Watch Ron Paul Slam Santorum and Protect Mitt Romney

I am glad that Levin and others are beginning to see the anarchist connection. OWS DesMoines supports Paul, and why shouldn’t they, occupiers are associated with the American nazi Party, the Communist Party USA and of course anarchists, who share many of Paul’s values.

Exclusive: OccupyDesMoines Protesters Express Support For Ron Paul, January 2, 2012 at 5:45 pm
http://www.breitbart.tv/occupydesmoines-protesters-express-support-for-ron-paul/

Occupy Wall Street’s anarchist roots, David Graeber, 30 Nov 2011 07:06 http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112872835904508.html

Exhibit A:
Libertarianism: Marxism of the Right
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/

I would suggest that’s why he never quotes the “Why” of America: The Declaration of Independence.

Santorum always puts The Constitution in the context of The Declaration of Independence, and paul despises him for it.

That reminds me of a calander my husband has from the 70′s called move your a$$.

How do you explain the attacks on Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Newt?

I know Rick Santorm (he was one of my two sorry Senators during the Bush administraion), and he has a very liberal voting record. No Child Left Behind was only a small part. I noticed you ignored the other things in the list.

BTW, How is Paul a liberterian radical? How is he radical anything? Show me where he strays from the Constitution. I’ll bet you cannot.

Frankly, if Paul was a little more anti-muslim, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. One part of the constitution where I believe he has it wrong is his belief in absolute “freedom of religion”. No “religious” organization should be allowed to exist in our nation whose sole purpose is to undermine our constitution and religious freedom.

Paul uses George Washington statements as his reason for opposing permanent foreign alliances. Yet, he tends to ignore what Washington said in his Farewell Address about religion: “With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles.” I seriously doubt that Washington would consider Islam a “slight shade of difference”.

Regarding your “guilty by association” arguments, is that not a leftist trick?

Are you implying all Ron Paul supporters are radicals?

Are all Rick Santorum supporters squeaky clean conservatives?

Speaker Gingrich would be great too, heck bring back Governor Perry – or Cain for that manner! Since I now live in California (ugh) I won’t have much of a say until quite late – and Governor Romney has a decent lock on this state.

If Romney wins, I go orange-juice can (haha) and vote for him over President Obama any day.

Well, when discussing Lincoln’s unconstitutional behavior with my professor years ago he pointed out to me that Lincoln did what he did to save the Union and that, in effect, the People had a choice to either “fire” him, or re-elect him. When they chose to re-elect him the People, in a sense, endorsed the behavior as necessary. He also pointed out to me that Lincoln, knowing he had no Constitutional power to outright mandate the freeing of the slaves, had to put more and more pressure on those States that engaged in slavery to either give up the practice, or succeed. For, in succession, Lincoln could argue that it was an act of sedition and then use the Executive powers under war to subdue the Southern States and gain the freedom of the slaves, as the Amendments easily passed through the rearranged Congress after the war. Legal? No. But there is something to be said of the People approving of an illegal act. For is the act’s illegality not the taking of the People’s power? If the people approve…. (I know, it is a strange argument, but I don’t want to ramble forever on this – I have a habit of typing too much) Finally, as far as the growth of the Federal Government under Lincoln, the size of the FG shrank back down after the war to a size only slightly larger than before. It is not until the 1900s when the real serious infringement of State power by the Federal powers occurs – driven through in large part by the 17th Amendment, the SCOTUS, and the growing belief in Hegelian-influenced and Progressive thought.

