Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Uncategorized » Is Ron Paul out of touch or are we?

Is Ron Paul out of touch or are we?

I will be the first to tell you that up until a few weeks ago I was on the Ron Paul is out of touch bandwagon.  As a matter of fact Right Hand Man and I got into a bit of a disagreement about Ron Paul’s belief that we should pull back in the world and stop interfering in the affairs of other nations.  I argued that we live in a much different world than the founders and that we did have a responsibility to lead.  I was sticking with this argument until it hit me; the world was a very dangerous place during the time of the founders.  There were empires that desired to dominate the world and impose their will upon other nations.  There were pirates that forced nations to pay protection money so that their ships were not attacked.  There were major economic powers and alliances.  The world was indeed a dangerous place and somehow our founders managed to keep America out of wars.  They realized the dangers of war and the economic drain it placed on a nation.  They understood that during war the power of the executive branch would naturally increase over time just as it did in the Roman Republic.  They believed that foreign aid led to entangling alliances and wanted none of it.  Thomas Jefferson stated; “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”   So if it was good enough for the founders why isn’t it good enough for us?  Why do many conservative embrace the opposite?  Has the world really changed that much?  Has humanity changed that much?  So when Congressman Paul said we should back off and bring our troops home, he was more in line with what the founders believed than what the establishment currently embraces.  And because so many in the establishment believe this is an antiquated concept the pile-on began.

The Second pile-on of Ron Paul came a few days ago on Fox News Sunday when he said, FEMA has been around since 1978, it has one of the worst reputations for a bureaucracy ever. It’s a system of bureaucratic central economic planning, which is a policy that is deeply flawed.  Can anyone really argue with that line of reasoning?  Was Hurricane Katrina a FEMA success story?  How many billions of dollars were wasted?  How responsive were they to the needs of the people of New Orleans?  Perhaps by helping the people of New Orleans, they slowed the recovery process by creating an environment of dependency.  Ron Paul went on to say, We’ve conditioned our people that FEMA will take care of us and everything will be okay, but you try to make these programs work the best you can, but you can’t just keep saying, ‘Oh, they need money,’ … Well, we’re out of money, this country is bankrupt.  Does anyone disagree with this statement?  Does this statement sound radical or is it the simple truth we don’t want to face?  The truth is FEMA gives people a false sense of security.  People in a crisis are more responsive to the needs of the community when they are forced to think outside of the box.  Organizations like FEMA create dependency.  They throw some scraps at the people, set up a few trailers, and tell people everything will be ok because the government is here to help.  In the end people lose their sense of self-worth and yield to their government masters for guidance.  It’s the easy way out.  The only problem is we sacrifice our liberties whenever we surrender our ability to stand on our own.  This is what Ron Paul is trying to tell us.  We need to stand on our own two feet.  We will be better for it.  We will be stronger for it.  And yet these statements have been criticized by the establishment much like the loyalist criticized the patriots who dared to suggest we could govern ourselves.  And like the sheeple so many tend to be they fall in line with the establishment’s view and shout Ron Paul is out of touch.

Ron Paul is out of touch in the view of many not because what he’s saying is wrong.  Ron Paul is out of touch because we’re out of touch with the founders.  We have been conditioned to accept dependency as the norm and have forgotten the principles of liberty our founders fought for.  When someone like Ron Paul comes along and reminds us that liberty an unalienable right we’re born with, we tremble in fear at the notion of being so free.  It’s easier to ridicule him than face our fears.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!



Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: , , , , , , , ,

opinions powered by
  • Steve Dennis August 30, 2011 at 5:27 AM

    Ron Paul is the one true constitutionalist running for president and it says more about us than it does about him that people consider a consitutionalist to be out of touch.
    I like Ron Paul but he is a little too much of an isolationist. You made a good argument about the world being dangerous at the time of the founding, but today we live in a world where a country halfway around the globe can attack us almost instantly, the world is alot smaller today. I haven’t ruled out voting for him and if no other candidate impresses me I will vote for him.
    Steve Dennis recently posted..Barack Obama’s uncle arrested for drunk driving and detained as an illegal alienMy Profile

