Is Ron Paul a Conservative?

Separated from the Rest

The supporters of Ron Paul say he’s a conservative.  They cite his strong commitment to the US Constitution on economic issues.  They remind us about his focus on the 10th Amendment.  They point out his desire to return to a solid currency. What they scurry to cover is his naive, nonsensical ideas about national defense and foreign policy. What they rush to ignore are the asinine contentions of Ron Paul that seek to pander to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and his child-like view that Iran will be fine if it develops nuclear arms.  Even if these weren’t bad enough, his supporters use stealth and misleading approaches to sell him as a conservative.  I’m weary from all those who tell me Ron Paul is a conservative, because in fact, he is not.  Instead, he’s a libertarian, and he’s in the wrong party, and I have no problem suggesting he should take his act elsewhere, and if need be, take his followers with him.  Conservatives don’t pander to so-called “truthers” or to the hemp lobby, but that is the core of his support.  Conservatives don’t blame America for the September 11th attacks of 2001.  Ron Paul does.

Even during Thursday night’s debate, Ron Paul was clearly out of place on the stage with fellow Republicans.  His views on several issues of national import made it plain that he’s missed something basic in how he regards the role of the United States in foreign affairs, but more fundamentally, something is broken with respect to the extremely naive view he takes of foreign governments and their actions.  What Congressman Paul supposes is that Iran will act every bit as rationally as the United States, but we have no evidence upon which to base such a supposition. History is replete with examples of regimes that were fundamentally irrational and completely unmoved by the notions of human rights or natural law, and supposing that they would accept our moral basis or standard for rational conduct is every bit as absurd as the proposition that we must accept theirs.  In point of fact, the Islamic Republic of Iran has enshrined in its constitution the requirement to spread Islam to all parts of the world.  When Paul argues that we might reasonably rely upon a notion of peaceful Iranian intentions, he does a serious disservice to the American people, either through purely wishful thinking, or through sheer dishonesty.

In his heated exchange with Representative Bachmann in Thursday evening’s debate on FoxNews, he exhibited the ridiculous extent to which he has bought into leftist mythology about Iraq, too.  He cited a number of Iraqis killed as more than one million, but this reflects the most absurd estimates of the most radically anti-war propagandists.  Even WikiLeaks, having stolen and released actual classified US estimates of Iraqi War dead is around one tenth of that number.  Don’t get me wrong: This is a tremendous number of deaths, but it is a small portion of what Ron Paul reported, and what it reveals is his willingness to rely upon the most ridiculous claims of conspiracy theorists and anti-war propagandists.  Had he relied upon the more accurate number, he wouldn’t have come across as a bizarre conspiracy nut, but by exaggerating this number by relying upon numbers from sources of dubious credibility, he became his own worst enemy.

When Ron Paul talks about the overbearing size of government, he makes much more sense, because in that arena, he speaks to issues wherein he needs no bombastic, incredible claims in order to demonstrate his point.  He can merely reference the laws made by Congress, signed by the President, and this is sufficient.  When he gets into the discussion of foreign policy matters, it is as though he loses all grounding in credible facts, both in history and law, but more importantly in his flawed understanding of human nature.  The tyrants of our world do not care for the arguments of John Locke, or Adam Smith, or Thomas Jefferson, to name a few.   Such despots care not for the facts of human nature or human rights, or they wouldn’t be despots at all.  When Ron Paul pretends to himself or to others that one can contend with the Islamic Republic of Iran in the same manner one can deal with Canada, he is ignoring the facts of the world in which we live, and in which a President must successfully navigate the ship of state.  Ron Paul’s misunderstanding is so thorough as to be dangerous, not merely to individual citizens of the United States, but to the country as a whole.  This is a dire misreading of our founding documents, the design of our government, and the purpose for which it stands, and it negates the value he might offer in other areas of discourse.  On this basis, Ron Paul is wholly unfit to claim the mantle of conservatism, never mind to be sworn in as President of the United States.


Leave a comment ?

55 Responses to Is Ron Paul a Conservative?

  1. Marlin Rice says:

    It takes more than being a constitutionalist to be a conservative. Paul does fall short in so many other areas.

    • Dave says:

      Then please see my post below and define "Conservative" for me. I am not trying to be snide here. I think the term has been coopted by the progressives and needs a clear definition before entering a discussion about conservatism, libertarianism, and the constitution. Gingrich and Romney claim to be conservative. Maybe they are, but not in the way that I always thought conservatism was supposed to be. So let us define what conservatism is up front. If we do that, I think you will find that some of the GOP's views are anything but conservative.

      • MarkAmerica says:

        I tried to cover the question of conservative in my other response to you. There are definitely those running in the GOP who are not really conservative. In fact, it's becoming increasingly difficult to call any of them conservative by my definition. That's true, but pretending therefore that Ron Paul is a conservative as I understand the terms is a bit preposterous. Let us admit that there are not many conservatives around, at least by my definition. The GOP's establishment is far from conservative, and in fact, they detest actual conservatives. Most of the GOP establishment(that denies its own existence) are progressives. Here's how I see this, in truth: I see Ron Paul, a libertarian, competing for the GOP nomination with a group of people who are not altogether conservative either, and he stands back and calls them statists, and they call him a kook, and guess what? In most ways, both are right.

