A Debate with a Neo-Conservative

JAN 2012


Hello, all. In light of recent results in Iowa and New Hampshire, I wanted to chat with you, to see what existing reservations or questions you may still have about Dr. Ron Paul, and what we can do to get you on board, as an active supporter. This is directed to everyone – regardless of your political party affiliation – because it's time we vote for a man, and not for a party. And the issues we face as a nation, affect EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US, regardless of age, ethnicity, socio-economic status, party affiliation, religion, creed, or otherwise.

It's become increasingly clear - with Paul's solid second-place showing in New Hampshire - that this GOP primary has become a two-man race: A 'frugal socialist' big government progressive flip-flopping Obamacare-inspiring Republican, and a true, steadfast, unapologetic, unwavering, principled, passion-inspiring, Reagan- Goldwater–conservative.

As you are probably well-aware, this is the most critical presidential election since 1860, and we MUST get this man in the White House who:
- cuts through all the propaganda around the Iran situation and identifies correctly (as echoed by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta this weekend) that Iran is NOT seeking nuclear weapons,
- states correctly that our greatest national security threat (as echoed by Adm. Mullen, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff) is not al-Qaida or a foreign aggressor, but rather our national debt.
- grasps the true nature of our boom and bust cycle,
- grasps the true nature of why our middle class has been gutted,
- has never voted for a tax increase, who will audit the Federal Reserve,
- has the backbone to talk about the 'blowback' of our foreign policy (and the former CIA chief of the Bin Laden unit has endorsed him),
- is not bought and paid for by lobbyists,
- has never gone on a congressional junket,
- has opted out of the cushy congressional pension program,
- has had the backbone to identify how unconstitutional, absurdly costly and unwinnable, and racially discriminatory our War on Drugs is
- receives more campaign donations from active-duty and retired military (and their families) than all the other GOP candidates combined-times-two (and more than Obama),

Dr. Paul is being mischaracterized by the GOP and by the establishment media as an isolationist. This couldn't be further from the truth. Isolationists believe in no diplomatic relations, imposing sanctions, tariffs, embargoes, and trade restrictions. Non-interventionists believe in trade, diplomacy, dialogue, and good will with all nations, and entangling alliances with none, and no pre-emptive attacks on countries that haven't initiated aggression on our soil. To call Ron Paul an 'Isolationist' is like calling your neighbor an "Isolationist" for not coming over and breaking your windows. Above all this rancor around the Iranian situation, I want you to superimpose what we currently see, against what we saw in 2002-2003, where the neoconservative establishment was rattling sabers, spoiling for war, and feeding us (now-proven) false-flag propaganda about weapons of mass destruction, so that we can invade a muslim nation that has never attacked us. Does it sound familiar?

We need your support – not necessarily with donations, but with spreading his message, facilitating casual gatherings and cocktail parties, talking with others, cutting through the lies and misinformation in the media, and getting this man elected.

Feel free to call me to chat about making this happen.




Hi, Robert. Thanks for your note! I hope you do the courtesy of reading this entire email (and my first note as well), since I am taking the time and courtesy to respond to your email. Can you tell me why 25% of us (and increasing rapidly) are un-american and deranged? Name-calling is a cheap tactic of the Left. Don't resort to it; it's unflattering, and cheapens your argument.

So, let's explore your assertions that Ron Paul is deranged and un-American.

He's 'deranged and un-American' because he's the only one who has devoted his life and his career to defending the constitution from enemies – foreign and domestic?
He's 'deranged and un-American' because he believes that it's forbidden by the constitution for a president to unilaterally declare war, and send our boys to die, fighting against countries that haven't attacked us – and that is we, the people's right, through Congress, to declare war?
He's 'deranged and un-American' because he wants to abolish the criminal offshore banking cartel – The Federal Reserve – and return the power to coin SOUND, BACKED-CURRENCY to Congress?
He's 'deranged and un-American' because he wants to devolve the Federal Government's power and return it to the states?
He's 'deranged and un-American' because he isn't bought and paid-for by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Citigroup?
He's 'deranged and un-American' because he's the only one who is calling for TRUE cuts in spending – 1 Trillion, in the first year, and balance the budget in three years – while the rest are only talking about reducing the rate of increase?
He's 'deranged and un-American' because he's the only one who was opposed to the bank bailouts, stimulus, and TARP?
He's 'deranged and un-American' because he's the only one on stage who is opposed to the vaguely-worded National Defense Authorization Act – authorizing the President to arrest American citizens (that's you and me – not just muslims) without charges, and jail you indefinitely.

