handouts. Little babies who can’t stand on their own two feet. No pride. Very poor work ethics. Work ethics, Romney would change…..you’d have to work 60 hours a week with a cut in wages. That way the corporations would prosper……but would that create more employment or less? They are all liars except Ron Paul. He addresses the issues with forthright honesty, something no other candidate will ever do, including Obama. This scares the daylights out of weaklings with their hand out. And many of these weaklings are people with inside contacts and government contracts, etc. Look around you, you know that’s true, Whole government is unionized while raping the free enterprise taxpayer. 

    Look at the situation today. We have concentration camps already built and being manned as I am typing. Who do you think will be in these camps? Decent hard-working people or all the junkies pimps whores breeders with no acceptance of responsibility at all, etc., etc. Obama has laid all the groundwork to get these losers out of society, the next president, whoever it is, will be (probably) the last American president of a free country. The bums are overwhelming the producers. AMERICA MUST CHANGE, OR IT WILL CEASE TO EXIST.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jneilschulman J Neil Schulman

    Glenn, you’re such an optimist. The RNC is trying to figure out some mischief it can pull in Tampa to neutralize the growing number of state Ron Paul delegations that might deny Romney a first-ballot victory. If the RNC succeeds, expect the Paul delegates to exit the convention and convince Dr. Paul to run either independent or third party — and don’t count out Gary Johnson stepping aside for Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party central committee making the substitution the way Eagleton was once replaced by Shriver for the VP slot in a similar situation for the Democrats.

  • http://www.facebook.com/greg.matre Greg Matre’

    83% of Dr. Ron Paul supporters Voted for Obama in 2008…

  • http://www.facebook.com/greg.matre Greg Matre’

    82% of the 1% er’s are Democrats…

  • Anonymous

    Conspiracy? I think that is a distasteful word to use in reference to the good Dr. Why? because conspiracy usually denotes dealing under the table, telling lies and being less than truthful… anyone who has ever gotten a clue and followed Ron Pauls political career will agree, without a shadow of a doubt that Ron Paul is the straightest arrow to ever enter the realm of politics in the last 50 years. I do not mean to say that he is infallible or perfect, but I trust his word more than any other candidate in the race, yes even Mitt Romney. I would go as far to say that the chances are much higher that the other candidates would be, could be or are involved in conspiracies, and I think most of you would agree that there is a obvious media conspiracy( call it bias, I call it conspiracy) AGAINST Ron Paul. I am not saying that you have to endorse Ron Paul, even though I think that would be a great idea, but please do not question the character of one of the most principled men in politics. 

  • http://profiles.google.com/richardfontaine3 Richard Fontaine

    We are all trapped with the world we actually live in. In a more perfect world I would be cheering Ron Paul on. Unfortunately even romantics  like myself found out when I supported Ross Perot in 1992 that what you get for being foolish is President Bill Clinton. The most corrupt couple to come to the White House in my lifetime. I am a Romney supporter now, for better or worse.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PZGFYV3UHPJCUWY2AD3SKH6ZGY FreeDumb

    Ron Paul is right.  There is practically no difference between MR and BO, or R and D for that matter.  Bigger government either way.  Mitt may slow down the bullet train of socialism, but has no interest in stopping it.  And it will not be Ron Paul that costs Mitt the election.  It will be the fact that he wrote Obamacare, he was a practicing Mormon who supported abortion and the homosexual agenda.  Both of these policies completely contradict the LSD church.  That proves he has no principles other than expediency.  Further more, Mitt is a member of the ruling elite.  He has done quite well with the status quo.  Come to mention it, so has Glenn Beck!

    • Anonymous


      Re:  there is no difference.

      That is a classic libertarian redefinition / distortion to make it look like if you are for liberty you have to be for them…and insist that to have liberty you must have drugs, prostitution, suicide, and a whole host of things.

      Do you really believe that?

      That ain’t what the Founders thought.
      Read them, and you find just how far off Paul is.
      God bless

      “The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms, and
      false reasonings, is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind.  Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges. You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator, to the whole human race; and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people,
      without the most manifest violation of justice. Civil liberty is only natural liberty, modified and secured by the sanctions of civil society. It is not a thing, in its own nature, precarious and dependent on human will and caprice; but it is conformable to the constitution of man, as well as necessary to the well-being of society.”  –Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

      • greywolfrs

        You know, I trashed all your B S yesterday and here you are spewing the same line of B S. I guess logic and reason have no place in your life.

        You really should look up the definition of freedom. You are another dunce that thinks they have a right to tell others how to live, but god forbid anyone tell you how to live. Hypocrisy at its finest.

        • Anonymous

          Funny, I don’t recall anything being trashed, or BS for that matter.

          The issue is not what you have the liberty to do on an island by yourself, but what you have the liberty to do when you live with others.

          The rest of us have rights too.

          You do believe in things like consent of the governed, majority rule, civil society, and things like that, right?

          As Oliver Wendell Holmes put it…”Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.”

          • greywolfrs

            And you think someone else’s choice to do drugs, engage in  prostitution or to commit suicide is the same as someone doing something to you?

            It is better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool, rather than open it and remove all doubt.

            P.S. I did trash all your B S yesterday, I notice there is no more mention of the voluntaryists.

          • Anonymous

             Ah……and lets get on the same thread.

            So, let me ask you…I assume you are claiming all those are rights, under the umbrella of Natural Rights…right?

            Do you have the right to destroy yourself?

            Does a community have the same rights as an individual?

          • greywolfrs

            Lets get on the same thread? Yeah, lets. Individual freedom and personal responsibility. Something you need to learn about. People do not need you or government to tell them how to live. That is NOT freedom, no matter which way you try to slice it. The only thing a “community” can do is attempt to keep a person from harming another, against their will, PERIOD.

          • Anonymous

            I understand the libertarian line which you just stated.  Well and good.

            Now, lets just agree that those are not the principles upon which our nation was founded, and your can argue for yours, and I will argue for the Founders, the Constitution, etc.

            Fair enough?

          • greywolfrs

            Except you are not arguing “for the founders, Constitution, etc.”
            That is a lie. You still feel the government has the right to tell people what to do. The funny part is it’s only the part you agree with.
            So, you can try and act sanctimonous all you want, but you are a liar.

          • Anonymous

            Re:  you still have government has the right to tell you what to do.

            Trust me, I understand where you are coming from.

            The “government” is not telling you what to do as if it is an independent entity. It is the majority, speaking through our representatives, setting the criteria by which we believe we can live together, provide for the common defense, etc.

            So, understand that government is US, and we operate under the “consent of the governed.”

            And, I know this is a shock, you are obligated to obey those laws or be sanctioned up to and including losing your life, liberty, and property.

            THAT is Liberty AND Government in balance.

            Funny.  Do you know what the most essential ingredient of that is:  self control, virtue, etc.

            God bless

            “Moral and  political virtue,  cannot  be too  much  beloved, practiced,  or rewarded;  but to  place  liberty on  that  foundation only  would  not be  safe that  form  of government which  unites  all 
            the  virtue,  honor, and  fear  of the  citizens,  in 
            a  reverence  and obedience to the [Constitution and] laws, is the only one in which liberty can be secure, and all orders, and ranks, and parties, compelled to prefer the public good before their own; that is the government for which we plead.” John Adams, The Political Writings of John

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Kreamer/1590934980 Mike Kreamer

    glenn, you’re great, i have been following you for almost ten years
    now.. but you lost me on the santorum thing.. the leader you told us to
    look out for was soundly dismissed by you and the rest of the media..
    what is the real reason? some dark secret? was there more to the
    “racist” thing? the earmarks? foreign policy? that is the lamest reason
    of all, expecting congress to properly fund a war before you declare it
    is not “crazy”, its the law. so, what is it? some unsaid new world order
    thing? please tell us.. please?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PZGFYV3UHPJCUWY2AD3SKH6ZGY FreeDumb

    Wrong string

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ULQ4X45P3NP5RKU6J3YPYXSBHQ Herb

    Mr. Hughes, 

    Using you Abraham Lincoln “Give him Power” quote as a seed for a thought experiment, let’s imagine what would happen if Dr. Paul was elected President.

    He would be obliged to veto virtually everything that came to his desk because everything that passes Congress is in large measure a financial gift to some special somebody. Because legislators, both Republicans and Democrats survive and thrive politically by distributing money through spending bills, they would join together to override those vetoes, creating a kind of bi-partisanship that effectively eliminates any spending control whatsoever. 

    Dr. Paul’s imaginary Presidency would result in worsening the very practices he quite rightly preaches agains.

    As unsatisfactory  as it is, we need someone who will limit government through the system rather than butting heads with the system and allowing it to expand unchecked.

