Article Image
News Link • Ron Paul Says...

Here’s the thing about Ron Paul

• By Michael DeCrescenzo

Following a recent letter to the editor and its feedback, it may be appropriate to remind everybody that Ron Paul will never be president. This is not up for debate.

But maybe this contributes to his appeal with the new brand of political hipster — those so determined to be “anti-establishment” that they’ll even support the candidate with the ideology that most shamelessly nourishes the very injustices these people believe they’re cognizant of. Forgive them, they know not what they do.

I think it’s a mistake to call Ron Paul a libertarian, especially where his identity as a libertarian is a point of pride for his supporters. I would call him firstly a wannabe anti-federalist, a label I use as a polite euphemism for “his constitutional interpretation is dangerously regressive for anyone who isn’t a white, property owning, well-to-do male.” Paul’s brand of anti-federalism envisions the federal government more or less as it was before the 1930s, while a libertarian is more concerned with libertarian ends than with strict constitutionalist means.

16 Comments in Response to

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

 Go to the grocery today. Take off your gold teeth, then pay the grocery with your gold teeth. If the cashier won't accept your gold teeth as payment for your grocery and they throw you out of the door, sue the grocery.

Oh, by the way include the U.S. Government in your lawsuit for the "unconstitutionality" of the Green Buck. Tell the Sheriff exactly what you said in your comment that only gold is a "constitutional" money, and that he violates his oath for allowing dollar bills as money.  If the ambulance brings you to the asylum, give me a call from there. I want to record your comment and play it for you later on after your release.

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Since you obviously don't want to accept Constitutionality, there isn't any reason to pander words with you in this forum.

As anyone can see from history and court cases (if they are willing to look, that is), is that up until the mid 1900s, gold and silver had been accepted as the Constitutional money throughout United States. Nothing has changed except the Oath of Office breaking by the major members of Government.

Often, the length of comments in this forum obscure the points being stated, already. Look to the nation's record if you are truly interested in Constitutionality. If you are simply here to argue words, it's because you are on welfare, and have all kinds of time on your hands.

No wonder you are in favor of reducing the freedom of the people. You might lose their forced servitude that you get from the money the corrupt Government steals from them if you don't.

Comment by Ana Panot
Entered on:

 You said it right JV, Anonymous75. He needs to learn the art of a class dynamic discussion [group discussions] and at the same time also know the rigmarole of the debate we all learned in school. But we what can we do if the New Hampshire newspaper is right and the National Institute of Health is also right with regards to the state of mind of certain people who inhabit this page? Since both of you are trying to help the handicapped, is there hope?  Honestly, I am worried.

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

Cite an example so that you yourself understand what you are talking about. DEMONSTRATE what you know about the example you show. REFERRING it to any website will not show how you understand what you are talking about. You always say they violate their oath, they violate the Constitution, only Ron Paul understands the Constittion ... show WHO, HOW, WHAT AND WHEN etc. then support it with a website referral where your argument can be validated. You cannot do this because there is nothing to show of what you are talking about -- what you are saying is purely  IMAGINATION. 

You read how I do this when I take a position on the issue discussed -- that's from school of higher learning. Show that you can do it too, and people will start to understand what you are talking about! Who knows, you might have interesting ideas we could discuss about – just stop writing nothing but spite and contempt!

We need people who know how to debate in this website. You are much better off than Powell Gammill, the editor who models a style of disrespect, disdain, and insults. Obviously, he wants to kill this website, but you and I know that we couldn’t join him for that stab in the back.

C’mon, PureTrust, I know you can do it right!



Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

For example, see the comment and responses at remembering that ALL law and constitution was set in place for reasons. The reasons are NOT so that people can try to figure ways around the laws and Constitutional words. The wording is there because of the spirit behind the wording. The reasons the wording was set in place was to attempt to solidify the spirit with word terms.

Breaking of Oath of Office is really the breaking of the spirit of the Constitution. It is NOT the twisting of words and making of plans so that the breaking can be done in a legal appearing fashion. It is the breaking of the spirit of what is written.