By your supporting the NDAA, you've handed every last bit of your liberties at the feet of tyranny, in exchange for false security. By virtue of this capitulation, the terrorists have won, and we have lost. Are you enjoying the TSA sticking their hands down your pants, despite the fact that the underwear bomber Abu-Mutallab was escorted on the plane by a federal official – despite not having a passport? Are you feeling secure yet?

Indeed, I agree – Ron Paul is a pain in the ass – much like Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Jay, and the rest were a pain in the ass to the British. Ron Paul is a pain in the ass to the corrupt government status quo, a pain in the ass to the corrupt military-industrial complex (that Eisenhower warned about), a pain in the ass to the unholy marriage between corrupt corporatists and power-hungry government. A pain in the ass of those globalists within and outside our borders who are working every day to undermine our sovereignty, and a pain in the ass to those who wish to use our constitution, as their toilet paper.

Ron Paul and Romney are THE ONLY TWO who poll at a tie or above Obama – NATIONWIDE. You tell me who's unelectable. Obama has abandoned white, middle-class voters, and will only seek to solidify his true base of welfare recipients and minorities. White, middle-class democratic voters are sick of Obama, and Ron Paul will experience the same cross-over democrat/independent support that Reagan experienced in 1980. If you liked Reagan and Goldwater, you should LOVE Ron Paul! Stop swallowing the Fox News propaganda.

Who are you voting for, Robert? Newt? Newt is darling of the globalists (I.e.: those who pledge NO ALLEGIANCE to the United States), one of the earliest and most vocal proponents of NAFTA (the single greatest event that killed our industrial base, and undermines our sovereignty),
Newt is a progressive, and gets his talking points (admitted by him) from New York Times and Washington Post
Newt close friends with futurist and New Ager Alvin Toffler, who says that our Constitutional republic is "obsolete," "oppressive," and "dangerous to our welfare," and that it must be "radically changed and a new system of government invented." Gingrich admires Toffler so much that in 1994 he put Toffler's The Third Wave on a list of "must reads" for Republican congressmen.
Newt has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations since 1990 - an organization, whose single goal is the creation of a one-world government.
Newt has joined with Jeb Bush in a push to provide amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants (I suspect that number is a gross underestimate).
Newt is in favor of federal funding of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Newt frequently voted for the seizure of private property by the Federal government in the name of conservation.
Newt partnered with Al Gore, to trumpet the dangers of antrhopogenic global warming, and partnered with Nancy Pelosi to push for government intervention into Energy Development to combat man-made global warming.
Newt is a 33rd degree freemason – a large, secretive, transnational organization
Newt is a proponent of the North American Union – a union inspired by the European Union that would break down the borders between the US and Mexico and Canada, abolish the US Dollar uniting the three countries under one single currency.
Newt has voted many times for bills that infringe on our Second Amendment.
Newt doesn't want to cut spending, and is against auditing the Federal Reserve (a tool of the globalists)
Newt is the only congressman in the history of congress to be expelled for ethics charges, and had to pay over $300,000 in fines for corruption.
Newt became a lobbyist, receiving millions in money from those organizations that he once fought while in office.

Mitt is a man with the albatross of socialized medicine around his neck and provided the consultants and the framework to help architect Obamacare,
Mitt was for abortion, then against abortion, then for abortion, and is now against abortion,
Mitt shows a tendency to kick the economic can down the road, doesn't want to cut spending, and is against auditing the Federal Reserve
Mitt wants to send our boys and girls to die in vain in yet another undeclared, pre-emptive war – this time in Iran – based upon the same false-flag propaganda lies that sent us to Iraq.