    • John Carey August 30, 2011 at 6:23 AM

      I don’t think he’s an isolationist Steve. He’s all about commerce with other nations and trade agreements. He isn’t about interfering in the affairs of nations. I have decided as of late to give him a second look. The remarkable thing about this campaign this year is in previous years he was pulling around 2 or 3 percent. This time around is pulling around 10 to 12 percent of the vote. That tells me people are waking up and no matter who wins the Republican nomination this is a good thing.
      John Carey recently posted..Is Ron Paul out of touch or are we?My Profile

  • LD Jackson August 30, 2011 at 6:15 AM

    I have came to the realization that Ron Paul is much more accurate in his views of our country than what many people recognize. His words hit much closer to home than many of us want to admit and that is one reason his chances of winning the nomination are much better than they have ever been.
    LD Jackson recently posted..President Obama’s Jobs Plan – Take Over Fannie And FreddieMy Profile

    • John Carey August 30, 2011 at 6:27 AM

      His views are very much in line with the founders and people are beginning to realize this. You will always have those who believe he is completely out of touch; however this is more of an electorate short-coming than a Ron Paul. I like what the man has to say and this is why I have decided to give him a second look. If we hope to turn this thing around, we will need to move back towards the principles of the founders and that’s a scary thing for many. Many simply don’t know how to handle that much freedom anymore.
      John Carey recently posted..Is Ron Paul out of touch or are we?My Profile

    • John Galt August 30, 2011 at 2:04 PM

      I am sincerely interested. LD, in your calculation of “how much better” are Paul’s probabilities of winning the Republican nomination and also, what really matters, the Presidency.
      If you can give us some hard probability figures it will help me gauge the raison-d’etre of his followers.
      John Galt recently posted..Why Warren Buffet Wants Higher Taxes? Because He Doesn’t Pay Them Anyway.My Profile

      • LD Jackson August 30, 2011 at 7:00 PM

        I can’t honestly tell you that I have hard numbers about how much better his chances are in this race. I base my statement that they are better because of how prophetic some of his statements are showing to be, especially when it comes to economic issues. I believe more and more people are realizing just how much of a quack Ron Paul isn’t and that raises his chances greatly, in my opinion.
        LD Jackson recently posted..A (Better?) Primer on the National DebtMy Profile

        • John Carey August 30, 2011 at 10:47 PM

          I agree Larry. Many people are indeed taking another look at Ron Paul. I’m not sure he has enough support to win the nomination, but he can definitely impact the narrative.
          John Carey recently posted..Is Ron Paul out of touch or are we?My Profile

  • silverfiddle August 30, 2011 at 6:34 AM

    True. I read his fox interview and he made such a case; that his views concord with the founders.

    I do believe we should rein in the military action, but I also don’t believe we should retreat from the world, and we must be willing to do dirty stuff behind the scened. It is a very dangerous and very unprincipled world.

    You underplay how dangerous it is today. Yes, it was dangerous back then too, but the newborn US had just whipped a global power, so no one else was willing to step in and risk the same fate. Don’t tread on me wasn’t just a cool flag, it was a reality. Step on us and we’ll bite you!

    Right now, sharks are circling, they smell blood.

    Regardless, I agree with your overall point. Ron Paul is looking smarter and smarter all the time.
    silverfiddle recently posted..Buy American – Buy ToyotaMy Profile

    • John Carey August 30, 2011 at 11:12 PM

      I for one don’t believe we should completely retreat either, but I do believe that war is wearing down our troops and putting a drain on our economy. We should regroup. I also understand that we live in a dangerous world but we should not be constantly tasked as the world policeman. We make more enemies than friends in this role.
      John Carey recently posted..Is Ron Paul out of touch or are we?My Profile

  • Trestin August 30, 2011 at 12:06 PM

    Four years ago I thought he was crazy. Since that time, I have educated myself much more. Do I agree with everything he says? No, but I know his views are closer to our founders than the other candidates.
    Trestin recently posted..Leonard Ebert Joins UsMy Profile

    • John Carey August 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM

      They are indeed Trestin and this is why so many people feel he’s out of touch. Because so many people are out of touch with the founders.
      John Carey recently posted..Is Ron Paul out of touch or are we?My Profile

