Ron Paul’s Farewell Speech To Congress–Videos
Ron Paul’s Farewell Speech to Congress, November 14th, 2012
Ron’ Pauls Greatest Speech “The Last Nail”
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
Thank You Dr. Ron Paul
Duncan Pays Tribute to Ron Paul
Ron Paul RNC Tribute Video
Ron Paul ‘Exit Interview’ with The Washington Post 11/29/2012
Background Articles and Videos
Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America
G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy
Constitutional Conservatism or Die
A man of principle and integrity ahead of his time.
He will be greatly missed by the American people who love liberty.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Mark Levin’s Nemesis–Jack Hunter–The Southern Avenger–Ron Paul–Libertarians vs. Neoconservatives–Videos
“… If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. …”
~ Ronald Reagan
Inside Ronald Reagan, A Reason Interview, Manuel Klausner from the July 1975 issue
Woods, Gutzman and Church correct TAS columnist Jeffrey Lord’s many misstatements of truth aimed at Ron Paul and The Founders.
The Southern Avenger – Mark Levin Doesn’t Like the Southern Avenger
SA@Takimag – Why Mark Levin Hates Glenn Beck
Jeffrey Lord Doesn’t Know The Founders or Ron Paul
American Spectator Dead Wrong on Ron Paul
SA@TAC – Mark Levin’s Constitution
SA@TAC – Was Reagan the Ultimate Hawk?
The Legacy of Ronald Reagan by the Southern Avenger
A Tale of Two Rights by the Southern Avenger
SA@TAC – Joe Sobran’s Conservative Foreign Policy
SA@TAC – Is Ron Paul Weird?
SA@TAC – Constant Conservative Ron Paul
SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Pledge to America
SA@TAC – Just Kidding Conservatism
SA@TAC – Wither the Neocons?
SA@TAC – Government Intervention, Left and Right
WI-CFL 2011 Annual Conference – Jack Hunter
Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 1
Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 2
Mike Church, Tom Woods, and Kevin Gutzman Destroy Neocons Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord – Part 3
Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 1 of 11
Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 2 of 11
Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 3 of 11
Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 4 of 11
Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 5 of 11
Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 6 of 11
Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 7 of 11
Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 8 of 11
Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 9 of 11
Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 10 of 11
Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 11 of 11
While I listen to and like Mark Levin’s radio show, I thought he made a fool of himself by relying on the Jeffrey Lord article to attack Ron Paul and his supporters.
Please do your homework Levin, you are only embarrassing yourself.
I have been a conservative since Barry Goldwater ran for President against Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.
I have been in both the traditionalist wing of the conservative movement as exemplified by Russell Kirk and the classical liberal or libertarian wing of the conservative movement as exemplified by Ludwig von Mises, Fredrich A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman.
I would describe my own political philosophy as a traditional classical liberal or traditional libertarian.
I am currently part of the tea party movement and support those who want to replace the progressive radical socialists of the Republican establishment who talk like conservatives but walk like progressives–moderate Republicans or RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) or in the past Rockefeller Republicans.
I have also on occasion been called a neoconservative by progressive radical socialists.
I consider the label neoconservative as insulting for I do not consider neoconservatives to be either new or conservative.
They are collectivists or to use Levin’s label, statists, with an interventionist foreign policy. The neoconservatives are the “boat people” of the Democratic Party that sought a new home when George McGovern and the progressive radical socialist took over the Democratic Party. The neoconservatives should get back in their boats and find another home for they are largely responsible for the decline of the Republican Party.
My problem with many of the former Reagan administration civil servants that are now radio talk show hosts including Bill Bennett and Mark Levin is that they self-identify themselves as conservative and/or classical liberal, but when it comes to foreign policy they are closet neoconservatives that support an active or energetic interventionist foreign policy with it never-ending war on terrorism similiar to the never-ending wars on poverty and drugs.
Under Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson, the Democratic Party become the warfare and welfare party with its wars in Korea and Vietnam to stop communism abroad and the war on poverty at home. Under George W. Bush the Republican party assumed the mantle of the warfare party largely under the influence of the neoconservatives that lead to the war in Iraq.
Like Ron Paul, I believe in a strong national defense but oppose an interventionist foreign policy that includes nation building, policing the world, and preemptive war. When the United States is attacked, Congress should declare war and fight the attackers until they are utterly and completely defeated. Instead Congress repeatedly allows the President, whether Republican or Democrat, to take the United States into undeclared wars that cost tens of thousands of American lives and wounded and 1,000s of billions of dollars.