    • Anonymous

      I never heard of beating Satan by being like him, the only way to do it is trying to be like Jesus. Think about what you are saying, if you combat evil with evil, you are now evil too! This is the argument that is used every election, and look where it has gotten us… it has either gotten us a democratic president or a Republican with no real vision who is secretly a liberal! The truth is, the system is wrong, the system is broken, and the system is broke. We need someone to go in and re-boot the system, or the system will utterly crash! 
      I will never vote for someone who will do unsatisfactory things, just like I never go to a diner that I know has crappy food, just like I never go to movies that are unsatisfactory, I would never hire someone to work at my company if I knew he that he was a mediocre worker, and I never ever, ever would vote for Satan just because God seemed so far away,or because he was un-electable or because he would not make compromise with evil people. People should vote for what is right, not what is less wrong!

  • Anonymous

    I threw my vote away last time around on McCain in my desperate attempt to keep Obama from winning. I am voting my conscience from now on. If the GOP wants my support then they better get serious about the candidates that they put forth.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Thompson/1701622313 Mark Thompson

    anybody but Obama…the mantra of the alinsky method.  Ridicule and marginalize your enemy.  The idea that Romney is better then Obama is a total farce, sure he will act slower, but in the end we the people are still subject slaves to the new world order.  Our children and grand children will not see the difference.
    I will vote my conscience, Paul.  I will write him in if need be.  If obama gets reelected, so be it.  I will blame the useful idiots who follow the establishment elites who say, anybody but obama or Paul……get a clue citizens.  A second term will bring the destruction of this nation to the forefront, something long overdue.

    You are being used by the powers that be.  The RINO is not going to help us.  In fact, he is going to continue the slide to the fascist state that will strip us all of our freedom.

    We have time between now and November to educate the useful idiots on both sides of the aisle, so lets do it.

    They want to call him crazy and that his foreign policy won’t work.  I got news for you, our nation is being destroyed from within, it is time to bring ninety percent of our military home to watch our borders and stop the madness.  It is time to stop the war on drugs, a tool used by the elites to hose so many…  The fed has to be dismantled, it has destroyed our monetary system.  The list is all but endless of the intentional destruction of this nation.  For Team Beck to take the position they have is tyrannical in it’s own right.  

    FYI, Israel can and will take care of themselves, that is not an issue.

    Educate others- It’s a corrupt and subverted government, both parties.  Your choice for the gop was established by the powers that be to continue their agenda.  And the media is fully complicent in this effort.  Yes folks, that is a conspiracy.  NO theory, fully verified, with Beck involved…..shame, but true.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Thompson/1701622313 Mark Thompson

    Rush and savage have also parroted the establishment line of the crazy old guy.  We the people have no one in the media to trust.  I suggest one pay close attention to the responses of the people on blogs.  There are some diamonds in the rough who have it figured out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Kreamer/1590934980 Mike Kreamer

     glenn, you’re great, i have been following you for almost ten years
    now.. but you lost me on the santorum thing.. the leader you told us to
    look out for was soundly dismissed by you and the rest of the media..
    what is the real reason? some dark secret? was there more to the
    “racist” thing? the earmarks? foreign policy? that is the lamest reason
    of all, expecting congress to properly fund a war before you declare it
    is not “crazy”, its the law. so, what is it? some unsaid new world order
    thing? please tell us.. please?

  • Anonymous

    I’ll tell you Glenn Beck – you are really loosing me.  Even my daughter has asked me “What has happened to Glenn Beck?”  Your denigration of Ron Paul – the TRUE proponent of upholding and adhering to every nuance of the U.S. Constitution – this nation’s Supreme Rule of Law is just unfathomable to me.  Ditto for your views on Ron Paul supporters.
    I diligently watched your program on Fox News and I have bought more than a few of your books.  You always seemed be a big proponent of limited government and this nation’s founding documents and yet you dismiss the candidacy of Ron Paul.  I’m surely at a loss!
    I’m neither registered as a Republican or as a Libertarian.  I am registered as an Independent. A CONSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENT, because I believe the Republican Party has greatly deterred from the Limited, Constitutional Republic that this nation was founded on.
    If you believe that Romney would take action or support auditing the Federal Reserve – let alone abolishing it – if you believe that Romney would even attempt to abolish all the unlawful federal bureaucracies that have consistently and constantly violate our unalienable individual rights, and if you believe that Romney would rescind all the obscene Executive Orders that Obama and his predecessors have put in place – well, I most certainly believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
    I to believe that there is not a dimes worth of difference between too many numerous Democrats and Republicans when the Republicans put forth the likes of John McCain and my own Congressman Mike Rogers (R) MI – co-authors the likes of CISPA.  So much for “My Party – Right or Wrong!” 
    I’m not some wet-behind-the-ears, clueless American.  I’ve walked this earth for over 65 years and have studied the U.S. Constitution, Frederic Bastiat, the writings of W. Cleon Skousen as well as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and numerous other writing and opinions far too numerous to mention – without having garnered a college education.
    Oh, and yes – I am fearful that a Mitt Romney nomination could garner Obama a second term due to the fact that his past history and his ever changing ideology and principles could be tossed in his face to the detriment of those of us who wish to restore this nation’s Republic and our sacred unalienable rights!

  • Anonymous

    This is one of my heartfelt stances, Glenn and a large reason for why I have on-going support for Ron Paul who is not only a devout Christian, but also devout to his oath of office and this nation’s Supreme Rule of Law: 
    I would as a Christian support an Atheist for public office who wholly believes in abiding and upholding every nuance of the U.S. Constitution before I will back a Christian whose religious fervor leads them to usurp and violate their sacred oath of office. 
    This nation was founded on the whole by Christians who believed in the unalienable rights of every individual of all faiths, or the lack there of. 
    The founders also laid their lives on the line against the idea of a State controlled religion and the rights of the individual to speak their mind and practice their free-will as long as it does not violate the unalienable rights of another individual. 
    Our elected and appointed representatives have sworn a sacred oath to the U.S. Constitution and not to the Bible — not to the Koran, — not to the Quran, — not to the Torah or any other religious book.
    Our Limited Republic bequeathed on us the ability to live free from all tyranny – including State run religious tyranny.
    This nation has been vested with a Supreme Rule of Law. That law is the U.S. Constitution written to impart mandated limitations on our government and those elected and appointed to represent all of “WE THE PEOPLE” whether or not you follow any faith. – written by SovereignMary

  • Anonymous

    Ditto, Mary!  Ron Paul is the only one that will restore the constitution government that was put in place, and control or take out the powerful print master that is printing excess dollars, and bringing our country to the brink.

    Seems to me the reason Glen Beck doesn’t support Ron Paul is because of way Paul says he wants to bring all our troops home.  Somehow Glenn must feel that Paul will not support our biggest supporter there ever was ‘The land of Israel’, I feel that that we, the American people, always will support Israel. It’s so simple to bringing all our troops home and putting them on the southern border, could solve two problems, with printing out a “red worker card, for everyone without a green card” (worker, Not  citizen) would solve that problem also.  Whereas, Obummer sure doesn’t support Israel, Obummer and Hill-airry just supports those countries that surround Israel, with the other radicals, I knew during the Arab Spring that the . I sure don’t know what people expected from a person that was raised during his formative years by radicals. I also do not understand why Ron Paul has stayed in the race this long, must be for some reason. I knew during the Arab Spring of last year that the Black Mus-slums, would take over, as they were the only ones that were organized, just how stupid are those people we put into power? I saw that one coming, why not them?  And the only reason that I can see for Obummer  to use his power to take out the leaders of those countries, could have been to let the BM group take over.

  • Anonymous

    You know what, so far it hasn’t worked out well doing it the old way, has it?    Why not try something different?   Why not show the two current parties running the show who’s boss? 

     I for one, am tired of the OLD guard, not RP, but the establishment that has ruined this country for quite some time now.  I am tired of the same BS thrown at us by these two accomplices vying for power;  I am tired of being lied to.

    It’s time for doing something different and if enough people feel as I do, there’s going to be change.    The stink coming out of washington is overwhelming and it has TO STOP.   They won’t do it, so we’ll have to.   

    Thank you Barack Hussein Obama….it took a marxist, socialist, communist to wake America up….and for that, I thank you!

  • Anonymous

    ……and Glenn, either you are behind us or you are not.  It’s your choice.    You’d better make peace with Dr. Paul because he is who we need and I hope he asks Jon Stossel to be his VP.

    I stand with Israel and so will Ron Paul if and when they need us.

  • Anonymous

    I completely believe in Ron Paul.  He is a wise old man, who has lived a full life of experience beyond most people’s years.  It’s kind of strange that to me Paul represents what I always thought America stood for in the first place.  Obviously, I wasn’t paying attention. 

    Only a vice-presidential pick that would make me feel like our long-term debt issues will be the primary attention of the Romney team will make me choose Romney.  The next president must make a difference, not just keep us going down the same road. 