  • Jim at Conservatives on Fire August 30, 2011 at 12:17 PM

    I agree with you, John. I still have some concerns about Ron Paul that I raised in my post today. I am convinced that conservatives and libertarians together would be an unstoppable force.
    The other thing I don’t like about FEMA is that they have become another military force designed to control Americans in an emergency. I don’t like that even a little bit.
    Jim at Conservatives on Fire recently posted..Seeking Common Ground _ A Fussion of Conservatives and LibertariansMy Profile

    • John Carey August 30, 2011 at 11:18 PM

      Libertarians and Conservative will be united in 2012. This I have no doubt about. I don’t agree with everything he’s says either, but I do believe he is one of the only candidates talking about liberty. As for FEMA…well based on my experience with them here in Minot…I feel they are more of an obstacle than a help because they do create an environment of dependency.
      John Carey recently posted..Is Ron Paul out of touch or are we?My Profile

  • Bunkerville August 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM

    I too have come a long way in my opinion of him. I guess if we have one hell of a defense system that is fail safe, I might come around. But then, the rest of the wordl will turn into the Lord of the Flies, no doubt. Serves em right I guess. They have been living large on our dime. In truth,if we had maintained this position since the beginning of our country, it would make more sense. Now, we have many,mnay enemies.
    Bunkerville recently posted..Texas Perry and his Globalist Policies – Agenda 21?My Profile

    • John Carey August 30, 2011 at 11:22 PM

      We do have many enemies because of our policies. I believe in a strong defense, on that telegraphs that if you mess with us or our interests it going to hurt. I also believe we cannot continue this state of perpetual war. It erodes our republic and grinds our economy down. I agree the better road would have been staying out of entangled alliances from the beginning. Unfortunately that has not been the case and today we are paying a steep price for it.
      John Carey recently posted..Is Ron Paul out of touch or are we?My Profile

  • RightHandMan
    RightHandMan August 30, 2011 at 1:13 PM

    I too was a Paul denier..then I moved to Kentucky and heard a lot more of his belief system during Rand’s campaign and office. I am now a supporter.

  • Infidel de Manahatta August 30, 2011 at 1:28 PM

    Excellent points.

    He believes in the Constitution and the vision our founding fathers had. Would more people believed like he did.

    Now if we pulled back on the foreign front would it hurt us? Probably in the short run. The world is a very bad place and unfortunately we are the only ones who can police it. Should we is the question? It costs too much and the returns are diminishing.
    Infidel de Manahatta recently posted..Anti-War Rally Postponed Due to Lack of Giant PuppetsMy Profile

  • Harrison August 31, 2011 at 1:54 AM

    The world’s economies were not as intertwined then as they are now. Piracy off of Ethiopia threatens more than just the locals. Russia invaded Black Sea nations causes instability in more places than simply there. Iran developing a nuke is worldwide issue. I don’t think the U.S. should act alone – or carry the cost by ourselves – but withdraw isn’t an option.

    I have problems with Paul’s statement that the U.S. is partly to blame for 9-11 and that Iran is not dangerous. I think being for the legalization of heroin – if the states decide – is a bad idea. While I agree with the general tone of Paul’s statements on freedom I do not agree with him enough to support him.
    Harrison recently posted..Romney vs. Perry, George H.W. Bush vs. George W. BushMy Profile

    • John Carey August 31, 2011 at 6:22 AM

      Fair enough Harrison. I don’t necessarily agree with all his foreign policy position but what I do agree with is his position on liberty and freedom. And without liberty what else matters. Find me a candidate that is talking as much about liberty as Ron Paul…there isn’t.

  • Harrison August 31, 2011 at 3:15 PM

    As much as having the freedom to run naked in the streets shooting up heroin might be appealing to me, what good would it be if Iran drops a nuke on us?
    Harrison recently posted..Wacky Wednesday: Florida Online “Pastor” Michael Stahl Wants to Tag, Flag, and Bag Atheists (Catholics, Too?)My Profile

  • Teresa August 31, 2011 at 9:05 PM

    Just wondering because I don’t know this but besides the Founders fighting the British was there any incident during the period of time around that of when the Founders lived when America was directly attacked from another country or entity of peoples’, like America was attacked at either Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center? Plus, you have to remember at that point of time our foreign policy consisted within what is considered the United States today. The Founders, explorers, and others continued westward which led them to discover and conquer lands in the West which became a part of the United States. What I’m basically saying that in the early days of our founding colonizing the United States was foreign policy. So to claim that the Founders etc. were non-interventionist is actually false.