      • Andrew says:

        Mark, you didn't answer the question. Define "conservatism." Let me help. Here is a dictionary definition, "a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society." Now, what does that actually mean? It depends on where one places the goal posts. To me personally conservatism is about conserving our traditional values, namely individual libery and limited government, aka the Constitution as defined by our founders. That's what it means to Paul too. To others though, like say Mark Levin or Michelle Bachman, it means preserving the values of men like Lincoln or Wilson or Roosevelt, who were all big-centralized-government federalists.

      • Ajent Oranje says:

        Andrew… thats totally absurd. Lincoln was NOTHING like Wilson or Roosevelt. Lincoln was a Republican, not a Democrat like Wilson and FDR. And Levin and Bachmann DO NOT want a large centralized government. You are seriously misinformed.

      • This red or blue crap needs to stop. George Washington said this two party system will be our end and I'm starting to fear he was right.

      • Michael says:

        Jeffrey, you're right…the two-party system is a real problem because it's polarizing our society.

        Oranje, you claim Bachmann doesn't want a large government. Let's see what their voting records said. Lookee there…her ratings from the Citizens Against Government Waste is very similar to the ratings for Ron Paul. I;d say the facts are on your side.

        MarkAmerica, perhaps we can all agree that arguing over terms and definitions (what is a conservative?) is childish grade school behavior at best. Let's focus on the issues and candidate positions, and leave the labels in the desk drawer.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Michael, labels are important forms of shorthand in understanding, and just as a misleading label can wreak havoc if turpentine is labeled as vinegar, so also is it true that to label a libertarian as a conservative can have equally awful results from the point of view of voters who had thought they were electing the latter. We have enough people pretending to be conservative as it is, though I will readily admit I'd prefer to err on the side of libertarians than statists. That may be our choice this year.

    • Actually you're right Ron Paul is not a conservative. He's a liberal as am I and most of you in here. In the early 1900s "The Progressives" hi-jacked the term Liberal and left the small government guys with Conservative. In the English language a liberal politician is actually a person who wants more self governing and less government. Conservative is a statist and closer to socialist. I think we need as LIBERALS to take a good long hard look in the mirror. Less government intervention means less all around. Look at what FDR did with his new deal and the policies he enacted during WWII. His war time emergency policies had us rationing resources and he really stuck it to the private sector by taking a que from Hitler and forcing them to provide for the war machine i.e. industrialization. The forefathers would be doing back flips in their respective graves if they knew we were putting foreign policy over domestic. Now I actually am not too keen on Iran getting a nuke, but I think we do need to be more isolationist so we can focus on us and what's wrong with our policies at home. A lot of Politicians have followed down FDR's path and used our current predicament with the War on Terror to enact certain policies that go against our Constitutional Rights i.e. the patriot act, which is something most of these candidates support. There are progressives on both sides of the isle and at this point certain lines are beginning to blur. I learned recently that Homeland Security may one day consider me a terrorist because I own more than 2 fire arms. Is this what we want? You can't be frugal on domestic policy and still keep your progressive globalist views while calling yourself a Conservative (figured I would stick with out understanding of the words, and I hate calling myself a Liberal knowing what it is associated with).
      As for the comment I'm replying to above, I'd rather be a Constitutionalist than a conservative and he actually has the best domestic policy out of the bunch on the debate stage, and all the polls agree. I'm willing to ignore his flaws and except the fact that being the leader of the FREE WORLD means we need to change this sinking ships course and head for safe harbor. As for gay marriage, I don't care its none of my business. God is not going to judge me on whether or not I fought hard to keep two dudes from getting hitched, he will judge me on the decisions I made in my life and if I've been the man I needed to me. So you guys can take Ron Paul with a grain of salt or pull for the other candidates who are running our country into the ground I don't care. Its your choice do we focus this election on what's going on somewhere else in the world or what is going on right in our back yard; expansion of government, the debt crisis looming just ahead, and the confiscation of personal freedom.

  2. patriotsoul says:

    Outstanding post.

  3. Ron Paul's foreign policy is in line with the founders and the most logical. If you know your history then you know that we have been radicalizing the middle east (re: Blowback) for over 100. We were bombing Iraq for 10 years before 9/11. We helped put Osama Bin Laden in power for crying out loud. Same with Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein. Those aren't conspiracy theories those are cold hard facts – please check them for accuracy.

    If we continue to intervien in other parts of the world there are unintended negative consequences AND a growing national debt that further devalues our currency. If you disagree with these facts its because you lack the history and economic logic to appreciate the arguments.

    Also what about what Paul feels about the Federal Reserve, Monetary Policy, he is the ONLY candidate that predicted and understood the economic collapse and housing bubble BEFORE it happened. When he brought the issue before his peers he was literally laughed at. Please look this information up.