When you see what is written in the website listed above, you will see how the spirit of the Constitution has been broken even though the words used to break it may have not done so in a clear fashion. This is Oath breaking. It is perjury of a treasonous kind.

In other words, Constitution words show the spirit of the Constitution. Even though the words may not have been broken, the spirit has. And the breaking is also Oath breaking because it is on-going without attempt to change.

This is just one little thing. It's about time that you learn what law is all about before you start criticizing Ron Paul, one of the very few who have attained to his level of HONESTY IN GOVERNMENT.

You don't need me to show you all the rest. They are listed all over the Internet. All you need to do is search for them. Then think.

Comment by Ana Panot
Entered on:

JV, you mention that long vacation … are your referring to PureTrust’s absence that because of it he needs an update concerning Ron Paul’s impossible-to-elect candidacy? Yeah, as if he needs to know why Ron Paul is "unelectable". No, PT was not in a date with me. That date he had in mind has not materialized yet. Maybe it was just a lapsus linguae on his part. He really did not mean it at all. But thanks for helping him know why even in a dream, Ron Paul could never become President of the United States. I like Bayag’s angle though, why that is so.

Comment by Arty Choke
Entered on:

This naivety of not knowing why presidential candidate Ron Paul is "unelectable" can be viewed from another angle. Of course everybody, especially his handlers, knew very well that Ron Paul could neither become a GOP nominee for president nor become President of the United States. S

Nonetheless, as a perennial candidate for president, he always loses, and yet profits something from it – money.

Anybody would think that his handlers are crazy campaigning for and promoting a candidate that could never win. The truth is, they are smarter than those who knew would think. Ron Paul’s losing candidacy is used as an investment for the unscrupulous to profit from. There is no doubt that his investor-backers are making money out of it!

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

If you do NOT know up to now why as a candidate for president Ron Paul is "unelectable", then you cannot discuss with us his candidacy as something desirable.

If you still do not know why for many years now Ron Paul had always been running for president and could not even get a GOP nomination ... then you should stay out of this discussion.

I suggest you get first a background knowledge how odd Ron Paul is as a throwaway or disposable candidate for president.

If you are aware of his background, you will know how screwed up his understanding of monetary economics is. Here’s the problem: Ron Paul has no business intruding into this very technical and specialized area of Economics when his field of learning is Medicine! He likes to talk Economics when he is no economist by any stretch of the imagination; he only makes himself a laughing stock when he "lectures" the Chairman of the Federal Reserves, a scholar with a Ph.D. in Economics, how to run the country’s monetary system.

As a politician from the "lunatic fringe" [New Hampshire newspaper], you really want to know how screwed up he is? He thinks the U.S. economy will function without a Central Bank which is impossible [to abolish the Fed became his obsession in Congress, but for many years his yearly authored bill never came to pass].

He doesn’t only want the Fed abolished but also the IRS and the income tax, which is impossible.

In this Millennium, he wants that gold and silver should be used as money which is way, way out of the question; in international affairs, he wants to turn this richest and mightiest nation on the planet into a RECLUSE, and that is not going to happen. In his mind, 911 is no fault of Al Qaeda but of the American people, which is plain insanity ... shall I go on, and on?

With all these twisted ideas he publicly indulges in, can he ever become president? If you believe he can, something must be wrong with you.

What’s more ridiculous is that he declares himself as a Constitutionalist? This simply proves that he is delusional. Do you know what a Constitutionalist is? That’s a legal expertise. You do not become a Constitutionalist by delivering more than 400 babies. 

How in hell will he ever convince any normal-thinking American that he became an economic expert and a Constitutionalist by studying Medicine?

In a just recently concluded congressional committee hearing, he "lectured" Dr. Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserves how the monetary system of the country should be run ... when he doesn't even understand that in this Millennium, a "Silver Circle" [a silver token coin] is not money!

And here you are asking why Ron Paul’s "policies" had never been explained by his critics how flawed and undesirable they are? How long was this vacation you have in another planet?