  • Anonymous

    To: James Hughes

    Standing behind President Obama means that you agree with everything
    he does.  Don’t kid yourself.

    • Anonymous

      What a facinating show of nothing. Your both gonna vote for rp yet argue completly different reasons awsome. Myself I am gonna write in Peter Griffen from Family Guy. Petoria is my utopia. Rock on Peter.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XLMXAPASH67DX4LWFAPSSAHKVY Last in Line

    I dislike 0bama as much as anyone, but Romney can go to hell!
    Voting isn’t about choosing who’s the most popular (per the MSM), or picking the MSM’s winner because they tell you to. Unlike many people I learned something after 2004, and Bush was the last ‘lesser evil’ I will ever vote for. The lessen I learned is to vote is to choose the leader you believe is best for our nation…not the most electable of the two worst choices.
    Romney is from the same bag of CFR scum that 0bama, Bush, Clinton, Bush daddy, Carter, etc came from. 
    When they all belong to the CFR, they belong to the CFR’s singular agenda. This is why we have seen nothing but a continuation of Bush’s policies…from an ever increasing homeland security, to more new conquered sovereign nations for no just reason such as Libya. Do you Romney people really think Romney will do anything different? He won’t as he has the same masters as 0bama! He is even the one who piloted 0bamacares prototype. All I see in Romney is a carbon copy of 0bama.
    We MUST end this CFR revolving door/musical chairs at the Whitehouse!
    Even if Ron Paul drops off the ticket, I will write him in unless someone appears out of the Libertarian party.

    • greywolfrs

      The Libertarian will likely be Gary Johnson. I will still write in Ron Paul.

  • greywolfrs

    Back when Perrot was running, he told it like it was about many things. Most notably about NAFTA. He was right about almost everything he said. People called him “crazy,” a “loon” and many other names along those lines and he was RIGHT. Hey, wait a minute, those are the same thing being said about Ron Paul……
    Imagine that.

    • Anonymous

      Right on…and don’t forget Perot’s grudge against Bush…to be defeated at any cost to the nation.

      Imagine that…the same thing is being said about Ron Paul and his followers.

      • greywolfrs

        As I stated before, your stupidity will not fly with me. I have been around the block a few hundred times and your lies will not work.

        • Anonymous

          Well Sir…you keep saying that, but you don’t ever get specific in spite of being asked.
          Now, just so you know, I don’t mind having a discussion with someone who has a different political philosophy…what I do mind is when they make claims of being the spirit of the Founders, etc when they are not.

          So, if you want to debate the actual vision you have, and the principles you actually espouse, lets do that.

          If you can’t…I understand and accept your concession.

          • greywolfrs

            Then you woke up with the pillow between your legs. I proved my point yesterday and what did you do? You logged off. Nice try, but only more B S and conjecture dropping out of your pie hole.

          • Anonymous

             Funny…haven’t logged off since yesterday…so, maybe I missed your erudite evaluation…

            And please, do try to remain adult.

          • greywolfrs

            Yeah, telling it like it is means I am not an adult. What’s the matter, did I use a bad word. Grow up, fv cking child.

          • Anonymous

            My point exactly.

            There is more to being an adult than “telling it like it is.”

            What amazes me is that on the one hand you insist everyone is self controlled, and given the freedom of the internet, you cannot be civil.

            Great object lesson…kinda counter productive though.  A lot of people notice that.

          • greywolfrs

            Only a child is offended by a word. You call it being civil, I call it telling it like it is.
            By the way, I do not really care what other people think.

          • Anonymous

             I understand, and BTW:  what you say is pretty obvious.

            Now my friend, have you ever considered, that the very reason we have government in the first place, as the Founders described, is to protect the majority of us from people who just can’t seem to grow up to accept responsibility for controlling themselves and being civil? They called that self government.

            I can imagine they would not like government much either.

          • greywolfrs

            No, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were intended to protect the people from tyrannical government, not to protect the majority from the minority. If it were as you say, then we would be a pure democracy, which we are not. ALL people have the right to live free and not have you or the government tell them how to live. It is that simple.

            On another note, we are not friends, neighbors or brothers, you would do well to remember that.

          • Anonymous

            Your last point is taken–:)
            Kinda testy for a conversation over politics though.

            What do the words “We the People” mean, but that We together, in an orderly fashion, framed the way we would secure our God given rights, by instituting a government to do it?

            That government did not just spring from the ground like a plant, it was instituted by US, for a purpose, to protect our rights and liberties.  It is a social contract between all of us on how we will live together.

            From what pray tell, were our liberties threatened before government?

            WE delegated to it the power we wanted it to have to enable it to govern and protect our rights and liberties, and we put chains on it where those were deemed prudent.  And we wrote it down.

            As Madison, the Chief Architect said:

            “If men were angels, no
            government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external
            nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government
            which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this:
            you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next
            place oblige it to control itself.” –James Madison, Federalist

            I get the impression you do not agree with that…that “you must first enable the government to CONTROL THE GOVERNED.”

            And then, to control itself.

            The key is balance…BOTH.
            That is the skewed philosophy of libertarianism and RP, and its based on an incorrect understanding of human nature…just as described here:  there is an admixture of good and evil in us, reason and passion…

            …except for those elite I guess who are above all that.


          • Anonymous

            “On another note, we are not friends, neighbors or brothers, you would do well to remember that.”

            You’re a bitter, bitter person. And you call *others* trolls. Ha.

          • greywolfrs

            My last comment was simply the truth, do not assume.

            That is what they were for, period. The third and fourth paragraphs are essentially true, but no where was written that the government was put in place to “control” anyone. Liberties were not only threatened, but taken away by the crown, the government at the time. It’s funny that you quote the Federalist papers, not everyone in our government, at the time, was a Federalist. Otherwise, the Constitutiton and Bill of Rights would have reflected their ideas. You do know what their ideas were? A strong central bank, tariffs and a good relation with Britian. Yet, those ideas were never part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the basis of this country. Those documents give the Feds certain powers, everything else is for the states and people, respectively. If the Federalist ideas were the basis, we would have had a “Federal Reserve” system from the start. The Democratic-Republicans , obviously, had a say. Everything you are saying is incorrect, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not a preemptive strike, it was a reactionary idea. They established basic laws for everyone to follow.

            Everything you are saying is in favor of BIG GOVERNMENT, yet the Constitution and Bill of Rights purpose was to LIMIT government. ALL of Founders knew that we needed a Federal government, but also knew it was that very government that was the danger to FREEDOM. You seem to be in favor of the Federalist and Big government, which at this time would make you a Democrap.

            The Libertarian idea is far from wrong. It has nothing to do with human nature and everything to do with FREEDOM, something you are, obviously, against. See, you do not have the right to take away freedom because someone “might” do something. You can only prosecute someone for the things they HAVE done.

            Besides, you refuse to see the point. Most people do not need the government to protect them from themselves, which is exactly what you are saying. Outlawing drugs, prostitution and suicide is the government over-stepping their bounds. Those are choices for people, they choose to engage in those things or not. The government nor you have the right to tell them either way.

            In conclusion, it is your right to be for big big government, but do not presume to tell me it is part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it is not.

          • Anonymous

             Good afternoon
            Well, I am delighted to see you admit that you and yours are NOT on the same page as the Founders.  Of course everyone was not a federalist, but those issues were settled in our Constitution, which is NOW the supreme law of the land.

            I do appreciate honesty though, that what you seek is NOT the Constitutional Government we were founded under, but something else.

            Now, I understand that you are insisting that a person is  either for drugs, prostitution, etc or for tyranny…but friend, that just ain’t the case…ie anarchy, where everyone does that is right in their own eyes without regard to anyone or anything, or tyranny.

            That, is a false choice.

            The in between position of Liberty with Order is what the US and the Constitution are all about.

            But, glad to see you come clean on that..honesty goes a long way with me.

            Now, let me ask:  Is a person obligated to obey laws they do not like until they can be changed in due process, or do they simply decide they have the right to do as they please.  Note now, that those laws are made by representatives of the majority.

          • greywolfrs

            OK, it is plainly obviously that you are a left wing troll. You say that only people who have YOUR ideas are for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that is simply not true. In fact, you are the one against those documents. You are the one that is for big government. You are the one that is for government control. Those things are NOT in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You really should read those documents again. They were written by some pretty smart guys, who knew they needed to put it in terms that even morons can understand, yet you still fail to understand them. That is simply amazing. Limiting government is the purpose, not government control.

            So, taking away someone’s freedom of choice is now liberty with order? You really shouldn’t smoke that shit, it is affecting your brain and not in a good way. The whole purpose was to give people FREEDOM, but not at the expense of others. You simply refuse to acknowledge that someone else doing drugs has no effect on you. You refuse to admit that someone else going to a prostitute has no effect on you. You refuse to admit that someone committing suicide has NOTHING to do with you. None of that has any effect on anyone else but whomever chooses to do it. You have NO right to tell people not to do them. Freedom is a wonderful thing, at the same time, you are NOT required to participate.