    The other popular republican candidates even advocate torture – is that okay?

    If Ron Paul is out of step with the party then GOOD. I think you should do some more independent non-partisan research before you fall so easily into the political and media establishments trap. If you look into the facts with an open mind and without prejudice you will find an interesting truth in what Paul says.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Let's be clear. We did not assist bin Laden. We did not radicalize the middle east. We bombed specific targets in Iraq when Saddam Hussein failed to abide by the terms of the truce. I am not going to re-argue the obvious facts of history with you.

      The founding fathers lived in a world that required more than a month at sea to deliver the simplest message to England. In minutes, we can now deliver death and destruction globally. This is a different world, and the founders were not foolish men who would doggedly serve a notion of isolation in a world that no longer permits it. You can talk about Ron Paul's fantastic monetary and fiscal ideas, but until the guy comes to grips with the truth of foreign policy in 2012, he's not conservative.

      Why do you come here and suggest I don't have an "open mind" or that I harbor "prejudice" or that I have ignored facts? I think you're close-minded to reality. How's that? I think you're prejudiced against reality. How's that? Have you traveled to the region in question? Have you lived among and worked with the people there? Do you know their customs and traditions, but more importantly, the prevailing beliefs? Somehow, I doubt it. I'm telling you that Ron Paul's assessment of the region doesn't comport with what I know through personal – not second-hand – experience. You can feel free to back Ron Paul all you like, but please don't call him "conservative." He isn't.

      • Dave says:

        I think the term "conservative" then needs to be defined. In your article you say Ron Paul is a Libertarian not a Conservative. I always thought the two were the same. Apparently not. Is not Conservatism about liberty? Ronald Reagan, my favorite president of all time, who presided over my graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1985, said that Libertarianism is the heart of Conservatism. My initial thoughts on Ron Paul's foreign policy were as yours, and to some degree still are. However, the MAIN difference between Paul and the other candidates is that he believes in the Constitution. You know, the document we ALL swore at least once to support and defend. The other candidates give lip service to that document if they believe in it at all. Most of us thought that Bush should have gotten a declaration of war out of congress because that's what the constitution requires. Once a war is declared it ought to be fought and won as quickly as possible. We, as a country, have drifted away too far from the constitution. None of the candidates, except Paul, seems to recognize this. I hear Hannity talk about conservative priciples all day long, with only an occasional reference to the constitution. They, in my opinion, are all missing the answer. The answer is and always has been our CONSTITUTION. If our government adhered to that document we would not be in the trouble we are in now.

        • MarkAmerica says:


          I agree that we need a common definition of terms. Libertarianism holds forth an idea of individual liberty that is compatible with conservatism, but where the two frequently part company comes in the arena of foreign affairs. Libertarianism is a philosophy of "live and let live in all things," and while that may be workable in a world in which all people are equally rational, and all people(and governments) accept that premise, it is not workable in a world in which we have actual aggressors who care not for liberty/reason. The problem is that libertarianism, as espoused by Mr. Paul, makes a dangerous leap in thinking: If I'm willing to leave others alone, they will in turn leave me alone. This simply isn't true in the world in which we live, irrespective of how we wish it to be. If this were true, even domestically, we wouldn't need police, because nobody would wrong others. That's so impossible as to be very nearly kooky in application to what is. As an example, I should be able to walk down any public thoroughfare anywhere in America at 2am without fear of attack. Can I? Absolutely not. If you believe that's possible, I'd ask you to consider who here is denying reality.

          The subtle but important difference between conservatism and libertarianism is that the former recognizes the difference between reality and Utopia, while the latter frequently does not.

          The Constitution was constructed with one hand reaching for the ideal, with the other firmly grasping reality. The framers were not fools, and did not think we lived in Utopia. They did not trust individual men in all things, but trusted a collective even less. This is why they strove so long to craft a document that set one branch against the other, and balanced Federal against State against local against individual. They knew that none could be trusted to be perfectly rational, perfectly honest, or perfectly anything… Still, they wanted to serve the better angels of our nature, and to appeal to that side of us.

          Are there attractive things about what Ron Paul offers in terms of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Budget, or other matters? Absolutely. The problem is that his recognition of reality seems to end at the water's edge. He doesn't quite seem to grasp that there are people in the world who are aggressive because their philosophy dictates it, no matter how irrational that may seem to you and me. That's not acceptable for a CinC. Period.