Santorum was one of the most corrupt members of congress in 2006.
Santorum selected child-rapist Sandusky for an Angels in Adoption award, despite the fact that Sandusky had already had five complaints of child molestation and one complaint of child rape against him.
Santorum lost his seat by a landslide and became a corrupt, high-power lobbyist, tied up in scandal after scandal with Ensign.
Santorum became a lobbyist, receiving millions in money from those organizations that he once fought while in office.
Santorum shows a tendency to kick the economic can down the road, doesn't want to cut spending, and is against auditing the Federal Reserve
Santorum endorsed liberal, pro-abortion Republican Arlen Specter, against his more conservative challenger
Santorum voted for billions in earmarks and pork, including the Bridge to Nowhere
Santorum believes that it's the Federal Government's power to reach into the privacy of your bedroom and regulate your personal activities. Consider the moral hazard of such power!!!
Santorum wants to send our boys and girls to die in vain in yet another undeclared, pre-emptive war – this time in Iran – based upon the same false-flag propaganda lies that sent us to Iraq.

You know, Robert, I used to be the biggest warmongering hawk, and one day, my eyes opened, when I realized that our government (including both parties) and our media are run by a neo-conservative cabal, and the the loudest, most forceful voices that blackmailed us into a war with Iraq are all DUAL CITIZENS: Israeli/American, including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Douglas Feith, Robert Zoellick, David Frum, Elliott Abrams, Scooter Libby, Henry Kissinger (chairman of the 911 commission!!!), Larry Franklin, David Wurmser, Eliot Cohen, etc. I then realized that we're not fighting these wars for our own national security - these countries never attacked us. Instead, we are sending our boys to die, fighting ISRAEL's existential threats. It had little to do with Oil.

Let's look at whose foreign policy is truly radical – a policy that sends our boots to 130 countries, yet doesn't defend our own borders. A policy that bombs muslim countries that haven't initiated attacks against our soil - only against our occupying forces. A policy that assassinates US citizens and their kids, without their constitutional right to due process and trial by jury (question to you: who gets to judge 'who is a terrorist'? Janet Napolitano (Homeland Security) is targeting those who want to end the Federal Reserve, have an American flag, cite the Constitution, and purchase ammunition as a 'threat'. Do you trust her?). A policy that BOMBS pakistan, and BRIBES pakistan, and bombs afghanistan and bribes afghanistan - a country that has vowed to go to war against america, if we go to war with Pakistan! A policy that casually sends our boys to die in pre-emptive undeclared, deficit–funded wars, without goals.

Or a policy that stops pre-emptive wars against nations that have never initiated hostilities against us, a policy that believes that it is not the President's authority, but rather the congress' constitutional authority to declare war, a policy that evaluates the root motivations for hatred toward america, a policy that resorts first to diplomacy and dialog, a policy that understands that every boy you send off to die is a father, a son, a brother, and a friend. Our own Eisenhower, in his farewell speech, warned us against the Military-Industrial Complex, and he was right. But we must distinguish between DEFENSE spending and MILITARY spending – two completely different things.

It was not America's fault, or the american peoples fault for the terror attacks on 911. But America's flawed foreign policy can be directly attributed for the attacks. Occupying muslim countries, having military bases in muslim holy lands, bombing muslim women and children, and derailing palestinian's every effort to get a fair shot, propping up puppet dictators which oppress their people, were all the main reasons for muslims' anger toward America, and were repeatedly attributed as the call to arms by Al Qaeda. This is called 'Blowback' and was referenced by the CIA, NSA, DOD, DIA, and the 911 commission. Don't think for a moment that we were attacked, because we are free, prosperous, and our women wear short skirts. IF that were true, then they would be sending suicide bombers to Amsterdam, Ibiza, and Rio de Janeiro.

Just place yourself on the other side of the table. Imagine if China were to occupy our land, send troops to our towns, bulldoze our homes, bomb our bridges, topple our popularly elected leaders, and prop up a new oppressive dictatorship. Don't you think you would take up arms against your occupier?

We have 900 bases in 130 countries, borrowing money from china to defend Japan, Germany, South Korea, due to 50 and 60-year old treaties? These countries are wealthy enough to defend themselves! South Korea's economy is seven times larger than North Korea's!