It never ceases to amaze me that while radio show hosts like Bennett, Limbaugh, and Levin will go on a rant about government intervention in the economy at home, which I also always agree with, and then they will usually will support a government interventionist foreign policy when a Republican is in the White House and oppose it when a Democrat is in the White House.
While many in their audience will fall for their hypocrisy and failure to connect the dots, I do not.
More and more Americans are waking up to the fact that most wars are a racket and want our troops to be brought home.
The American people want to replace the current warfare and welfare economy and a collectivist state with a peace and prosperity economy with a constitutionalist republic.
The American people want Federal government spending to be dramatically reduced–to live within our means.
The American people want balanced and surplus budgets to be common place and deficit budgets to be a rarity and not a recurring habit of the big spending Democratic and Republican political establishments in Washington D.C.
The United States is financially bankrupt with a national debt approaching over $15,000 billion and unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid of over $100,000 billion and total public and private assets of about $60,000 billion–this is insolvency!
The United States can no longer afford the warfare and welfare economy.
The United States needs to return to its conservative and libertarian principles of a fiscal responsible Federal government with balanced or surplus budgets and a Federal government that is limited in size and scope.
For decades Ron Paul has been the one consistent and principled conservative/libertarian in the House of Representatives who has been the defender of a constitutional republic.
Once I too said “I like Ron Paul except for his foreign policy.”, now I fully supportRon Paul especially his non-interventionist foreign policy.
War, Ron Paul, and Conservatism
While I will continue to listen, enjoy and even admire the Bennett, Limbaugh, and Levin talk radio shows, I imagine some day they too will eventually see the wisdom of Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy.
Ron Paul – Imagine – Kinetic Typography
May I suggest they start by reading or rereading Jacob Huebert’s Libertarianism Today, Bastiat’s The Law, and Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind,
Is There Hope for Liberty in Our Lifetime? | Jacob Huebert
David Hart on Frederic Bastiat
Read Bastiat’s ‘The Law’ in PDF for FREE! Compliments of the Foundation for Economic Education.
http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf
Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles
Ten Conservative Principles
By Russell Kirk
First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/
“One must bear in mind that the expansion of federal activity is a form of eating for politicians.”
~William F. Buckley, Jr.
Background Articles and Videos
Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 1 of 4
Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 2 of 4
Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 3 of 4
Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 4 of 4
Jack Hunter responds to American Spectator smears: Ron Paul and Conservatism
“…In a recent column, Jeffrey Lord warned that Ron Paul’s presidential bid was secretly a “Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign.” Writes Lord: “the Paul campaign is not just a campaign for president. This is a campaign — a serious campaign — to re-educate the American people…” For Lord, Paul’s alleged reeducation mission means passing off liberal ideas as conservative. This is amusing — because this is precisely what self-described conservatives of Lord’s ilk have been doing for years.
Imagine that there never was a President George W. Bush, and when Bill Clinton left the White House he was immediately replaced with Barack Obama. Now imagine Obama carried out the exact same agenda as Bush — Medicare Plan D, No Child Left Behind, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — the whole works. Would conservatives have generally supported Obama as they did Bush — or would they have rightly criticized the most big government president in our history at that time?
Despite his glaringly statist record, did Lord ever consider Bush a “neo-liberal”? …”
Ron Paul and Conservatism: An Exchange
“…Arguably the loudest conservative critic of Bush was Ron Paul, and this was certainly true during the 2008 election. Yet, as we head toward 2012, many presidential candidates are sounding a lot like Paul. Would Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich be attacking the Federal Reserve if running in 2008? Would Michele Bachmann be questioning the Libyan intervention if carried out by Bush? Would Mitt Romney now be saying it is not the United States military’s role to fight for the independence of other nations — the exact opposite of what he said about our role in Iraq in 2008?
Which brings us to Lord’s main beef with Paul: foreign policy.
Woodrow Wilson is the president most associated with early 20th century liberalism, second only to Franklin Roosevelt. During the Bush years, every self-described conservative who believed, as Wilson did, that it was America’s mission to “make the world safe for democracy” spoke the language, however unknowingly, of an earlier left-wing liberalism. William F. Buckley and George Will explained in a 2005 interview:
WILL: Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?