            Like I said, you are NOT for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, otherwise, you would not be trying to twist them to your own ends. Using the Federalist papers proves that is what you are trying to do. You fail to see that the founding documents were written by men, of many different ideas. They were intended to preserve everyone’s freedom.

            Now, feel free to go troll somewhere else, because I am not buying your B S.

          • Anonymous

            I can see you are struggling with this.
            So, tell me again what the purpose of government is of not to govern?

            Webster’s offers this definition:

            to exercise continuous sovereign authority over

            Government: the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control

            Jefferson said, in the Declaration “to secure these rights governments are instituted among men…”

            Maybe Washington’s Farewell Address helps…kinda long thoug–but you read it:

            This Government, the offspring of our
            own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature
            deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its
            powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision
            for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support.
            Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its
            measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The
            basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter
            their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time
            exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is
            sacredly obligatory upon all.  The very
            idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes
            the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.”  —George Washington, Farewell Address.

            Do you see that last part? Compliance with a government of the people comes with the right of self government.

            Again, I understand your struggles in this.  It would help if you read the Founders instead of the libertarians..then you would know the difference.

            God bless

          • Anonymous

            “OK, it is plainly obviously that you are a left wing troll. You say that only people who have YOUR ideas are for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that is simply not true. In fact, you are the one against those documents. You are the one that is for big government. You are the one that is for government control.”

            I’m not sure what Sapient1’s political positions are, but from what I’ve read so far, it appears you’ve got psychological projection issues. It is YOU that is trying to declare a monopoly on who is for the Constitution; by your reasoning, the majority Tea Party philosophy is for “big government” and “big government control”. You Ron Paul zealots give sane libertarians a bad name. It’s time for the sane libertarians to break off or kick your lot out; there are way too many of you nuts.

          • Anonymous


          • Anonymous

            Good morning
            Re:  by your reasoning, the majority Tea Party philosophy is for “big government” and “big government control”.

            Right you are.

            As far as I can tell, RP and his are much closer to the anarchist /
            stateless views and simply mask them with Constitutional
            language…likely the voluntaryist wing of the libertarians.

            In fact, you might check out the video “Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist”
            on the Mises Institute website, noting that site was founded by RP’s ex
            congressional chief of staff Lew Rockwell.  The caption to the video

            “In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and
            interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts
            limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as
            part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society,
            absent any State.” 
            –Graham Wright, Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist.

            Bear in mind, these are his friends not enemies.  they claim they are outing him for the good of the movement.

            Read the discussion below it where they talk about disdain  for “We the people types,” dropping the anarchist bomb, etc.

            Frankly, i have yet to find one RP zealot that ultimately, did not fit this mold.

            Personally, I am a classical, Constitutional Conservative seeking to
            restore the nation to its original design, rather than some imaginary
            lala land of anarchy that the Founders warned us against as the short
            road to tyranny.

            God bless

        • Anonymous

          You asked for it, comparing Paul to Perot, and you call HIM stupid? Come off it.

          • Anonymous

            Good morning
            your comment to greywolfrs:  by your reasoning, the majority Tea Party
            philosophy is for “big government” and “big government control”.

            Right you are.

            As far as I can tell, RP and his are much closer to the anarchist /
            stateless views and simply mask them with Constitutional
            language…likely the voluntaryist wing of the libertarians.

            In fact, you might check out the video “Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist”
            on the Mises Institute website, noting that site was founded by RP’s ex
            congressional chief of staff Lew Rockwell.  The caption to the video

            “In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and
            interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts
            limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as
            part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society,
            absent any State.” –Graham Wright, Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist.

            Bear in mind, these are his friends not enemies.  they claim they are outing him for the good of the movement.

            Read the discussion below it where they talk about disdain  for “We the people types,” dropping the anarchist bomb, etc.

            Frankly, i have found many RP zealots who ultimately, admit this,
            after being dragged kicking and screaming to honesty that is. Those who
            did not know this but fell for the line, after reading what I just
            suggested run from RP like the plague. Suddenly, it all fits.

            He is more than eccentric…he is cut from a different bolt of cloth all together.

            Personally, I am a classical, Constitutional Conservative seeking to
            restore the nation to its original design and principles, rather than
            some imaginary lala land of anarchy that the Founders warned us against
            as the short road to tyranny.

            I give people a wide latitude for opinion, views,etc as is their due,
            for honest discussion is a vital thing. I give NO ONE latitude to be
            knowingly dishonest and a fraud, pretending to be something they are

            God bless

          • Anonymous

             You seem to believe that Ron Paul believes he’d have to power to remove our government, and throw us into anarchy.

            Ron Paul wants the constitution.

            Your argument

            We LIVE under the constitution, or we’re going to regret it.

          • Anonymous

            Good morning

            Re:  you seem to believe RP believes he’d have to power to remove our government and throw us into anarchy.

            Of course not, well, no more than I believe FDR  or Obama can throw us into socialism.

            The checks and balances built into our system are many and formidable.  One thing they do is give us time to think about what we are doing.  Those “mere demarcations on parchment” are not a cure for stupidity, or a people who will take no responsibility for themselves or their nation..

            Now, the Founders understood that.  Question is, do you?

            They warned that there were forces that could be unleashed in this unique nation that could destroy it.  One of those was an incorrect definition of liberty.

            “To suppose  that  any form  of  government will  secure  liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea.” James  Madison. Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 20, 1788

            Re: We live under the Constitution or we are going to regret it.

            My friend, I could not agree with you more. But, it must be the Constitution designed by our Founders, on those principles alone. Look closely and you will find RP and his followers espouse completely different principles no matter how many times they use the word “Constitution.”

            How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg? 4. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.

            God bless

          • Anonymous

            Part 2

            Here is part of an actual discussion re Ron Paul being a  voluntaryist and whether he should openly admit it.

            First, the dangers if he does not:

            “Graham, I think it’s highly likely that it would damage his campaign temporarily.  But in all reality, he’s got to “come out of the closet” sometime, or
            else all he’s done is spawned a bunch of “We the People!” types, which is still antithetical to Paul’s ideal society.  I have said in the past before that if he did come out as an an-cap that it would isolate a good portion of his fan base.  But at the same time, if hangs onto it all the way to the grave, we’d probably wind up with fewer an-caps in total.”

            (Graham is the producer of the video Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist.)

            The danger–he might SPAWN too many “We the people types” which are ANTITHETICAL to his vision for an ideal society.

            ARE YOU A WE THE PEOPLE TYPE?  Heads up.

            Second, take a look at the down side if he does admit it–from Graham:

            “I agree that it would damage his campaign short-term if he said yes, but I think it could well also do long-term damage to the voluntaryist
            movement.  He is currently acting as a filter: he turns liberals / conservatives into constitutionalists, and some of them (the ones that follow his leads to LRC and LvMI) become voluntaryists by resolving
            their cognitive dissonance.  If he “came out” he would be less effective at converting socialists to constitutionalists, and by extension, less
            effective at leading people to voluntaryism.”

            Finally, look at what they deem MUST occur:

            “I agree that Ron Paul’s role is as an educator.  He gets people interested in libertarianism and then turns people onto the Mises Institute.  If you took a poll here on this message board, I’d bet that 50+% of the people first heard of this place through Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign.  Changing somebody into a voluntaryist is a gradual thing and it’s something that’s probably easier to glide into rather than jump
            into.  So I think you’re right.  But there comes a point where you reach critical mass and Ron Paul has appealed to all of the people who are
            serious thinkers and at that point he can drop the anarchist bomb on his fans.”

            Are YOU one of those fans that will be hit with the anarchist bomb…not a serious thinking in their eyes since you don’t espouse voluntaryism…but just someone needed to get Paul elected.

            Now, BTW: the caption to the video is this:

            “In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as
            part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.”

            You may read all this on the Mises Institute website ceo’d by RP’s ex chief of staff Lew Rockwell.

            These are his friends who are outing him, not his enemies.

            God bless

          • greywolfrs

            First, there are many simlarities between the two. And yes he is stupid, not for the comment about Perrot and Paul, but for previous comments.

            By the way, if you had not noticed, Ron Paul is the one that put Libertarians on the map. You really should go to the Libertarian website and learn what Libertarians are about before you make these moronic claims. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are quite clear, it does not take rocket scientist to understand them. Do you actually think that was a coincidence? Using the Federalist papers is a crock. If you know what the Federalist papers are you would not agree with that person. A bunch of letters written by only THREE of the founding fathers, to a New York newspaper for the sole purpose of getting the constitution ratified. That’s the part Sapient isn’t telling you.  

