So Barone agrees with Paul's attacks on the Fed and highlights that Paul's support (based on the exact same message) will at least double in NH (as it did in IA). But he's "zany" because a campaign brochure has big words and EMPHASIS? Typical establishment drivel.

Paul wants:

1) Congress, not the King... er, President, to declare war

2) to cut (not reduce the increase in) the federal budget by $1 trillion his first year (and balance the budget by the end of his first term)

3) Audit (and eventually, end) the Fed who has destroyed the value of the dollar for 100 years to the benefit of large crony corporations and banksters

4) phase out the unConstitutional entitlements of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other welfare

5) stop meddling in the civil wars of other countries

6) appoint judges who will protect life, liberty and private property

Indeed, zany.

It looks like Barone is a mouthpiece for the Republican Establishment. If you don't like the Constitutional positions of a candidate call him zany.

So, Rick Santorum cared enough to fight for the life of another human being. Shame on him. How is that a weakness. I mean, I don't recall all of the details surrounding Terri Schiavo, but if I were on life support and there was a chance that the doctors could save my life by waiting just a few more days to see if my brain would function or if they were working on some sort of medical breakthrough that could save me. Then I could only hope to have someone like Rick Santorum fighting for me. That tells me that he will not give up on America. It sounds like he is willing to fight to get us off of life support.

As far as Huntsman goes, I can't tell who is the bigger RHINO. Him or Romney.

Ron Paul is not as weak as you may think. He has strong conviction and has a plan to help America climb back out of debt. I don't agree with him on foreign policy, but I don't think he will go around appologizing to dictators and tyrants.

Perry never having a secret ambition to be President is not a weakness. It's a deffinate strength. He got into the race because his supporters thought that he would be a Great President. I don't think he'd be the Greatest President in History. But, he'd be a whole heap better than the one we have now.

Speaker Newt needs to show his teeth and fight back if he wants to stay in this thing. The American want a President who isn't afraid to throw punches especially after he has been hit.

And then there is Romney who has had a desire to be President for years. That's dangerous because I don't think that he wants to be President for the right reasons. The fact that he "sounds corny and insincere" is for a reason. He is not sincere about helping America get out of the hole just like someone who sounded corny and insincere 4 years ago and look where that got him and us.

Luther

I couldn't help but notice that you are and avid Ron Paul supporter...right?

Did you know that you have been undermined?

Ron Paul has been "outed" by the folks over at Mises Institute, which was founded by Ron's former congressional Chief of Staff.

Check out the video "Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist" at

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/25612/431256.aspx

Take note of the caption that reads:

"n 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."

Make sure and read the comments for a page or two.

I assume you are a good guy, patriotic, etc.

Note this comment about what they think of you:

Re: will this "outing" hurt Paul's campaign?

"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 assume you would be one of those "We the people types" huh?

If you feel like you just got bombed with finding out RP is lined up with anarchists...they knew it was coming:

"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."

Did you know all this?

If not, I hope you are ticked. You should be.

If you agree with all that, then lets drop the Mr. Constitution charade and talk about Ron Paul the Voluntaryist.

BTW: if you don't know what voluntaryism is, Wiki has a good article on it, and you can get to it from a link in RP's quote "We endorse the idea of voluntarism...."

Good luck

"There is a natural and necessary progression from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness." -- George Washington Maxims

Howard Last

Re: If you don't like the Constitutional positions of a candidate call him zany.

How about the unconstitutional positions of a candidate who simply claims they are?

Take a look at my response to Luther.

No need repeating it.

Love to hear your thoughts

Caption on video "Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist"

"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."

It gets worse from here my friend.

God bles

Sapient: from Wikipedia...

Voluntarism, or voluntaryism,is a philosophy according to which all forms of human association should be voluntary. This moral principle is called the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggressive force or coercion. The word 'initiation' is used here to make clear that voluntaryism does not oppose self-defense.

Frightening stuff [sarcasm]. I would suggest that the Declaration and Constitution were the most radical steps toward "volunaryism" in the history of man. I don't discount the possibility of a voluntary (as opposed to compulsory) society, but I'd be tickled to see us just return to fidelity to the Constitution and a greater respect for the individual. Unfortunately, fear and covetousness are severe hinderences to such a pleasant pursuit (of liberty & happiness).

A choice between socialism and voluntaryism? Hm-m. Voluntarism doesn't sound so bad with these choices. But it's socialism (no matter who gets elected, money is still redistributed) that continues to march us to destruction as a nation, and further toward a One World scenario. This will continue whether Obama or Romney gets elected. Perhaps just a bit slower with Romney. It's been that way for almost a hundred years, and I see nothing that 's going to stop it.

Luther

Re: This moral principle is called the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggressive force or coercion.

Great. The only problem is that this movement sees government as inherently immoral because it has the force to "coerce."

Now, that is anarchy. Law abiding is "voluntary."

Remember: The government did not just spring up. It was INSTITUTED among men to protect rights. Laws are simply lines drawn where rights are protected.

When someone says "Laws are voluntary" then respecting your rights is voluntary too.

Anarchy assumes there is no need for government. That is as far from what the Founders believed as east is from west, and it has a predictable end:

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

Tex Horn

Re: A choice between socialism and voluntaryism? Hm-m. Voluntarism doesn't sound so bad with these choices.

The good news is that those are not the choices.

We can have a Republican form of government that is based on "self government"...and the crux of that is virtue.

Voluntaryism is the path to tyranny pure and simple, over, and over, and over.

So, that is the choice...tyranny or self control.

God bless

In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. –James Madison, Federalist 51

@Sapient

Thank you for your posts, most eloquent. I hope you have enlightened a few of the Paul supporters, and they can recognize the folly of his positions. The man couldn't get congress behind any of his legislative proposals, so who in their right mind could envision any chance of a serious presidential bid? The old man needs to retire and enjoy his old age. Thanks again for your missives, may they enlighten and educate those who can recognize cogent arguement.