    I agree with Ron Paul on most domestic or economical issues but when it comes to foreign policy I vehemently disagree with him. His views on foreign policy are too utopian for me. I do agree with him that we need to reduce our presence in the world as far as how many soldiers are located at the various bases and maybe even reducing the number of American bases around the world and on Libya but other than that I don’t agree with him on foreign policy.

    I agree with your statements concerning FEMA and Ron Paul.
    Teresa recently posted..Rick Perry Says Social Security is a Ponzi SchemeMy Profile

    • John Carey August 31, 2011 at 10:26 PM

      Teresa you know I think your great. However in the early days of our country we were very much non-interventionist in other nation’s affairs. Going Westward to build a country is not what I would call being interventionist unless you subscribe to the notion that fighting the Indian wars was some sort of interventionist action. The truth is we were under a constant threat of invasion all the way up through the civil war. Britain successfully blockaded us and invaded us during the War of 1812. It really wasn’t until the Spanish-American War in the late 1800s’ did we begin to stretch our interventionist legs. From that point on we begin to intervene in other nations affairs. The world was indeed a very dangerous place in the early days of our nation. This was the time of the British Empire, the Tripoli Pirates, and Napoleon. As a young nation we were tested over and over again on the high seas. Commerce was threatened all the time.

      Many people do not realize how much of a strain a constant state of war puts on our military and our equipment. They don’t understand the drain it places on our economy. They can’t see how the power of the executive branch’s power expands during a time of war. The Republican Party used to be the party that would stand up against interventionist actions and somehow that has all changed. Today the party is overflowing with a bunch a big government neocons who believe in nation building and perpetual wars. Don’t misunderstand what I am saying here. I’m for a strong, robust, national defense. I believe if we get hit…then we unleash the dogs of war and rain hell down upon our enemies. Contrary to what many conservative believe about Ron Paul’s position on defense of our nation, his position is the same as mine. He just doesn’t believe we should be involved in every nation’s business. Teresa you’re a great conservative, but on this issue I’m afraid we disagree. I will support the nominee no matter who it is against Obama. All I’m saying is Ron Paul’s beliefs are so alien because the founders beliefs have become so alien to a culture that has nearly forgotten them. Image the kind of nation we could be again if we just embrace liberty…the thought of it gives me the chills.
      John Carey recently posted..This is What “Democracy” Looks Like? Progressives Attempting to Stop a Vote on “Amazon Tax”My Profile

      • Teresa August 31, 2011 at 10:58 PM

        Thank you very much for your kind words, John. You are very knowledgeable with regards to history and I thank you for giving me insight into the United States’ history both presently and in the past. You are an awesome patriot. I do understand what you are saying that the wars are a strain on our economy. That makes sense. The only thing I would say is that a strong defense is important and if we don’t defend the United States from outside threats or if we ignore serious threats made against the U.S. then that may be detrimental to the future of the United States as well. I guess what I’m saying is that it is possible that the U.S. could succomb to outside threats and fall if we take an isolationist attitude with regards to foreign policy. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue. I will vote for Ron Paul is he gets the nomination.

        I did find this:

        I will research this more, though. God Bless, my friend.
        Teresa recently posted..Rick Perry Says Social Security is a Ponzi SchemeMy Profile

      • Harrison August 31, 2011 at 11:36 PM

        I just want to correct one thing. War spending is NOT a drain on our economy. This is the same statement Democrats used when the bridge in Minnesota failed that somehow because we were in Iraq/Afghanistan our bridges failed.

        From 2008:

        “Total military spending (including spending on support and operations inside Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as operations tied to the “Global War on Terrorism,” all of which are budgeted separately from the U.S. defense budget) remains relatively modest compared to historical levels.

        Even including war-spending supplements and terror-war expenditures on top of the normal defense budget, today that number comes to about 6.2 percent of GDP.”