      • Dave says:

        I couldn't agree with you more on most of what you said and I'm not a Ron Paul fanatic. However, given the current field of GOP candidates, who represents most of what we value? I am not convinced Bachmann or Santorum are REAL conservatives. I like them both, but they don't talk enough about the constitution and getting back to small government to prove to me they aren't just as "big government" as the others. Gingrich, Perry, and Romney are definitely NOT conservatives as you defined it (and which I agree). That leaves us with Ron Paul. He has been honest about everything he believes in and has been consistent over 30 years. He believes in the constitution and I don't think there has been an interview with him I've ever heard where he dosen't stress that. Is his take on foreign policy wrong? In some respects I would agree they are naive. But our current policy is clearly not working. Plus we are going broke trying to be the world's policeman. I don't agree that if we just leave Iran alone they won't try to kill Americans and leave us alone. But, whatever actions we take should have the approval of congress and be constitutional. The president should not be allowed to just attack a country because HE wants to (ie. Libya). Did the actions of my country cause some or all of what we are experiencing from the Middle East? Maybe. At this point it is irrelevant. There is no quick fix to the situation. Again, the path ahead needs to be debated, and actions we take as a country need to be approved by congress and be constitutional. We need to get back to the constitution as the basis for actions at the federal level. The executive branch has usurped more and more power. The congress has become a country club for career politicians, and has been declared irrelevant by the current president. Is Ron Paul the perfect candidate? No. But I think he is the best choice we have now, unless Bachmann or Santorum can prove to me otherwise.

      • Dave says:

        I was reviewing your reply again and you said that Ron Paul makes a dangerous leap in that if we leave everyone else alone they will leave us alone. You are right… if we show everyone that we are weak and can't defend ourselves then we can expect a thug or thugs to come out of the woodwork and attack us. However, if we are obviously strong, and have demonstrated that the consequences for messing with us are swift and disastrous for the aggressors, then we will be left alone.

      • Andrew says:

        Mark, your characterizations of "libertarianism" and Paul are just wrong. For starters, let's be clear, conservatism includes libertarianism. Aspects of any political philosophy can be termed "conservative." Let's also be clear, the founders were non-interventionists and so is our Constitution. Where in the Constitution is nation building and policing the world authorized?

        So in terms of conservation, Paul is a heck of a lot more conservative than you or most Republicans today – ON ALL ISSUES. By definition conservatism is conservation. You don't seem to grasp this. Convervative does not equal left or right wing. Its meaning is a matter of context. If the founders were left wing, then conservatism is left wing, if the founders were right wing, then conservatism is right wing. And frankly I don't think the founders were either. Left-wing is socialism, right-wing is authoritarianism. For examples of left wing see China, USSR, etc. For examples of right wing see Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.

        Republicans have hijacked the "conservative" label in an attempt to lend Constitutional credibility. Credibility that is wholly unearned and hypocritical.

      • Andrew says:

        You say the founders didn't live in today's world and would agree with you. Now, by definition, you understand that you aren't a conservative right? Per my previous comment. You are openly breaking rank with our traditional values/philosophies and advocating change to reflect the modern world. This isn't conservatism… by definition this is PROGRESSIVISM.

        With that said, let's address the so-called real world and Paul's position.

        Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. There is a huge difference. An isolationist wants to live in a bunker. Paul wants to have good international relations and openly engage in free trade. What Paul doesn't want to do is meddle in the affairs of others. Just as he doesn't want the federal government meddling in state affairs.

        If the bureaucrats in Washington are doing a bad job of meddling in our own domestic affairs, what makes you think they're doing a better job across our borders? LOL Please, have some common sense.

        Paul is though very much in favor of an extremelly strong defense and would fervently go after any attack on us. Paul voted in favor of military action against Al Qaeda post-9/11. Paul supported Reagan during the cold war and Reagan was one of Paul's biggest fans. Paul supported Israel when they bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility in the 80's, and he was virtually alone is doing so. Regan was against Israel on this. Paul is in no way weak on defense and there is nothing you can point at suggesting he is. I challenge you.

        What Paul doesn't support though is unconstitutional and ineffective nation building and meddling in other people's affairs. Can you point to even one case where our intervention has improved the stability of a nation or the quality of life for people on the ground. Again, that doesn't make it constitutional, but just for the sake of argument.

        Let's go down the list.

        And let me say upfront, I speak Arabic and have lived the better part of the last decade in the Middle East as a civilian and with the military. As as civilian I've lived in places like Yemen and Lebanon, with the military I've served in places like Afghanistan. I don't claim to be an end-all expert, but I definitely know what I know, and from first-hand experience, not some internet site.

        What did we acheive in Iraq? Why did we even go? They had no WMDs, it's well documented they [Bush Admin] knew and frankly lied about this, they're real motives unknown. If they didn't lie they were condemningly incompetent. Their goal of imposing democracy has been an abyssmal failure and shows how utterly ignorant our so-called experts in the state dept are. All we managed to do was kill a lot of people, make a lot of people mad and permanently hate us, and we shifted the power balance from Sunni to Shia, empowering Iran, which not only hurts us but our Sunni allies in the region – like ALL the gulf states, and Israel, among others. Not to mention trillions in debt and economic damages, thousands of our own troops dead, tens of thousands permanently wounded. If you don't understand how seriously we have hurt the region (and ourselves) and how truly bad the consequences of Iraq are and will be for a long time, you are truly an ignoramous and beyond discussion.

        You speak of the real world, ok, please contextualize Iraq for me. How does that fit in with your view of securing a dangerous world?