            In conclusion, I am bitter because I make a statement of fact? Sapient nor you are my friend, (I am particular about my friends) neighbor, (I don’t see either of you when I walk out my door) or brother. (Unless there is something my mother and father did not tell me or my other 11 brothers and sisters)

          • Anonymous


            Re:  Using the Federalist papers is a crock. If you know what the Federalist papers are you would not agree with that person. A bunch of letters written by only THREE of the founding fathers, to a New York newspaper for the sole purpose of getting the constitution ratified. That’s the part Sapient isn’t telling you. 

            Wow really. So, are you saying they duped every ratifying convention, every voter, every delegate? That, instead of writing to explain the new Constitution so they could make a decision, they were really duping them? WOW!!! So, those are the bad guys huh? And, how stupid that whole founding generation. Better now though huh?

            Well, at least your true feeling are showing, sir. That’s something. Funny, you don’t agree with Jefferson on that. He said those very papers you just derided were: “the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written.” –The Writings of Thomas Jefferson.

            Hang in there though. I am sure there has to be some Founder that knows what they were doing like you and Ron Paul do. .

            What Constitution are you guys trying to restore anyway if not the one they passed?

            Sir, if you ever get a chance, study counterfeiting.  One thing agents are taught is to study the real thing, and then, anything, and I mean anything that is not up to the real thing, is counterfeit no matter how good it looks or who presents it.

            Now, if you want to know what the US is about, you do not read libertarians, you read the Founders, and by that I mean all of them.  You read the notes of the debates so you know what they discussed and why. Of course, you also read what they read.

            One thing you learn very quickly is that libertarians take terms from the Founders, and then redefine them in a way the Founders not only never used them, they twist them to mean what the Founders warned against.  That way, people think they are talking the same, but they are not.

            You can take the terms Natural Law, Liberty, a whole host of issues,and one by one you find this redefining, a perverting of it from what it is into what it is not.  Slick enough, until you are discovered.

            Now, one of those “guys” that wrote the Federalist papers just happened to have been the Chief Architect of the Constitution, James Madison, another John Jay, the first Chief Justice appointed by Washington, and of course the guy you love to hate, Alexander Hamilton.  The latter two, BTW were also George Washington’s pick for a number of things. Do I suppose you have issues with him too, the guy that chaired the Convention.  Do you accept what HE says about things, or do you insist he also subverted the nation?  That’s your real position isn’t it?

            So, what is it you want to take us back to. That fraud document? C’mon.

            So, I challenge you here to either come clean with your real position, or name your Founder.  Who do you accept as authoritative, so that when we look at what they said and you don’t measure up, then it is what it is.  Name him or them.

            Do you know why you are in trouble grey?  You think you have found something that makes you smarter than everyone else, and that I and others have not read and studied your stuff for many decades.  You would be wrong on both counts..

            BTW:  while you are at it, show me which of the founders espoused the libertarian sine qua non—no force except to resist force.

            Batter up slugger.

            God bless

    • Anonymous

      The media portrayed tea partiers as racist morons, and yet so many tea party people are willing to listen to the same people tell us that Ron Paul is also a racist moron.

      Yet, if you YOUTUBE Ron Paul PREDICTIONS, you will see who was right, and who LIED.

      The media will never stop lying. Left, right, it matters not. They have only ONE agenda, and it’s not something that will help any of us.

      They lie about Trayvon Martin, they lie about the Tea Party, they lie, lie, lie, lie, and yet people are willing to listen to the lies they cast at Paul.

      Here’s a fun one to YOUTUBE: RON PAUL, GLENN BECK INTERVIEW.

      Have fun wrapping your brains around Glenn’s fantasy after that.

      • Anonymous


        While you are on youtube, check out Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist, by his buddies over on the Mises Institute.  Make sure and read the comments if you want a load of who the real morons are.

        Now, that is not main stream media, but his friends.

        Do not confuse the Tea Party with Ron Paul…they are light years apart.

        “In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent
        any State.”  –Graham Wright, creator, Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist.

        God bless

  • Anonymous

    I never thought I could vote for Ron Paul. I will vote for him now, if given a chance. I would have liked to have had a conservative president. But since the RNC is going with Romney, and the DNC has killed off all the Blue Dogs. I could go for Ron Paul.

    • Anonymous

       Re:  I will vote for him now, if given a chance. I would have liked to have had a conservative president.

      I urge your to heed your initial reservations about Ron Paul.  In all things there is a range and room for judgment such as between Romney and Reagan for example.  I prefer Reagan of course.

      Note that Ron Paul is not in that range, but on an entirely different course, with different principles, vision, etc from those shared by Conservatives.

      Note the caption to the video “Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist” found on the Mises Institute website, founded by Paul’s former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell:

      “In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his
      books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He
      adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as
      part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent
      any State.”  –Graham Wright, Ron
      Paul is a Voluntaryist.

      That’s not his enemy, but his friends who know him.  Google the video and take a look.
      Read the discussion below it and see for yourself the disdain for “We the people types” Ron Paul is creating by using the Constitution to get elected, etc.

      These are NOT good honest conservatives who want to restore this nation to its founding principles, but those who are operating on a whole different set but figure you wouldn’t vote for them if you knew what they believed.

      Look up “Voluntaryism” and see what it is. Its the anarchist branch of the Libertarians…not limited government, but no government.

      Follow your gut…you’ll know.
      God bless

      • greywolfrs

        You are lying again. Goebbels would be proud.

        • Anonymous


          Ever heard of a guy named Socrates?  He had an interesting observation: 

          “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

          So, since you have ignored every offer to discuss, provide specifics to back up what you say, and cannot offer anything but slander, then I accept your concession.

          I can explain it to you, but friend, I can’t understand it for you.

          Rave on.


          • greywolfrs

            Again, you say spout this garbage, you refuse to acknowledge my points and say I concede. Quite funny. As I stated before, Goebbels would be proud.

            Talk about redefining those documents. The Federalists were far from the only people writing those documents. You stated before that government was instituted to “control” the people. That would be a dictatorship, not people being freely governed.
            The Federalist papers were simply letters written to three New York newpapers, to get people to vote to ratify the Constitution. When one looks at the “Federalist” party, the FIRST political party of this country, and sees exactly what they stood for, one can also see that their ideas were NOT written into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. One of the biggest things the Federalists believed was in a central banking system. In modern day terms, the Federal Reserve. Here, I will use a quote from Jefferson to prove the point.

            I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
            Thomas Jefferson

            So, keep telling me how those Federalists wrote everything in the Constitution.

            Maybe we should move on to another thing the Federalists were in favor of, a large and strong central government. Yet, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were to limit those powers and everything else was for the states and people, respectively. So, where are those Federalist ideas?

            By the way, did you know that Hamilton formed the Federalist party? And you are going to try and tell me that Hamilton had no agenda in the Federalist papers?

            Another fact that you are not telling people, Madison and Jefferson were opposed to the Federalist party because of the central banking system they were pushing. Yes, the same Madison that wrote some of those very “Federalist papers.”
            Go ahead, refuse to see those examples I have laid before you. As I stated before, you continue to try and fool someone who does not know better, but that person is NOT me.

            Slander would require what I said not to be true. As you can see, your propaganda and half truths would make Goebbels proud, that is a fact.

            P.S. You never learn, we are not friends, neighbors or brothers. You would do well to remember that.
            Now, go away.

          • Anonymous

            Good morning

            Thank you…I know your company line.
            Re:  “Another fact that you are not telling people, Madison and Jefferson were opposed to the Federalist party because of the central banking system they were pushing. Yes, the same Madison that wrote some of those very “Federalist papers.”

            Now, we are talking about the Federalist Papers and whether THOSE writings explain the principles of the Constitution.  Nothing more, and nothing less.  PRINCIPLES not a particular policy idea.

            It is readily accepted that you do not like Hamilton, but it is for far more than the Central Bank, isn’t it? Funny that Washington had him as Sec of Treasury though. Guess he fooled old George too. Rascal.

            Now. lets resolve the issue of whether the Federalist Papers are authoritative.

            On March 4, 1825 the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia passed a resolution.  Present were Thomas Jefferson Rector, James Madison, George Loyall, John H. Cocke, and Joseph C. Cabell.

            Here is the relevant part of the resolution they passed:

            “A Resolution was moved and agreed to in the following words.

            “Whereas it is the duty of this board to the government under which it lives, and especially to that of which this University is the immediate creation, to pay especial attention to the principles of government which shall be inculcated therein, and to provide that none shall be inculcated which are incompatible with those on which the Constitution of this state, and of the the US. were genuinely based, in the common opinion: and for this purpose it may be necessary to point out specifically where these principles are to be found legitimately developed:”

            As you can readily see they were interested in their course work.  They wanted to teach their students the true principles of the Constitution and NOT something that was incompatible with the US or State Constitution.  Note they are going to point out SPECIFICALLY WHERE THOSE PRINCIPLES ARE FOUND AND DEVELOPED.”

            Nice huh?

            OK…great. Lets see what they say:

            “Resolved that it is the opinion of this board that as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his ‘Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government’, and of Sidney in his ‘Discourses on government’, may be considered as those generally approved by our fellow-citizens of this, and the US. And that on the distinctive principles of the government of our state, and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of ‘The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. On questions as to it’s genuine meaning. 3. the Resolutions of the General assembly of Virginia in 1799 on the subject of the Alien and Sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the United States. 4. the Valedictory address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value.

            Now grey, I know you can read, but let me repeat the specific statement: 

            “And that on the distinctive principles of the government of our state, and of that of the United States the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of ’The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning. ”

            Now, that was written by your guy, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison the Chief Architect of the Constitution.  So, if they were on opposite sides of things, here they are in agreement…as to what young citizens should be taught and where to find it.

            They didn’t say to ignore the Papers written by Hamilton or Jay.  They did not say this was a big hoax and sham. And, they did not say the Declaration and the Federalist Papers were in basic conflict. Hardly.

            They said that for 30 years, those have been the guide used by courts and others as to the distinctive principles of our nation, and particularly as embodied in the Constitution on which the FP are a commentary.

            That is what they say, while you say those Papers do not do any such thing.

            YOU have a problem. Both of you cannot be right. Which is it?

            The problem is that the philosophy you espouse is NOT what they espoused. It is NOT what is found in those writings they referred to, and in fact, they flatly refute what you espouse.

            BTW: can you give us of the places we can look at the principles that underlie what you promote like they did so we can see how they stack up?

            Again, there is a contradiction. Who is right, you or them as to what this is all about?

            They said VIRTUE is the key to liberty, is that what you say?

            God bless
            [T]he citizens of the United States are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society. If justice, good faith, honor, gratitude and all the other qualities which ennoble the character of a nation and fulfill the ends of government be the fruits of our establishments, the cause of liberty will acquire a dignity and luster, which it has never yet enjoyed, and an example will be set, which cannot but have the most favorable influence on the rights on Mankind. If on the other side, our governments should be unfortunately blotted with the reverse of these cardinal and essential virtues, the great cause which we have engaged to vindicate, will be dishonored and betrayed; the last and fairest experiment in favor of the rights of human nature will be turned against them; and their patrons and friends exposed to be insulted and silenced by the votaries of tyranny and usurpation. James Madison, Address to the States

            BTW: see that reference to “the votaries of..usurpation?”
            That would be you.

            And you call ME Goebbels.

          • greywolfrs

            Washington was a Federalist sympathizer, although he remained an Independent.

            See, one thing we have the benefit of is hindsight. One does not need the Federalist papers to interpret anything, common sense will do just fine.

            Let’s take the First Amendment, one particular part of it, freedom of religion. Have you ever wondered why that was put into the Bill of Rights? All you would need to do is look at history. A couple of fine examples are Henry the 8th and Bloody Mary. See, no Federalist papers needed.

            Now, you claim that the “votaries of usurpation” is me? Yeah, I am saying that we should have a dictator. By saying that we should have small government and big freedom, that means I am in favor of tyranny. Libertarians saying that means the same thing. All of those things mean Libertarians stand for tyranny, a dictatorship and stifling people’s “rights that were endowed by the creator.”

            This statement made by you says it all.

            I get the impression you do not agree with that…that “you must first enable the government to CONTROL THE GOVERNED.”

            How does one come to the conlusion that a government of the people, by the people and for the people means controlling those very same people?
            If control was the point, why the sham of being “free?” Why the limit on government? This is a direct contradiction.

            Hamilton may have been the original author of the Constitution, but it’s funny that he wrote it with things that directly contradict what he himself believed. He was the founder of the Federalist party. Looking at the tenets of the Federalist party, they are completely opposite of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I can also see that the “other” founders, obviously, had input into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Otherwise, Hamilton would have written those documents along the lines of his Federalist tenets. That is simple logic. That is exactly how one can come to the conclusion that Hamilton was writing the Federalist papers simply to get the Constitution ratified. As I stated before, to think Hamilton did not have his own agenda is foolish.

            Simply put, anyone can try and use the Federalist papers or anything else to interpret the Constitution, but all one needs to do is read the document. ALL of the founders were some pretty smart guys and put those documents in simple terms, that any moron could understand. Only those who intend to twist those documents to their own ends need an interpretation. I guess that would make me a fundimentalist, because I do not think they need any interpretation. If that is the case, so be it. I stand by those documents in their original form, PERIOD. 

            By the way, I do not like or dislike Hamilton, I never knew the guy. I do, however, disagree with the Federalists, the party he founded. The party that believed in a strong, big central government, “tariffs” and a central banking system.

          • Anonymous


            First:  Hamilton did not write the Constitution.  There was an entire Constitutional Convention of 70+ delegates representing the states.

            There were a number of plans and debates.

            re:  I  get the impression you do not agree with that…that “you must first enable the government to CONTROL THE GOVERNED.”How does one come to the conlusion that a government of the people, by
            the people and for the people means controlling those very same people?  If control was the point, why the sham of being “free?” Why the limit on government? This is a direct contradiction.

            The  statement “”you must first enable the government to CONTROL THE GOVERNED.” is not mine, its Madison’s.

            Let me just cut to the chase here and ask you to explain the purpose of government?  Why would those free people establish one in the first place?  They were free.  They had rights.  They had just thrown off a tyrant.  Why establish a government at any level, Federal, state, local?

            In other words, where is the debate, not on what kind of government to have, its purposes, how to control it, etc, but whether they should have one at all?

            Wax eloquent

          • Anonymous

            re:One does not need the Federalist papers to interpret anything, common sense will do just fine.

            If that is true, why would Jefferson say this:

            “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson

            Hint:  because the Constitution is static in its meaning.  It means what THEY said it meant, for the reasons they said, and is to be applied in that vein, until it is changed by amendment.  It does NOT mean what YOUR common sense says it means, or mine, or anyone elses. If it does, then it is not a legitimate Constitution.

            Now, it was not just Jefferson that said that, so did Madison:

            “I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and
            ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a
            consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers.” –James Madison, letter to Henry Lee, 1824

            Grey: Keep trying. I am sure that eventually you will find something you agree with them on.

            BTW:  would you rather be discussing Rothbard as rather than Washington and those other guys we have built monuments to as to what America is all about?

      • Anonymous


        Curious choice of ‘nom d’ plume’?  I like it, but, could be misconstrued by your detractors?  Ouch!

        Anyway, a friend mentioned your posts at this site and suggested I take a look…  I admit to never having heard the word “voluntarism/voluntaryism,” however, I am now enlightened and agree with you, Ron Paul is such which I find unsupportable.

        Furthermore, “social contract theory” is one of many cornerstones in the American experiment, in fact history tells us that social contract was a “cornerstone” of human kind, but it took Hobbes and Locke, etc., to give it a name?

        Anyway, up until now my real complaint about Ron Paul is: He strikes me as an addled old man who I would enjoy discourse with, but wouldn’t want him in any position of authority…

        Vaya con Dios


        • Anonymous

          Good morning

          Re: Voluntaryism

          There are many innocents who consider Ron Paul a breath of fresh air to get us back on track, the “We the people types” who truly want to restore our nation to a Constitutional Republic and think that is what he wants as well.  But, there are many others, MANY, who know precisely what he is about and this deception.  Push them and you will find they actually disown the Founders.  Even on this forum greyworlfs admitted he identified much closer with the antifederalists than those ideas found in the Federalist Papers.

          There is a rather interesting international movement called “stateless communism” that believes they can bring in lala land without going through the dictatorship of the proletariat…just destroy everything and rebuild with no state.

          So, you might keep an eye out for some of these “conspiracy theories” that are out there these days.  To a one they do not plead for a change in people, from lawless to honest, but that the system itself is bad and has to be changed.

          BEWARE these elitists who think history doesn’t apply to them. You find that in RP’s ilk all too often.

          God bless

          Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public
          virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. –John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, April 16, 1776

          • Anonymous


            I suspect you have an education that could be any combination of philosophy, history, political science and law?  Also, military history…

            If true, it is reasonable to assume you’ve come across a legal theory called “neutral principles,” which was first posited by a Professor H. Wechsler, of Columbia?  I have taken the Professor’s thesis and made it my own by expanding the philosophy into the socio-legislative arena, no longer to be kept in the arcane world of law.  (The new Priesthood, as I tend to think of lawyers)

            My interpretation of neutral principle is that such is a consistent process of societal problem solving that is approached through philosophy. In other words, I suggest philosophy be taken out of the dusty halls of academe, thus related/applied to contemporary events?  I further suggest the Founders did just that and we can see such in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.  Couldn’t “neutral principle” be another name for “equal protection” and “unalienable rights”?