Let's talk about Israel. Ron Paul was the only voice in Congress that voted AGAINST condemning Israel for bombing reactors in Iraq in the nineties, because he didn't want the US meddling in Israeli affairs, and acting as master of Israel. Israel - for the billions in aid that we give to Israel, we give SEVEN TIMES that amount to Israel's declared enemies! Propping up their oppressive dictators, meddling in their affairs, and crushing and
radicalizing their people. And yet now our puppet dictators have been overthrown by their people, and the governments in their place are even MORE unfriendly to Israel!

You can't brand Ron Paul an Isolationist, if you were to read the historical definition of the word. Isolationists shut the borders, eliminate international trade, impose sanctions (which are an act of war), and don't engage in diplomacy. There's a huge difference between isolationism, and non-interventionism. Ron Paul understand's America's special place in the world, and believes that we can engage the world through dialogue, trade, mutually-beneficial relations, and diplomacy.

'But America is Exceptional!" you may say. Indeed, there is such thing as American exceptionalism - but we became exceptional – not through bombs, guns, or blood, but rather we are exceptional because we are the only nation on earth that was not founded on common ethnic/religious/language background, not on conquest, but rather on the principle of the rule of law – not rule of the majority – and that the individual is the smallest and most sacred minority and that in America, one could carve out his own destiny, and not be shackled by castes, social pressures, or oppressive governments. Now, where in this 'exceptionalism' does it have anything to do with military might, intimidation, or saber rattling? With that said, there's no constructive reason why we should ram our exceptionalism down the throats of other countries.

Instead, we could make friends and partners with countries around the world, by exporting dialogue, diplomacy, commerce, liberty, and good will. We lead the world by example. If we export force, blood, violence, and despair, don't be surprised if the world becomes a more violent place. If we export peace and prosperity, the world will become a more prosperous, peaceful place. Prosperity breeds peace.

Majority of americans agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy of closing all these bases, and bringing our boys home. The majority of Americans. Because once the dollar collapses, and other nations refuse to lend us debt denominated in dollars, the decision will be made FOR US.

Did you know that Ron Paul receives more campaign donations from active duty and retired military than all the other candidates combined! Of active duty, he received 70% of their campaign donations! 70%! It's because Ron Paul – like the solders – took an oath to preserve and defend the constitution from enemies – both foreign and domestic – and they have seen throughout the thirty years of his words and his deeds that he has taken that oath dead-seriously.

That we need to bomb Iran is unmitigated saber-rattling propaganda. Need to step back, and look at the entire situation:

Ottoman empire – Iran was always fending off incursions by ottoman troops, who were attempting to annex Iran (then, called Persia) into the Ottoman empire.
Great Game of the 1800's – England, France, and Russia were carving up Asia into their own pieces of the empire, and Iran (then called Persia) was constantly fending off incursions and attempts by Russia and England to destabilize their government.
1953 - We toppled their democratically elected government, to protect our oil interests, and instated our puppet shah, who was more bloodthirsty than the current islamic regime (absolute fact).
1979 – Islamic revolution takes over Iran, and they take US hostages and hold them for 444 days. If they were suicidal they would have murdered the hostages. Instead we had dialog with them, they negotiated with us, and they released the hostages (who, by the way, were CIA operatives posing as diplomats). If they have CIA operatives in their custody, and they DON'T murder them, then they're more merciful than I would have been.
1981 – Iran and Iraq go to war (Iraq invades Iran (Iran has NEVER invaded another nation, since the days of Persepolis, ~3,000 years ago)). The Enemy of my enemy is my friend, so we help put Saddam Hussein into power through a military coup, then ship him money, guns, tanks, weapons, and even CHEMICAL WEAPONS. Saddam Hussein is terrified of the larger country, and launches chemical weapons on Iran, killing 50,000 iranians (men, women, children). Because Iraq was our 'ally', you didn't hear an outrage about the use of WMD.
1968 – Israel develops a nuclear weapon, and now quietly boasts an arsenal of 400 nuclear weapons with intercontinental capability.
1979 – present – US military and CIA assets conduct covert operations to disrupt and destabilize the islamic regime.
1988 – US gunboats destroy two Iranian military vessels, while in Iranian waters, and US also destroys two iranian drilling platforms.
1988 – Iran Air 655 – US guided missile cruiser shoots down Iranian passenger jet en route to Dubai, killing almost 300 passengers on board – while in Iranian airspace, despite the fact that they were compliant with all air traffic regulations, and being on the correct radio frequency. Iran, an islamic regime, if suicidal, would have attacked US ships that were in Iranian waters. Instead, they negotiated with the US for a settlement. In light of this, the US – at the orders of VP George HW Bush, refused to apologize, saying something like, "I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don't care what the facts are."
2011 – an iranian used car salesman (US resident) is caught conspiring with mexican drug cartels to arrange an assassination of a Saudi diplomat. The US tries to pin the incident on Iran, was was complete horseshit, and if we peel back the onion, we'll probably find that he was a US operative.
1979 – present – US imposes crushing economic sanctions that only affect the citizens, not the government, and only serves to solidify the peoples' reluctant support of the islamic regime.
Iran is surrounded by nuclear weapons - Israel, US, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea. Even Ehud Barak – Defense Minister of israel said, "if I were Iran, I would seek nuclear weapons."