        Now let's talk about Afghanistan. Again, Paul voted for and supports military action against Al Qaeda. But what does that have to do with nation building in Afghanistan? Al Qaeda is an Arab state-less organization. Army SF, along with other special ops, busted up that hornets nest in a matter of months after 9/11. We killed virtually everyone, the few remaining (like bin Laden) were neutered and rendered ineffective. The Taliban had no knowledge of or involvement in 9/11 whatsoever. They are a different people, they don't even speak the same languages. They had provided a place for Al Qaeda to set up shop, but they didn't know what was going on. Anybody with any experience in Afghanistan understands this. It's a very tribal and backwards land. After 9/11 the Taliban immediately denounced Al Qaeda and even offered to deliver bin Laden to us on a plate. But instead of working with them, we attacked them and our mission shifted from one of going after Al Qaeda to also going after the Taliban and imposing a regime change in Afghanistan. Quagmire ensued. People who didn't care about us before at all immediately responded to our invasion and occupation with insurgency. The current situation in Afghanistan really has nothing to do with Al Qaeda at all.

        Our actions there (and in Iraq) however have lended credibility to groups like Al Qaeda. Their America-wants-to-make-war-with-all-Muslims-and-impose-its-will-on-them narrative has become more accepted. And not just in these two countries, but throughout the Middle East. And now that same drum is being beat to the tune of Iran.

        So please, please tell me about the dangers of the real world and how Paul doesn't understand them. Please tell me how our actions are legitimate and level-headed responses to those dangers.

      • SeanStLouis says:

        Andrew nailed it.

    • patriotsoul says:

      Case in point: BLAME IT ALL ON OURSELVES (U.S.)
      That will NOT win me!
      Not only that, but your attack mode and NO respect for the opinions of others than your own, is not good PR.
      I am so tired f fanatics with no logic.

      • SeanStLouis says:

        If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.

        I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be.

        -Thomas Jefferson

      • Dave says:

        Like conquest of Iraq and Afghanistan. Like conquest of Japan and Germany in WWII. Maybe we need to define "conquest." We conquered them and then gave them their countries back, and rebuilt them better than they were before. With that kind of a deal what country wouldn't want to go to war with the U.S.

        I have never really agreed with that philosophy. I have always agreed with the "to the victor goes the spoils" philosophy. If a country goes to war with the U.S., that country should become a U.S. territory. If we were indeed called to "liberate" Iraq, then we should at least be paid for the blood and treasure we lost as a result.

    • Ajent Oranje says:

      Our Founding Fathers went into Libya to fight the Barbary Pirates…aka, terrorists of their day. Ron Paul's foreign policy is NOTHING like our Founding Father's. You need to read a history book.

      We didnt put OBL into power…. he was a millionaire prince already. He took control in Afghanistan of the jihadists…. we just helped supply them and train them. By your logic, if we ever go to war with England in 20 years…. it will be our fault because we were allies at one point.

  4. hey_sherm says:

    The picture says it all

  5. SeanStLouis says:

    Ron Paul has the most conservative voting record in congress since 1937.

    His impressive record, which spans decades, is not proof enough, I suppose?

    In this light, I find it reprehensible when one who espouses interventional foreign policy goes so far as to accuse him of not being conservative. Just a note – historically, conservatives have been elected to end wars, not start them.

    The GOP has lost it's way. I believe many conservatives, young and old alike, have become confused about what conservative values really are. In fact, the confusion is so great that we're now seeing a popular, outspoken libertarian presidential candidate trying to convince us of the corrosion of conservatism in Washington…and it's working. Just look at how the other candidates have shown him respect and latched on to some of his ideas.

    I hope that Ron Paul will continue to define and defend these traditional conservative values for years to come.

    Good luck with your candidates, everyone…looks like this election is about to kick into high gear.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      Who said anything about interventionism? Really, defending one's interests is not interventionism. It's called 'defense.' Some of you Ron Paul folks need to grasp reality. Ron Paul made a fool of himself last night. That's the bottom line.

      • Dave says:

        I heard a lot of the same remarks coming from "conservatives" last election when RP warned us about the FED and the Debt and …. I agreed with them. America is awakening, and they don't like what they see. They are recognizing he was right on all those things we called him a kook for last time around. I am re-examining my thoughts and beliefs and RP because he has been right about everything else.

        Defending your interests by taking down an elected government and installing your guy (Iran, Egypt, Iraq) even though he is a dicatator is about as interventionist as you can get.

      • SeanStLouis says:

        You say 'defense'….that 'defending our interests' should not be translated as 'war'?

        Who's interests exactly are you talking about, Mark? Yours? Mine? Our government's? Europe's? Israel's? Saudi Arabia's? Japan's? Who's interest are we really defending in these wars? I'm asking a serious question here…

        In my opinion, Paul is right when he says OUR problems (The United States' problems) will not be solved by more war. If you consider all of our government's military intervention since WWII, and the results of those actions, I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

      • SeanStLouis says:

        Exactly, Mark. My argument is that our government has not acted in the interests of the American people for a long time.

