I sure do like much of what Ron Paul espouses. But there certainly are too many negatives.

Why anyone would trust a deranged Mullah with a nuclear device is beyond insanity.

No, thanks, we shouldn't sell all the gold in Ft. Knox.

After nearly 30 years in Congress he has virtually no meaningful legislation under his belt, so this is the guy to lead our Country?

It sounds like he may have the same ultimate goal of the disentigration of state as Karl Marx, another fruitcake.

In addtion, mmccrindle, I read that the other day Paul said he could not see himself as President. Then why does he keep running?

Perhaps he has had value raising some serious points for discussion, but I think we have had enoough of that already and need to get on with the process. Since he has declared -himself- as an "also-ran" once again, I think it is time for him to bow out.

Both parties go after "defense" spending, when it is the only real spending authorized by the Constitution for the defense of America. What they need to do is get rid of agencies that legislate around congress, with rules and regulations that are completely against business. How much energy has the dept of energy produced? How much smarter are the useful indoctrinated idiots produced by the NEA and dept of Education. With Incompetano, I feel we are less safe with the dept of Homeland Security. Salazar and the dept of Interior is keeping us dependant on foreign oil, blocking development of pipelines and exploration, in concert with the EPA. All these extra Constitutional agencies regulating and legislating beyond the law should be abolished, that would solve our spending problems, this country has no problem with revenue. Paul has said he would do this and he is correct, but I can't for the life of me see how anyone with a modicum of intellegence cant' see the threat of Islam to the rest of the world. That is crazy. Read Mark Steyne, "America Alone", and "After America". If you can't see the truth in these books, you are part of the problem. Islam, evil incarnate with the goal of world domination, must be outlawed in America. There are no moderate muslims, they are either Jihadis or Jihadi enablers.

When you look at legislation that Paul has proposed, you will realize that his proposals are constitutional, fiscally sound, and would result in decreasing the size and scope of the federal government. OF COURSE it had no support. How many other members of congress actually support the Constitution and obey their oath to it? If you want to lay the blame for that at Paul's feet you're just blaming the victim. And the disintegration of our nation is already well under way. Economically. Politically. In terms of individual liberty/freedom. 40,000 new laws were passed last year. And that doesn't count countless regulations. Politicians have used the patriotism and dedication of America’s soldiers to have our nation become the bully of the world playground. We have invaded other nations under false pretenses, we send armed drones into their airspace, we kill their soldiers and citizens, we overthrow their governments and install corrupt governments of our choosing and demand their resources for our national security, and occupy their lands under the guise of keeping them “democratic”. But only if they don’t have the means to truly defend themselves. That’s the nuclear lesson we have taught other nations.

Is Islam a danger to our nation? In my opinion absolutely. So are our own government employees when they act far beyond the authority granted to them by the people. And who gets to pick which religions are outlawed in our nation? And by what criteria? Seems I remember something about there being a 1st Amendment. Crisis and emergency are always the justification for the elimination of freedom. No thanks. I want none of it.

@d.w.judson

I would submit to you that Islam is NOT a religion. I have no problem with freedom to worship as you choose. A religion doesn't blow up folks in a town square. A religion doesn't behead folks on Television. A religion doesn't shoot rockets into a neighboring country because they don't like the way you dress, worship, eat, or just live. A religion doesn't condone lying to "infidels" and a quest for world domination. Islam is a political system, much like Marxist Socialism, and would happily cut off your christian head on TV. Wake up to the danger of this anti American political system that has idiots thinking they are a "religion". They are not, and as I think it was Clauswitz who said, know your enemy! We have every right to protect ourselves from our enemies, if that means killing them, then good! You isolationis Paul supporters would have the Islam nations USING nuclear weapons, first would be Israel, then Christian countries. I want none of that!

wjmccrindle as usual, makes more sense than about any other person I ever see post their comments. Ron Paul has a few good points, but a lot of his views, especially concerning the Arab states, make him a pure loonie. I, for one, am happy to see him come in a distant 4th in the Iowa voting. I don`t think however, that he will have the good sense to drop out.

Richard Ryan

Lamar,Missouri - Birthplace of Harry S Truman

I'll come right to the point: Ron Paul is a kook.

I liked his proposals for the national economy. I like some of his positions on constitutional governance and limited government. But everything else screams "BAGGAGE!" Just another self-absorbed cranky old man who needs to retire, rather than pursuing some unattainable purist utopia, just as the liberals and progressives pursue theirs.

Ron Paul, if you try a 3rd party end-run, thanks for exposing your ego for what it really is -- right on par with Ego-bama-niac and the Donald, and thanks for handing the former an extension on his regime. Your ego will also have its part in bringing down our republic, what's left of it.