BUCKLEY: It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative…
In 2006, The American Spectator‘s Neal Freeman also described the Bush administration’s post 9/11 liberalism: “the Bush administration began to rumble about ‘regime change’ and ‘going it alone,’ and ‘building a democratic Iraq.’ Call this 9/12 approach whatever you will — utopian, neoconservative, Wilsonian — it could not fairly be characterized as ‘conservative.”
Reflecting a more conventional Republican view likely in line with Lord’s, talk host Sean Hannity said in 2009: “You can’t deny that George Bush was conservative on national security issues.” Well, at varying times, Bill Buckley, George Will, Robert Novak, Jack Kemp, Pat Buchanan, Paul Weyrich and many other conservatives did indeed deny that Bush’s foreign policy was conservative.
So did Ron Paul.
So did some of the most prominent figures in the history of American conservatism — and that’s even leaving out the libertarians. Traditionalists such as Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver and Robert Nisbet were some of the heaviest intellectual hitters at early National Review and each held foreign policy views far closer to what Paul believes than what today’s Republican hawks try to portray as conservatism.
Ronald Reagan even won the Cold War with a foreign policy marginally closer to Paul’s cautious approach than what Bush represented, or as former chairman of the American Conservative Union David Keene notes: “Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . . . After the (1983) assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today’s neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?”
No, one can’t imagine it. In fact, if using the definition of 2008 Republican presidential nominee and hardline neoconservative John McCain — Reagan would be considered an “isolationist.”
Ah, but Lord thinks anyone who uses the term “neoconservative” must be anti-Semitic. Is David Keene anti-Semitic? When Ann Coulter asks “Didn’t liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war” is she being anti-Semitic? Is George Will anti-Semitic for writing that the “most magnificently misnamed neoconservatives are the most radical people in this town.”…”
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/24/ron-paul-and-conservative-reed#
Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign
By Jeffrey Lord on 8.23.11 @ 6:09AM
“…Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons:
When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives.
This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul’s views are, self-described, “non-interventionist.”
The fact that he has been allowed to get away with pretending to conservatism on this score is merely reflective of journalists who, for whatever reason, are simply unfamiliar with American history. Ironically, it is precisely because the Paul campaign has not been thoroughly covered that no one pays attention to the historical paternity of what the candidate is saying.
There is no great sin in Paul’s non-interventionist stance (or “isolationist” stance as his critics would have it). There have been American politicians aplenty throughout American history, particularly in the 20th century, who believed precisely as Paul and his enthusiasts do right now. (Paul touts his admiration for the Founding Fathers, but even that is very selective. James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame was a considerable interventionist, Washington as a general invaded Canada, and Alexander Hamilton gave rise to Paul’s idea of evil spawn — the Federal Reserve. Interventionists of all types have been with us right from the start.)
The deception — and it is a considerable deception — is that almost to a person those prominent pre-Ron Paul non-interventionist “Paulist” politicians of the 20th century were overwhelmingly not conservatives at all. They were men of the left. The far left.
From three-time Democratic presidential nominee and Woodrow Wilson Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to powerful Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler to FDR’s ex-vice presidential nominee Henry Wallace to the 1968 anti-war presidential candidacy of Minnesota Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democratic presidential nominee (and Henry Wallace delegate in 1948) George McGovern, non-interventionists have held prominent positions in the American Left that was and is the Democratic Party.
But of particular interest, and here is where the deception by Paulists is so considerable, the Ron Paul view of foreign policy has been the cornerstone of Republican liberals and progressives. Those who, using current political terminology, would be called the RINOs (Republican In Name Only) of their day.
Specifically this included the following prominent leaders of the non-interventionist/isolationist camp:
• Liberal Republican William Borah, the Senator from Idaho
• Liberal Republican George Norris, the Congressman and Senator from Nebraska
• Liberal Republican Gerald Nye, the Senator from North Dakota
• Liberal Republican Robert LaFollette Sr., the Senator from Wisconsin
• Liberal Republican Robert LaFollette Jr., the Senator from Wisconsin
To go back and re-read the arguments of these prominent GOP liberals as to why America should not intervene in World War I or World War II, striking dated references, and one would think one were reading the latest Ron Paul press release. George Norris and LaFollette Sr. were both vocal opponents of World War I, for instance, blaming “greed” (LaFollette) and “munition” makers, the early 20th century version of Paul’s attacks on “neoconservatives” or the military-industrial complex. …”
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-neoliberal-re
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Pronk Palisades 
You must be logged in to post a comment.