        I could go on and on about the ulterior motives of those in Washington. Have you not read Smedly Butler's "War is a Racket"? Remember Vietnam? Korea? Were they defending the interests of the American people, our fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers, there? Were they defending our interests by arming Saddam Hussein? They, not we, have consistently acted on behalf of the Saudis, the Israelis, Europeans, Saddam Hussein (and other dictators), ..even the Mujahideen in the 1980's. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, we're finally seeing the end results of this kind of foreign policy.

        By the way, American interventionism shouldn't be literally categorized as "conquest"….but overseas the motive of "conquest" can be easily implied by our actions.

        As a reader suggested below, I would also recommend that that anyone who's interested in truly understanding what Rep. Paul has to say about foreign policy read "The Revolution: A Manifesto".

        Mark, seriously man, read that book. I think you will find it very interesting.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          Seriously, what makes you think I haven't read Paul's books? The fact that I disagree with his conclusions? One of the reasons I didn't respond to that comment was precisely because the author made the same assumption you have. I disagree with Smedley Butler's assessment. The fact that somebody once wore the stars of a general doesn't necessarily give them credibility on political issues in my view. (Colin Powell here serves as another good example.) The problem with your list of examples encompasses varying administrations with entirely different policies. Your conclusion, and Ron Paul's too, I might add, is that there was some coordination over that period. It's simply not so. Did we at one time arm Iran? Yes. Did we subsequently stop? Yes. Did we support one tyrant but not the next? Yes. All of these things changed as situations on the ground changed. You can't possibly contend that this had been one continuous policy?

      • You make a fool of yourself by repeatedly defending needless wars like Iraq and other future wars that have been proven to be completely horrendous decisions, tactically and diplomatically.

      • SeanStLouis says:

        "You can’t possibly contend that this had been one continuous policy?"

        I do.

        Eisenhower would be astonished to see how irresponsible the American people have been in not heeding his warning. Make no mistake. The military-industrial complex is real, and growing, and has more influence over foreign policy than the legislative and executive combined.

  6. AtlanticGirl says:

    I ask you…have you read his book "A Revolution"? He explains his foreign policy thoroughly. He is not "soft" or "child-like" on FP, he simply believes WE (the US) should not police the world. Who are we to decide how another country operates? As long it is not something as profound as what brought us into the 2nd world war or directly threatens our homeland, WHY should we have a say in how Germany or Japan or Turkey operates?
    If we do…doesn't that essentially lead us into a one world government? Is it NOT the job of the US to makes sure the countries of the world "play nice" with each other.

    One should really read his book before commenting further about his foreign policy. This is really the only man available at this point that WANTS to get us off the road to full on socialism, but most people won't do just a little research to find this out.

    We're going to lose our freedoms just because we were too lazy research how to fight for them.

  7. moonprinces says:


  8. thedrpete says:

    Despite my assessment that Ron Paul supporters in the aggregate are the most-obnoxious people on Planet Earth, I have now come out in support of Ron Paul.

  9. John Scotus says:

    More often than not it seems like arguing with Ron Paul supporters is just a waste of time. They need to go back to the Libertarian Party, and leave the GOP–and conservatives–alone. It is simply dishonest for them to pretend that they are something they are not. It is dishonest of Ron Paul as well.

  10. Then maybe 'conservative' isn't such a good thing as I was taught to believe. Maybe we should all just be a little more libertarian? Like Dr. Paul, who follows the Constitution on foreign and domestic policy.

  11. zeroczars says:

    Ron Paul would be a fantastic Secretary of State. He is fantastic on what Congress is allowed to do. But his Foriegn Affairs stance is HORRIBLE.

  12. Kurt Smock says:

    Israel will take iran to the cleaners if there ever is any ACTUAL evidence that they are going to get a nuclear bomb.

    We would stand with Israel as an ally if they engage in a declared war.

    I know 9/11 wasn't an inside job, I know Ron Paul knows it wasn't an inside job, but what it did end up being was a lousy excuse for a lousy war that is bankrupting the country.

    Paul is all about a strong national DEFENSE. We don't need to be on offense. It's like we're up 35-0 in the 4th quarter in respect to Arab nations. And more like 1000-0 against these pathetic extremists.

    He may not be what all the conservatives love!!!!! But he is a strict constitutionalists and I've seen for years what these "conservative" legislators have gotten us: no where.

    Let's make a third category: Progressive, Conservative, and Constitutionalist. Paul would be a constitutionalist and he's one of the few and it's been a long friggin time since we've had one in the office of the presidency and too me, it' seems like it's about time.

    I voted for toomey, I like him very much, I voted for Todd Platts back when Platts used to be a conservative. I voted for Dole and Bush. I've always been a conservative! But, conservatives are just not conservative enough anymore. I want a constitutional Federal gov't! Then we can focus on fixing the states.

    Sorry for the verbose response. I submit this to you with respect and a great love for our country. At the end of the day, whoever runs against Obama is who I'm voting for.