Comment by Bertha Anonimo
Entered on:

Maybe if you could cite even just one example how "government persons" violate their oath [describe what oath] and why, or if you could give even just one name of any "government person" [what is a government person?] that "does not follow the Constitution" [show us how that person disobey the Constitution], maybe you can bring down yourself from Cloud 9 and put some sense into what you are saying. If you can talk sensibly, you might be able to discuss with mortals like us what you have in mind.

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

It is noteworthy to consider that most of the many people speaking against Ron Paul do little more than to simply say that he is bad, that he is insane, that he is dangerous, and that he is undesirable overall.

But the thing that they rarely, or barely, get around to, is expressing the way in which he is undesirable... the exact things that are so flawed about his policies, the exact mechanisms of how his policies would do bad rather than good, especially in the light of the mess that the policies of his opponents have brought the nation to.

I would enjoy getting into the points of this article to show the other side(s) of what that writer is saying. And it is easy, because there are many. But let me say just one thing.

If the Constitution says that Government people must walk on their hands 5 minutes a day, if the Constitution says that all Government people must drink a gallon of vodka every day, if the Constitution says, that Congress can only convene at night... these things would be silly and should be removed from the Constitution, right? And there are processes in place for doing so.

But when a Government person promises by OATH to do what the Constitution says, and then doesn't even attempt to do so in a whole bunch of areas, THAT is almost the worst thing that any Government person can do! So doing, he has denied the Constitution, he has denied the rights of the people, he has denied himself.

Is this what you want for your Government? Someone that has proven he cannot be trusted simply by his intent to break Oath even before he is elected? THAT IS NOT RON PAUL. But it is all the rest of the candidates and potentials.

No wonder the people are screwed. The promises of virtually everyone in Government mean NOTHING. They do whatever they please. And a bunch of goofy people in America like it that way!

Comment by John Buergel
Entered on:

You're right Michael, it's not up for debate, it's up for vote. And it doesn't matter if you THINK you're a genius, Michael, if you are really nothing but a hypocritical egomaniac. Not that Ron Paul is lacking in flaws.

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

The only authorization anyone has for getting into Congress, the Presidency and the Judicial is, the authorization given by the Constitution.

The only way anyone can be seated in Congress, the Presidency or the Judicial is, by take an Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution.

The only way the Constitution can be upheld by Congress, the President and the Judicial is,when they obey it.

Since we all can see that Congress, the President and the Judicial disobey the Constitution in many ways, they have broken their Oaths of Office, they have perjured themselves, and this type of perjury smacks of treason.

The point is, they must be getting their authority from somewhere else, other than the Constitution.

So, where are they getting their authority? Certainly not the people... Diebold.

Comment by sWamp -ass
Entered on:

  Not buying any of this. The whole point of your article is to help create the self-fulfilling prophecy that Ron Paul is un-electable so that it becomes reality. Keep repeating it and repeating it until it's accepted as conventional wisdom.

Comment by Howard Pearlman
Entered on:

Later in the article he says:   

"Making it easier for the People to dictate social policy more locally and capriciously is terrifying because the People are awful. Controversies regarding the rights of oppressed and minority groups belong in the courts at best. The popular majority’s mistreatment of these groups only proves that the majority doesn’t deserve and would only abuse the power to legislate for the oppressed more than they already do."

So......if we can't trust the people to elect a "decent" govt, then I guess he is an advocate of totalitarian dictatorship.  Such a govt would make its people into better citizens (for their own good of course).   Too bad the govt is never better than the people they rule.  (BTW I tried making a comment on this guy's site and was denied - sorry no comments wanted there).



Comment by Ana Panot
Entered on:

JV, you don't have to debate with me on this one. I too dump smelly politicians like Ron Paul right into the dumpsite. I do not need to go to Smoky Mountain to smell a burning garbage. You have Ron Paul right here who burns himself everyday. Breathing in and out foul-smelling politicians is not only against my religion but it is also against my mental health. It irritates the tunnels of my nose and I sneeze badly. In this page, you read how I sneeze, don't you? That's my allergy triggered by ugly, bad-smelling politicians!

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

When it is garbage, it is garbage. A trash never attracts me as food for thoughts ... it stinks!

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: