Stossel writes:
The man who likely has done more than anyone to put the libertarian philosophy of freedom and small government on the political agenda probably will make another run for the presidency: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/11/john-stossel-ron-paul-libertarian-agenda-getting-respect/#ixzz1M6e1LyS8<>
This is a lengthy profile of Newt Gingrich some years ago well worth re-reading.
The Tea Parties only embrace half of the Gingrich vision, the one that ties bureaucracy and corruption around the neck of the Democratic party like a dead cat. But some of the policy proposals he’s thrown out over the years suggest that Gingrich also supports massive government spending on education, technology, high-speed trains, national parks, health care, Social Security, and a host of odd pet projects: compulsory gym class for every public-school student in America, forcing teachers to take attendance every hour, paying kids to read, even compulsory health insurance — isn’t that exactly like the “Obamacare” that drives the Tea Parties mad?
<>
I hope to re-start my Ron Paul podcast. 2007’s podcast was quite successful; attracting at one time over 500 listeners. The purpose is to offer people commentary on the latest in Paul’s presidential run, and also summarize Paul’s position on a variety of topics. Hope to do my first one in the next 10 days.<>
Brian Doherty analyzes Juan William’ and Hugh Hewitt’s assessment of Ron Paul. It is quite a fascinating piece. Doherty concludes:
Calling Paul marginal at this point requires not merely ignoring good and necessary ideas. As Juan Williams explains nicely, it requires ignoring objective facts. Which the likes of Hewitt will be happy to do forever to shut up Paul’s message, and his fans.
<>
Popular author and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright has accused the world of giving America a free pass for violating Pakistan’s sovereignty and killing an unarmed man during the recent attack that killed Osama bin Laden.
The former bishop of Durham sent a short statement to The Times’ religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill in which he pointed out that Americans would be “furious” if Great Britain’s military had staged an unannounced raid against hypothetical Irish Republican Army terrorists and killed them, unarmed, in a Boston suburb.
The only difference, Wright says, is “American exceptionalism.”
“America is allowed to do it, but the rest of us are not,” said Wright, who is now the research professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. “By what right? Who says?”
President Obama, Wright says, has “enacted one of America’s most powerful myths,” the vigilante hero going outside the law to execute “redemptive violence” against an enemy who has rendered the legitimate authorities impotent. “This is the plot of a thousand movies, comic-book strips, and TV shows: Captain America, the Lone Ranger, and (upgraded to hi-tech) Superman. The masked hero saves the world.”
While this myth may have been a necessary dimension of life in the Wild West, Wright says, it also “legitimizes a form of vigilantism, of taking the law into one’s own hands, which provides ‘justice’ only of the crudest sort.”
“What will we do when new superpowers arise and try the same trick on us?” he asks. “And what has any of this to do with something most Americans also believe, that the God of ultimate justice and truth was fully and finally revealed in the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, who taught people to love their enemies, and warned that those who take the sword will perish by the sword?”
Wright, a prominent figure in the Church of England, has gained fame on both sides of the Atlantic for his academic and popular writings on the New Testament and the historical Jesus. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams also commented on bin Laden’s death this week, admitting to “a very uncomfortable feeling” about reports that bin Laden wasn’t armed when he was killed “because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done.”
“When we are faced with someone who was manifestly a ‘war criminal’ as you might say in terms of the atrocities inflicted, it is important that justice is seen to be observed,” Williams said.
<>
However, a sober look at Cain’s statements tonight and his past record show little to be enthused about. He stands diametrically opposed the fundamental positions of pro-liberty candidates like Ron Paul. Cain is pro-war and appears to be pro-Empire, against a Federal Reserve audit, and has been supportive and apologetic about the bailout. Free market is incompatible with crony capitalism and Fed intervention.
<>
This is always a remarkable claim to the power of a message. Who would ever have imagined a 76 year old man who has been in Congress for over 30 years would raise a million dollars from young and old? It’s in the message. Words have power, and ideas have consequences.<>
I am a fan of Ron Paul. I have supported him since 2004. I have great expectations for the 2012 elections. Paul will certainly do a better job in the polls than he did in 2008. He is no longer a new kid on the block. His fans are everywhere. He receives an average of 10 calls for interviews a day; his internet army is unconquerable to the infinite horror of some conservatives. Last night’s debate was a good start; not the best start, but a good start. I have often mentioned that Paul needs to be a bit more personal. His reference to his long marriage was good, but not sufficient. He needs to address the American people. Herman Cain did a fine job last night. His policies are standard neo-conservative, but his mannerism is more appealing to the American people. For the most part, Americans are not much into philosophic discussions, yet, they appear to be coming around it. The Federal Reserve/Foreign Policy talk is no longer bizarre, but a much anticipated one in conservative circles. Ron Paul has started something. I hope it goes far.<>
Pat Buchanna writes:
First, Americans have never been less popular there, and one demand of every revolution is for a new government, independent of the United States, that will defend the national sovereignty.
Second, we are broke. We can no longer afford the bases. We can no longer afford the wars. We can no longer afford the aid.
Third, the true vital interest of the United States in this part of the world is that these Islamic countries not become base camps of terror, especially nuclear terror, targeted against the United States.
That end is surely better served by packing and departing than by staying and fighting.
<>
Kuyperian Commentary Podcast