  13. nickels says:

    Can we just give Ron Paul a state and let him be president of it. I am so sick of his supporteres. I just want them to go away. They are like zombies.I am convinced Ron Paul could say just about anything at this point no matter how absurd and his supporteres would defend him.

    • Kurt Smock says:

      Like what? Why are you sick of Paul's supporters? What is it you don't like?

      • nickels says:

        Honestly I acknowledge your right to the freedom all Americans have to speak your mind but it is so annoying to me at this point.. You feel like the Jehovah's Witness of the internet. If you have something the people want they will seek you out. you don't have to shove the same thing in there face over and over until when they see you they turn the other direction. It is simply ineffective.

        •  That’s ok, we find statements like yours very annoying as well. Isn’t freedom of speech great? You have the right to speak your mind, but so do we. Get over it.

  14. John C. says:

    December 9, 2011

    Ron Paul Has Real Chance of Becoming GOP Nominee

    NIA believes that the free market is the number one predictor of the future. We pay a lot of attention to the web site which allows investors to place bets on current events by buying shares on the outcome. Right now on Intrade for the cost of $4.69 you can buy shares that Mitt Romney will become the Republican Presidential Nominee. If Romney is victorious, your shares will become worth $10 and you will more than double your money. If Romney doesn't win the nomination, your shares will become worthless and you will lose your entire investment.

    With shares in Romney costing $4.69 it means Romney has a 46.9% chance of winning. Back on November 14th shares in Romney cost $7.15 meaning he had a 71.5% chance of winning. In the last three weeks, Romney has gone from being an overwhelming favorite to no longer having a majority of support.

    Along with Romney collapsing, so has Cain who dropped out of the race. Cain had a 9.5% chance of winning on October 15th, but now has only a 0.1% chance of winning. Meanwhile, Rick Perry was exposed as being the phony candidate from Texas. Perry's support has collapsed from 39.4% on September 3rd to only 2.1% today.

    With Romney, Cain, and Perry collapsing, where has all of their support gone? Newt Gingrich's chances of winning have increased from a low of 0.8% on September 27th to 33.3% today. Ron Paul's chances of winning have increased from a low of 2.2% on November 8th to 7.4% today. Jon Huntsman's chances of winning have increased from a low of 2.1% on November 7th to 7% today.

    Iowa is the first GOP caucus and widely recognized as the first step in becoming the Republican nominee. Intrade doesn't allow you to buy shares for the Iowa caucus, so we can only look at polling. A new PPP poll for the Iowa caucus just released on December 5th shows Gingrich in the lead with 27%, Paul in second with 18%, Romney in third with 16%, and Bachmann in fourth with 13%.

    Rather than giving Ron Paul a serious chance of winning Iowa, the media is currently portraying Paul as a potential "spoiler". The Washington Examiner published an article this week with the headline, "Ron Paul could complicate GOP's two-horse race". Despite Paul currently polling second place in the most important primary state, many mainstream media news reports about the election have been mentioning Ron Paul's name before immediately saying, "who has no chance of winning the nomination."

    History has shown that just like in a horse race, Presidential candidates who take a big lead early on almost never win the nomination. Those who think Romney will win the nomination also thought that Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani were going to be the two nominees four years ago. If history is right and Romney doesn't win the nomination, the winner will likely be either Gingrich or Paul.

    NIA considers Gingrich to be unelectable and predicts that his support will evaporate as soon as voters learn the truth about him. Gingrich might as well be a Democrat. He would have zero chance of winning an election against Obama because voters would choose to go with the real thing. In the last Presidential election, voters only had a choice between two candidates who supported the government's bailout of Wall Street. You would think that Americans today would only be supporting candidates who were strongly against the government's bailout of Wall Street. Gingrich stated in 2008 that he "reluctantly and sadly" was supporting the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. If Gingrich was the nominee, it will be a disaster for America because it will show that nobody in the U.S. has learned a thing.

    Gingrich claims to have never favored cap-and-trade, but in 2007 he said that he would "strongly support" cap-and-trade with “a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions.” He went on to say in 2009 that he might still support cap-and-trade for “the 2,000 most polluting places,” if packaged with green energy incentives. Even more disturbing than Gingrich's support of cap-and-trade, Gingrich was paid $30,000 per month by Freddie Mac as a consultant during the subprime mortgage crisis up until it effectively became a government controlled entity. Gingrich received a total of $1.8 million from Freddie Mac as part of two contracts, one that lasted from mid-1999 to 2002 and another that lasted from 2006 until September of 2008.

    NIA believes that Gingrich is largely responsible for skyrocketing health care inflation in the U.S. today. In 2003, Gingrich founded The Center for Health Transformation, which was paid dues of $200,000 per year from health insurance providers and other health care firms. Those dues would provide health care companies with “access to Newt Gingrich” and “direct Newt interaction”, which NIA looks at as bribes that were paid to Gingrich by these health care giants to pass regulations that pushed health care costs through the roof. Gingrich's organization advocated that “anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year must purchase health insurance or post a bond." NIA believes it is unconstitutional for the government to force Americans to buy anything. This type of distortion of the free market by Gingrich is what has helped fuel massive health care inflation for the past decade.