        6.2% is actually quite small really. Also, much of the money spent actually comes back to us (soldiers’ pay sent home, U.S. munitions companies get paid, etc…). This is not to say that fighting continual wars is a good idea, but we’re not going broke because of them and the benefits, if realized, help us (a democracy in Iraq, a military presence in Saudi Arabia, etc…).

        Entitlements are what will kill us, not war.

        And, of course, it was President James Monroe who essentially told foreign powers to stay out of our hemisphere (something that has served us well and requires a military force and the willingness to use it).
        Harrison recently posted..Wacky Wednesday: Florida Online “Pastor” Michael Stahl Wants to Tag, Flag, and Bag Atheists (Catholics, Too?)My Profile

  • […] Original Post:  The Sentry Journal […]

  • republicanmother September 1, 2011 at 11:59 AM

    This post explains my view on Ron Paul as well! Up until fairly recently, I was in the camp you describe. I’ve been doing a lot of research lately on the beginnings of socialism. It was funded, specifically by William Thompson, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who handed the Bolsheviks one million in US money. The Wall Street banksters gave a great deal of money to spread communist propaganda right after WW1. If you examine the history of the 20th century, you find these same players again and again with their hands in the “military-industrial complex” Ron Paul is the only candidate that I believe both understands this and is against it. For those conservatives having a problem with Ron Paul’s foreign policy, take this pop quiz:

    1. Define the Iron Triangle
    2. Name one Joint Chief of Staff or National Security Advisor that hasn’t been/isn’t on the board of a defense contractor corporation. There’s got to be at least one.
    3. How does one join the Council on Foreign Relations?
    4. What was Operation Ajax and how was it a first in US foreign policy?
    5. What does national security mean to you?
    republicanmother recently posted..Gibson Guitar and Agenda 21My Profile

  • theCL September 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM

    A few random thoughts …

    There are a lot of reasons why government needs to be limited, one of which is that government has limits. There are things government simply cannot do, one of which is to create, mold, and manange a civil society. Communism, fascism, progressivism, etc., are examples of utopian ideology.

    That said, what could possibly be more utopian than believing the federal government can “build nations,” “spread democracy,” and become a “benevolent global hegemon?” It should surprise no one that these theories were brought to us by the early progressive movement.

    Non-interventionists simply want to deal with the world as it is. They have no grand visions of remaking the world whatsoever, nor do they expect the world to suddenly come together singing Kumbaya.

    ALL government spending, yes, including war, is a drain on the economy. This is Econ 101. Governments do not have money of their own and thus must take from people – as in take it out of the economy. The linked CFR is based on Keynesian analysis. By now, nobody should take Keynesian analysis seriously anymore.

    Blowback is hardly a controversial subject. Russell Kirk, a man whose conservative credentials are second to none, predicted a 9/11 type attack on US soil if we didn’t stop our constant overseas meddling. At this point, I don’t see how anyone can argue he was wrong.

    Foreign policy is every bit as open for criticism as is, say, health care policy. The fedgov f’s up foreign policy every bit as much as it f’s up everything else.

    It is dangerous today. But the most dangerous regime if you ask me, is the one in Washington, DC. The Iranian government certainly didn’t molest my 69-year old mom at the airport, nor have they ever stolen money our of my paycheck. Jose Guerena fought the bad guys in the ME. Go ask his widow which regime is most likely to kill you.

    The only way to stop Iran from building a nuke is to invade and conquer. Derbyshire addressed this over at NRO. Is this what any of you are suggesting?

    As much as having the freedom to run naked in the streets shooting up heroin might be appealing to me, what good would it be if Iran drops a nuke on us?

    I’m open to it, but I have yet to hear a credible scenario laid out in which Iran could actually do this, let alone, without getting themselves wiped completely off the map.

    I think conservatives who support the War on Drugs have a serious credibility issue, because nowhere in the Constitution is the government provided the power to prohibit these substances or wage this war on its own citizens. It’s not enought to say “drugs are bad,” you still have to work within our legal framework. Otherwise, how can you possibly argue against others usurpations with any credibility?
    theCL recently posted..theCL Report (September 01, 2011)My Profile