            What is the American philosophy?  Hmm.  I have enjoyed our discourse and if you’d like, I’d enjoy hearing whether you are familiar with Wechsler, etc.


          • Anonymous


            Thank you, and let me say this is a quite unexpected pleasure.

            Re:  Sapient and “neutral principles”…or, as Bork put it “”The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.”

            The key to Biblical philosophy is Proverbs 1:7

            “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
            Fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

            The essence of that verse is that there is a clear Creator-creature distinction, and that the creature is responsible to the Creator for what he does, particularly in the area of delineating good and evil. The Bible maintains this distinction throughout.

            Those who deny this distinction find their definition of right and wrong ultimately in themselves, subjectively, rather than objectively..which of course, is a denial of truth as it reflect reality outside themselves (there will be a denial of the three laws of logic in there somewhere).  They, and all of creation becomes a giant inkblot to be interpreted any of a myriad of ways.

            Hence the divisions we see around us.

            Hermeneutically, there are two ways to interpret any writing, exegesis, reading meaning OUT of it, and eisegesis, reading meaning INTO it.  Notice where the final authority lies.

            This applies as much to the Constitution in original intent v “living” as it does in Biblical interpretation of historical  grammatical v allegorical, etc.

            its the same issue repeated–the issue of authority and responsibility.  In fact, the Bible even asserts there are kingdoms built around these two principles.

            Oliver Wendell Holmes put it this way:

            “The greatest act of faith is when a man understands he is not God”It must begin there or all else is cosmetic.God bless my friend, and I hope we can continue.

          • Anonymous


            Have you ever heard of web-site called “The Friend Center?” The format is set up so that you and I could continue on with a private conversation, or, allow our discourse to be open to others, both to read and to participate in. Is generally speaking, a conservative group, but encourages robust debate and the occasional “devils advocate.”

            Contemporary issues and/or current events, music, even poetry can be found at The Friend Center. I have been positing my theory of neutral principle, along with other ideas my active mind comes up with, such as “Economic Treason.” Defined as: “an action or behavior that negatively affects the economic or real security of the Nation and/or citizenry.” (Not codified law, rather philosophy)

            I have to keep things short this morning, but I hope you look into “The Friend Center” as you and I will be able to keep up and expand on our conversation in an excellent context. (I am “Purveyor” there also)

            Lastly, reading Bork’s book, “The Tempting of America,” is where I discovered neutral principles. Bork doesn’t find such workable, claiming that men, even Judges, could not escape their moral inclinations. I disagree, neutral principle should be based on ethics, (reason) not morals, (conscience or emotion) however, those ethics will satisfy our morals in a coincidental capacity? Furthermore, I propose NP is a socio-legal syllogism, so to speak–a logical, consistent procedure based on principle! (wasn’t that the idea behind the Constitution?) Ouch!

            (Note: I’d have no problem giving you my e-mail, but, not the rest of the world too…) LOL

            Speaking of Justice Holmes:

            “The necessities of the time, rather than precedent, should determine the rules by which people are governed”

            The above quote is from the Olmstead dissent, a Federal wire tap case. BUT, do you think Holmes admonition applies to Roe v. Wade? “Neutral Principle” anyone?


          • Anonymous

            Good morning…just signed up for The Friend Center.  Will use Sapient there as well.

            I look forward to it.

            Enjoy your day.

            God bless

            “We know the cause which we are engaged in…  We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in.” – Thomas Paine

  • AN cooper

    I am with you for without Ron Paul there would be no real true people running for office. The rich want mo money and you do not hear any one else saying to abolish the slavery huh?

  • http://www.MakeCash10.com/ ONLINEJOBS$30/hour

    what Sherry replied I’m amazed that anybody can make $5476 in 1 month on the internet. did you look at this website
    (Click On mY name For the Link)

  • http://twitter.com/Paul4Pres Airfreddy

    Breaking News. Ron Paul just swept all of the delegates in Main and Nevada over the weekend.

    You have two choices people who have not voted in their primaries yet.


    Ron Paul.

    It is time to stop the goldman Sachs / Romney Machine

    I can’t wait till the convention

  • Anonymous

    Glenn’s analysis is pure fantasy. Just keep ignoring the facts about Ron Paul’s SUCCESS at winning delegates. He’s not going to quit at the last minute, after executing his WHOLE PLAN flawlessly.

    Fantasy, Glenn.

    Ron might not win the nomination, but you’re bleeding out your ears trying to HIDE reality. Ron Paul is GOING to the GOP convention.

    Warren G. Harding. Republican nomination. Google it.

    While you’re all at it, follow Glenn’s advice, and DON’T just listen to him. Google Ron Paul, delegates.


    • Anonymous

      This will be my last reply. Ron Paul is about a Movement of ideas. Glenn supports the Tea Party so he should really support the Paul Movement ( the original modern tea party). I believe Romney or Paul can beat Obama. However, Paul offers a greater difference and that is what is needed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1575254111 Rick Solis

    You absolutely need to have the people who run this site on both the radio and TV shows. This is a huge story. This is beginning to look like Tawana Brawley 2012 on steroids. This story needs to be heard, people need to know the truth.












    Please invite the people who run this site on both the TV and radio shows. They have been doing an amazing job doing the work the mainstream media has refused to do in this case.

    Best regards,
    Richard Solis

  • Anonymous

    The Republican ego amazes me. It blinds them from an interesting truth: many of us in the left would vote for Ron Paul rather than Obama. And not because Paul is somehow lefty, but because he makes sense, he’s consistent and wants to change things that we all know pretty much suck. Glenn would rather keep smearing him to lend support for his GOP buddies. 

    • Anonymous

      My wife (D) also supports Ron Paul over Obama and Romney.

  • Anonymous

    Stu, I have difficulty understanding your position, other than as its your paycheck at stake. The Republicans have sold us out, that’s how we got GW Bush and his big government bailouts. Romney won’t do anything about the Federal Reserve. He brought us the insurance mandate in Massachussetts. If you can’t see the writing on the wall, you’re part of the problem.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Conroy/100000695756376 Jan Conroy

      Revisionist history!  Romney did not bring you the insurance mandate — your Democrat-controlled legislature did that.  Romney only did some tinkering around the edges so it wouldn’t be as bad as it was going to be.  And, if he tried to just veto the Democrats’ bill, the veto wouldn’t have stood, the legislature would have just negated it.  Blaming Romney for something ALL Mass. voters are responsible for (they voted for those Dem legislators. after all) is like blaming Jesus for the actions of Judas.  

      BTW, the president cannot do tiddly about the Federal Reserve — that is a job for the legislature, not the executive.  And, how many decades was Ron Paul in the legislature without doing squat about the Fed?  That, in itself, tells you a lot about the ob/gyn’s ability to provide leadership and get things done!

      Better the Mormon than the moron in 2012!

      • Anonymous

        After trying many times to write legislation concerning the Feds, Paul decided to take it to the streets. I agree, it is not up to the Presidency to do anything about the Fed or our endless wars. It is up to Congress and it is the Paul Movement that is opening the eyes of many Independents and Democrats to consider voting for tea party like Senate races. Paul is not the enemy.

      • Anonymous

        The Fed is unconstitutional. Most INFORMED people know this. Ron Paul has been trying to get them audited for the past twenty-five years or more, BUT the Congress wouldn’t back him because the Fed controls the money supply. The last time there were over two-hundred in the House who backed him, but the Senate (Dems) wouldn’t let it go through.

        Because of “useful idiots” like you, we are going to lose this REPUBLIC. Do us all a favor and DON’T VOTE because you don’t know what the hell is going on!

  • http://www.facebook.com/Rowsdower23 Lane Russell

    Ron Paul is a bloody fool. His foreign policy would blind us to what’s going on in the world, effectively isolating our country from the world community and the threats that our country faces from abroad. We need foreign deployments to get American citizens out of this comfortable country and into the cesspools of the world to see how bad it can REALLY get. We need troops in other corners of the world to act as our eyes and ears across the globe.

    • Anonymous

      I can only suggest that you study up on the difference between covert operations and nation building. Paul is absolutely for a strong national defense and increased international commerce. War is not up to the Presidency. It is a Congressional action.

      • Anonymous

        You are absolutely right. After 9/11 Ron Paul put it before Congress to send out special teams to take out bin Laden instead of spending billions going to war. He also voted AGAINST going into Iraq. But our Congress does what it’s told by the money people.

        This country is lost as long as the “useful idiots” vote for Romney or Obama.