    On September 27th when Gingrich's support was only 0.8%, Paul was beating him with support of 2.6%. Gingrich is the latest flavor of the month. We also saw huge spikes in support for Perry and Cain before their support collapsed back to below 2% as voters figured out the truth about them. Paul is the only candidate who has never been below 2% and has enjoyed a very large and solid support base that has been growing consistently. Paul is currently second in Iowa and third nationwide and when voters realize he is the only candidate who will implement the changes that need to be made to save America from hyperinflation, Paul will be the only candidate left standing to take on Obama.

    The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism just released a study yesterday of 20 million tweets and it shows that Ron Paul is overwhelmingly viewed more positively on Twitter than all of the other Republican candidates:

    After studying 20 million tweets, 55% of tweets about Ron Paul were positive while only 15% were negative. For every other Republican candidate, negative tweets outweighed positive tweets by two-to-one. The mainstream media loves Twitter and when Lindsay Lohan tweeted that she enjoyed NIA's latest documentary, there were dozens of stories in the media about it. However, there was very little media coverage yesterday about the Pew Research Center's findings.

    Ron Paul also leads all of the other Republican candidates in Google searches. Paul is currently receiving 823,000 monthly searches on Google compared to Bachmann in second with 673,000 monthly searches and Perry in third with 550,000 monthly searches. Cain and Romney are both tied with only 246,000 monthly searches. Flavor of the month Gingrich who the media is now portraying as the potential new frontrunner has been receiving only 165,000 monthly searches, which shows that Gingrich really has no grassroots support and that his artificial support is being fueled by the mainstream media trying to manipulate the minds of voters.

    Ron Paul in September won the California GOP Presidential straw poll, but it got almost no mention at all by the mainstream media. At around the same time, Herman Cain won the Florida GOP Presidential straw poll and it became the number one story on the news with the media declaring Cain a serious threat to win the nomination. If you search on Google for "Ron Paul" and "California straw poll winner" only 25,400 results appear. However, if you search on Google for "Herman Cain" and "Florida straw poll winner" you get 54,600 results.

    Last night on FOX News, they kept airing commercials repeatedly for upcoming FOX News segments about Perry and what he is doing to get back into the race with Romney and Gingrich. Perry has no chance of recovering from his current support on Intrade of 2.1%. In a recent GOP debate, Perry copied both Ron Paul and NIA by talking about branches of the government that he claims he wants to eliminate. The only problem is, Perry forgot the branches of government. It became clear to all watching the debate that Perry is merely trying to recite lines that he has memorized and is not a real Presidential candidate. Paul has been talking about eliminating many branches of government for decades and when Paul speaks, you can tell he is a real genuine candidate who speaks for himself and means what he says. Perry is just a parrot and if he were elected, he would not follow through with anything he has been attempting to say.

    If you would like to be the first to see 'Occupy Wall Street the Documentary' coming soon, simply enter your e-mail address to receive the free NIA newsletter!

    © 2009 National Inflation Association. All Rights Reserved
    Questions/Comments: – Legal Disclaimer

  15. zeroczars says:

    I have a tenant that works for "Green Peace", she is a major hippie candles & all. She was having a garage sale and asked me if I wanted to see her antiques from "OCCUPY JAPAN". I said "oh really? Is that what they say on them"? She said "no but that was when WE occupied Japan". I laughed and said "I don't know what occupy Japan means, but I do know what occupy wall street is". Her boyfriend smiled as he sat on the ground playing with his laptop. I think this sounds alot like Ron Paul's attitude. PLEASE look into Bachmann and Santorum.

  16. Kelly says:

    Yea that's why we should go to war with every country in the world, especially third world nations. How did Iraq turn out cause I know we got them WMD. His stance is we shouldn't just rush into war with little evidence (Iraq), and isn't a fundamental principle of Christianity to spread it across the world? Read the next 100 years By George freidman for better info on forien relations.

  17. Jessica D says:

    Ron Paul's foreign policy is that of our greatest president: George Washington. If that is not the essence of what conservatives wish to return to as the heritage of our nation then what is?

  18. Tom says:

    All Iran is looking to develop is nuclear energy, so they wont have to rely on israeli powerplants which is retarded for obvious reasons.

    They let in all the inspectors who wanted to take a look.


    Do you need to hear it again?
    (Iran is a fucking tarded country who follows islam and for that reason should be removed from history)

    But get your fucking facts straight

  19. All those that are pandering for continued unconstitutional war are the ones that do our country a disservice. And tons of us Veterans along with active duty agree with Ron Paul, because we’ve seen what is going on first hand. It’s time for America to wake up. What our government has been in those countries is quite scandalous not to mention unconstitutional. What would you do if other governments did that to our country? Would you rebel? Betting you would… When you want to be the world bullies there is blowback. The Constitution forbids what we’ve been doing over there…