There is an answer to Ron Paul's founding father foreign policy that cowering fear urges some to reject: if you want the president to become king with unilateral warmaking powers, amend the Constitution to grant him/her that power. Until then, defend it, along with Paul!

The last time the U.S. was in a declared war was 1945. We've had quite a few since then (I personally had some involvement in three of them).

If the American people want war, let Congress declare it, as is required by the Constitution. I'm okay with the idea that a president will not get us into a war without a Congressional declaration. That's how it's supposed to be!

If Ron Paul is elected and Congress wants a war, he will function as the C-in-C, as that would be his sworn duty. But if we want a president that makes war without Congress, Luther is 100% correct: let's just appoint someone king and be done with it.

Me? I'm not so keen on having a king - or a president who thinks he has the same level of authority as one.

Army Officer - Congress is also to blame. They passed the War Powers Act which allows the President to declare a temporary war. Sort of like a little bit pregnant. Anyone know which section of the Constitution that allows Congress to void the Constitution on a temporary basis?

D.W.Hudson

Re: "When you look at legislation that Paul has proposed, you will realize that his proposals are constitutional, fiscally sound, and would result in decreasing the size and scope of the federal government. OF COURSE it had no support."

Look. I appreciate your enthusiasm. Really I do. But, enthusiasm is no substitute for facts. Lets take a look at some facts.

If you want to see someone wiggle and squirm, ask Ron Paul why, when all the GOP had called a moratorium on earmarks, he made over $157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011, and was only one of four House Republicans to request any earmarks at all.

And you think Clinton and Obama can twist and turn, say "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

Now remember, that was AFTER the American people had spoke loud and clear NO MORE EARMARKS! Did Mr Constitution, Mr. Tax Payer's Best Friend listen? Nada!

You are right...he stands pretty much alone up there...on the "Not listen to the People" side of things.

My golly, and how Ron complained about earmarks, but the record shows that in 2010, he asked for another $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members.

So, he's the only true fiscal guy up there huh?

Now, I want to ask YOU: do you not know about that kind of stuff, or just ignore it?

There is NOTHING more constitutional than a representative representing the interests of his district. But, with Ron, if you ask people who lived in Ron Paul's district, you'll find out he would have been gone years ago for a real conservative, except for outside money, which equates to the fact he wasn't representing his district like he swore to do.

Not by a long shot.

God bless

Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Richard

How about these from Ron Paul:

Ron Paul: “You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let’s just get rid of all the drug laws.”

Ron Paul, The Revolution Manifesto: “Governments, by their nature, notoriously compete with liberty—even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty…The restraints place on our government by the Founders did not work.

Ron 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."

Ron Paul, 1993 newsletter: "Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little."

Interviewer: "In the last interview we did with a Libertarian candidate for President, he said you that would abolish the CIA, the FBI, and the IRS. Do you hold those same positions?"

Ron Paul: "Yes, I do -- because you know, most of our history, we didn't have those institutions."

Fact is, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Bet there are a lot of very weird people and groups out there you might agree with on a point or two, until you know who said it and their philosophical context for saying it, and then would shun like the plague.

BTW: while you are at it, Google Ron Paul and the word voluntarist or voluntaryist. See what you find.

God bless

Luther

re: "There is an answer to Ron Paul's founding father foreign policy..."

Just so I know, what exactly was that "foreign father foreign policy" anyway? Was it something they said, or a tid bit you got from Ron Paul.

For example, did he explain to you why Jefferson got involved in the First War of the Barbary Pirates, went inland, captured cities, etc, all with a declaration of war?

BECAUSE HOSTILITIES ALREADY EXISTED BETWEEN US AND THE PIRATES, THE PIRATES INITIATED THEM, AND NO DECLARATION WAS REQUIRED.

What do you think James Madison, Chief Architect of the Constitution meant when he said:

"It is a principle incorporated into the settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute." --James Madison, letter to the Dey of Algiers, 1816.

What do you think President George Washington meant, about those same pirates who were raiding our ships, and that we were paying tribute to, meant when he said:

"Would to Heaven we had a navy to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence."

Now, that is what they actually said and what they actually did.

They took being a Father to our nation very seriously. The Constitution is not a suicide pact because it assumes reasonable people.

You do not have to wait for someone to shoot and miss before you can act in self defense....all that is required to justify it is "reasonable belief."

How do you think Washington and the others would handle EMP threats that could send our nation to the stone age, or WMD's?

Foreign threats are just as much a threat to our true liberties as tyranny and anarchy. The Founders were concerned about all three.

I look forward to your answer.

God bless

"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them." Thomas Jefferson.