  • Anonymous

    Of coursse he has a ‘RIGHT’ to continue in the race, but is the ‘ethical’ thing to do considering the STARK differences between the Republications & the Democrats.
    Folks, this race will define American history indefinately!!!
    Just look around and ask yourself if you’re better off now than you were four years ago!!! Unless you are a top-tier democrat, or working for one, your standard of living has decreased drastically!
    Paul has absolutely no chance of beating even my little sister, let alone becoming President!!!  believe, and have believed that Paul is nothing more than a shill for the Democratic party. If not,
    why is he so ‘popular’ THIS year, and not nearly as popular in previous elections?

    • Anonymous

      Obama beat out Clinton and McCain in ’07-08 because he had billions of dollars to spread his lies. Paul only had small donations to spread the truth. This year, the truth and common sense are prevailing, still without the trillions of dollars (factored in inflation). 

  • Anonymous

    Just wanted to chime in about CSPAN for a moment and see what y’all think. I started watching CSPAN in hopes of finding unbiased news but have, instead, found a hotbed of progressive thought by the programmers and hosts, including but not limited to, Alec Baldwin doing a full hour of what he thinks about politics, religion, etc. and a female host saying that she feels that Barack Obama should consolidate more power and ignore the Constitution. Has anyone else noticed this or am I just going on there at the most shocking moments?

  • Anonymous

    “I call it my baby conspiracy theory, because I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it was going to happen, and I have to stretch on certain aspects of the theory, while ignoring some other evidence to make it work. In other words, I don’t take it that seriously.”

    It’s okay Glenn, all your conspiracy theories are based on no evidence and require you to stretch and we don’t take them too seriously either (e.g. Wiemar moment, George Soros, etc).  However, this could actually be true.  Ron Paul has just enough ego to run for the Libertarian Party.

    • Anonymous

      Anyone who follows Paul knew he would never run 3rd party and he didn’t. I am still donating money to his campaign because I want his policies heard at the convention and I want to see the GOP move to the right again.

  • Bree Wixom

    He does have a chance because he’s winning most of the delegates. Whether Republicans will allow it is another story–they’re already trying to change the rules in Nevada. As for his respect for the Republican party and the difference of Republican vs. democrat, I think Beck himself has clearly stated the same opinion. Beck often says that both are the same and that he is independent. Not sure why Paul’s similar views are a problem? Lastly, I’m really disappointed that you seem to be supporting Romney because he’s not a commi–what happened to your principles that caused you to reject him in the beginning? I really like you guys and it’s sad that you’ve changed.

    • Anonymous

      Amen brother.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FVONTN7NFYTGM7O4B4QIGRMWAU Ling Ling

    There is one option that you didn’t mention; he could declare himself the leader. Actually, anyone could easily do this because that is really what the people are begging for. Furthermore, this is one of the reasons why they don’t want our military coming home.

  • Anonymous

    This is the worst theory Glenn Beck has ever come up with. If he did his homework, he would know that the Ron Paul Revolution is not about Ron Paul but the movement for liberty and freedom. Whether Paul wins or not, the movement will continue. I thought that was what the Tea Party was all about. Some times I just don’t understand Beck.

  • Anonymous

    Comparing Romney to Obama:


    Despite all that, I’ll take Romney over Obama in the hopes that he does not take us futher down the road of sustainable development (agenda 21) and the nwo.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LR3I4X656U47FEK4XYRP6VHJ5U Marie

    Your bias is showing thru, Glenn.  Just admit it.  You were wrong about Ron Paul.

  • Anonymous

    I’m sorry but I find Ron Paul to be a seriously uneducated pain in the butt. For example, his call to bring home US troops.  It sounds good… we all want to protect the lives of our boys. Problem is that there are only two way to defend the USA: We can, one: Wait for Islamic Terror to hit us at home a-g-a-i-n… or, two: We can hit them, and hit hard, wherever we see their nose sticking out. I prefer the second option. Ron Paul does not.

    • Anonymous

      I guess you’ve missed all the news the last few years about the thousands of Muslims who are being let into this country or how they are demanding that we include Muslim Shariah law into our laws? I guess you also missed how many terrorists who have been trained in Mexico and South America are coming across the Mexican border? Around 800 at last count! And I guess you missed how Obama wants to cut our nuclear defense by 80%? DUH!

      Strange, I seem to remember Obama in 2008 saying he wanted to bring our troops home and the “useful idiots” cheered. Why is Ron Paul a nut case for saying it and Obama isn’t? Our Founding Fathers basically told us to keep a strong military and MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS! I guess they must have been nut cases too!

      Ron Paul’s whole platform is the Constitution. As far as I’m concerned, the people who are against Ron Paul are against our Republic and our Constitution. In other words — they are traitors to everything this country was supposed to be! Ron Paul wants to bring back some CONSTITUTIONAL government to this country BEFORE we totally lose it to a socialist dictatorship.

      There’s a quote (don’t know who said it) that when people give up their freedom for safety — they lose both. Is THAT what you want? That we join the one world governance under the UN so that we will be “safe”?

      Take note of one FACT. Romney is being backed by the same big banks that backed Obama in 2008. The choice is Ron Paul, our Republic and our Constitution OR more of the same big government (only worse) that we have now. I “hope” you’ll like being a slave in our “fundamentally transformed” country because only Ron Paul can beat Obama. People from ALL parties will vote for him because they are AMERICANS FIRST and party second. They want to save the Republic and our Constitution BEFORE it’s gone!

      Of course you are just like millions of uninformed, selfish, self-centered people in this country. You ONLY think of yourself and what YOU want and NOTHING about our country and what it needs. Our country NEEDS Ron Paul to get back to the REPUBLIC it was meant to be! We are going to lose it all because of people like you. 

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul is the next Ross Perot.  Divided we stand, divided we fall.  The dems are good about falling in lock step behind their party’s choices.  Paul will not make it and all he will do is give votes to ob while taking them away from Romney.  

  • Anonymous

    Glenn, Do you think the American people are being dumbed down by the excessive floride in the water and the food that we are being fed so we don’t stand up to the tyranny of the government and allow all our hard won constitution rights to go down the drain?

  • http://www.facebook.com/CRJarvis Chris Jarvis

    I have done a lot of looking in to Doc Ron Paul and I find
    him the best man for the Job. no question about that. but you fall in line with
    the choice the media, and the powers that be give you. take your pick from 2
    rotten apples a Red one or a Blue one. well I will no longer pick a rotten
    apple. I will no longer take one of the 2 options they Give me. I will no
    longer Vote for the one that they say has the best chance to win. I will Vote
    for the BEST ONE FOR THE JOB. the one that has proven he keeps his Oath sure as
    most of Talk Radio tells us they Agree with Ron Paul 95% of the time, yet they
    want us to vote for someone that the establishment supports. even if they agree
    with him a lot less than 50%.  SO MY
    Question too you is WHY NOT RON PAUL?

  • http://www.facebook.com/CRJarvis Chris Jarvis

    Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill
    O’Reilly, Michael Savage, and all of Talk Radio.

    did Wake up and we have seen the EVIL that is Growing in our Government, yes
    you pointed it out in the Democrat party and yes some of you Pointed it out in
    all parts of the Governments. but we are a wake now and so we Liston to your lesson
    and agree with all the Good things you have told us. and see how the liberals
    have attacked people. yes you are right when they cannot defeat them in a
    logical debate they start calling them names and no longer talk about why they

    now we have starting seeking out who to vote for, Someone that has all the traits
    you have shown us to look for, Someone that tells us what they believe and not
    just what we want to hear. Someone that has proven they Vote for our Constitution
    in the way our Founders wanted it to be interpreted. Keeping their Oath of
    Office. someone that Stands for Freedom and Justice for ALL. and in all our
    seeking out of candidates running for President Only one have proven to be This
    man that we are looking for.

    when we speak his name,and it is you Talk Radio the ones that have called for us to
    Wake Up. that turns and call Ron Paul names, and attack him in the same way you
    have pointed out how a Liberals attacks someone they cannot stand against.

    I ASK, yet again WHY NOT RON PAUL?

    understand Ron Paul foreign policy. “Follow
    the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war, and the president in turn
    was to direct the war once it was declared” so Ron Paul stance on foreign policy
    is that Congress must Declare WAR as according to the constitution before we
    can go to war.

    and with Benjamin
    Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister has reiterated his Mossad (Israeli CIA);
    calling on America to allow Israel to handle their business without interference
    from American politicians, and Quoting Ron Paul’s foreign policy almost word
    for word. I would call that a good sign of who Israel would like to Lead the
    USA, and why.

    So support Israel Vote Ron Paul. support
    the USA and the Freedoms our founders wanted us to have Vote Ron Paul.

    I ask WHY NOT RON PAUL????

  • Anonymous

    So much for that theory…. I mean, heck, if you knew anything about RP this little theory would never have even made its way into conscious thought….

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.