As far as anti-Federalist feelings (which is funny, because the term “Federalist” was claimed by those that had less of a truly federalist government in mind than those that became known as “Anti-Federalists”. Recall that the Bill of Rights, the Amendments, especially the 9th and 10th, were demands from the “Anti-Federalists” because they feared that the government created by the “Federalists” would become too powerful and take away the rights of the States and the People. [Ya' think?] Also the idea of a bicameral legislative branch was part of a compromise between the two ideas. Madison and Wilson were yearning for one chamber that represented the People, where Paterson and Martin wanted the chamber to represent the States. A compromise [the "Great Compromise"] was proffered by Franklin and Johnson to have a the Legislature be bicameral) I agree with those feelings as far as the Anti-Federalists of 1787 go, but too often the term “Anti-Federalist” is brought up as an argument for Southern Succession, which I disagree with.

Many of the arguments you find in paleolibertarianism and anti-federalism are not necessarily poor arguments, rather they can be quite good. It is the behavior of those who cloaked themselves in such ideological rhetoric that bothered me. William F. Buckley, Cato Institute, and others have been bothered by the anarchistic-leaning, sometimes racially-charged absolutists stance by Rockwell and Rothbard, among others.

In yesterday’s show Mark Levin made a comment when discussing a soundbyte of Ron Paul, I cannot recall it exactly, but it was something along the lines of, “some of the things he says are very good, but then he goes all goofy” or something like that. In similar ways have Rockwell, Rothbard, and as we are seeing possibly Paul, have used the words to disguise the intended actions.

Now I have babbled too much. I do so enjoy that the subjects I fell in love with as a student – Classic Liberalism, the founding, Locke, Cicero, Montesquieu, Burke, etc. – have in the past three years entered the public discourse in a way I never thought would happen. I used to only be able to talk about these things with other students in class or my professors. Now I hear people asking whether or not something is allowed under “The Constitution”, whether a branch “has a Constitutional right” to do something, and some guy (Levin) I found not only entertaining, but intellectually engaging has written a book on, of all things, Political Philosophy?!? I have hope again, and will speak of freedom and liberty and the reasons for it loudly.

Next month I get to get Mark’s signature and thank him in person for bringing such an important subject to the minds of so many folks. It thrills me to hear callers talking to him about what they are learning from the great minds of liberty.

Gads – I have to stop!! Haha.

Totally agree with that. I would be honored too. (And very surprised!)

I have seen it as well, JB – people seem to have forgotten it.

Rep. Paul has great things to say. I am thrilled he has received so much attention and support. The MSM begrudgingly has to talk about his positions knowing that they appeal to many people they want to convince that Republicans are evil, etc, etc.

I like Paul in there for sure, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

No actually Romney is the front runner and always has been, sorry. All of the things Paul was bashing Santorum on Romney has had even a worse record but not a peep. Paul and Romney are working together.

Funny how everyone laughed at Ron 4 years ago and now have a very similar platform today. They have to spin while he stays on the tracks. The guy actually is consistent.

I’m just working on memory. Ron was someone I took an interest to from the beginning and same with Mitt because he was my governor some years back. I was very interested in the two of them as well as Newt, Perry, and Huntsman. Now, Ron and Newt were the two guys no one wanted to tangle with from the start because of their knowledge base (in my opinion). So no one picked a fight with them, but I do remember Ron Paul giving Mitt some great shots early on. I remember hits on Romneycare specifically. I wish I could remember which debates this happened in. I’d have to comb through the old debates to find them.

I agree with you that Ron targeted Newt when Newt was the threat. That was one of my points. He typically hits whoever the frontrunner is. I’d imagine it is because the front runner always has the greatest potential votes to lose. It is more worth while to snag 10% of Santorum’s votes than 10% of Newts votes at this point.

I am thinking that Ron may have given some shots to Mitt recently too. Perhaps at the first “contraception” debate when Mitt and Stephenopolous went back and forth over states rights to ban contraception. I’ll try to do some digging this weekend.

He did not run at 80, which is what RP would be in 2016.

He has a LOT more than 2 electoral votes. FYI.

Addicts are sick people and should be treated as such. Incarcerating them does not deal with their addiction. Why don’t we incarcerate alcoholics? There are far more deaths associated with alcohol than drugs.