Iran has known outside aggressors since the beginning of time, and it's still happening right now. If you want the Islamic regime to crumble, you don't bomb it (which galvanizes the reluctant populace to support their islamic regime). Instead, you export prosperity, liberty, dialog, and the people will see the example that we are, of peace, prosperity, and liberty, and they will demand the same.

To think that we need to bomb Iran because they seek nuclear weapons goes against everything we have done in the past. We watched North Korea develop a bomb, and we didn't invade them! And Kim Jong-il is as crazy as they get! We had dialog with them. We didn't bomb China when they were developing a nuclear weapon, yet that regime has overseen the deaths of 30 million people. We had dialog with them. We didn't attack russia when they were developing a nuclear weapon, yet the communist regime killed 25 million people, and Nikita Krushchev vowed to bury us. We had dialog with them. We didn't attack Pakistan or India when they were developing a nuclear weapon, even though they oversaw millions of deaths during the partition of 1947, and Zia ul-Haq was islamizing Pakistan into a wahhabi state. We had dialog with them.

Does this not sound like a bad dream that we are re-living – and tell me if I'm off-base:

2011: We have a neoconservative cabal that runs both parties, that is rattling sabers, spoiling for war, feeding us war propaganda about nuclear weapons, so that we can bomb and invade a muslim country (Iran, which, conveniently, is despised by Israel) that has never initiated acts of aggression against us on our soil – only against our troops, who are occupying muslim lands – without the constitutional declaration of war by congress.
2002: We have a neoconservative cabal that runs both parties, that is rattling sabers, spoiling for war, feeding us war propaganda about nuclear weapons, so that we can bomb and invade a muslim country (Iraq, which, conveniently, is despised by Israel) that has never initiated acts of aggression against us on our soil – only against our troops, who are occupying muslim lands – without the constitutional declaration of war by congress.
Why don't people see this for what it is?

According to CIA reports, and the IAEA, Iran is no closer to having a nuclear weapon than they were when the IAEA wore their LAST report. All it said was that it was reaffirming its concerns that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. Also, look at what happened to Ghaddafi. We convince him to stop pursuing a nuclear program, he stops pursuing a nuclear program, then we assassinate him and topple his government. Doesn't that send a message to Iran? They want weapons – not because they want to destroy us, but because they're tired of being bullied. Once N.Korea got a nuclear weapon, we stopped bullying them, and they were on a somewhat equal negotiating footing with us. That is just absolute fact. I got sucked into the Iraq war propaganda. Nuclear weapons, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, etc. There were no nuclear weapons, and there wasn't al-Qaida there, until we occupied Iraq, and began killing a million iraqis. Tired of our foreign policy yet?


This is unadulterated bull shit. The services donated nothing to any candidate


Sorry for the tardy response - your email was routed to my spam folder. The Truth-Detector must have been tripped…
?? Really? "Active duty servicemen didn't donate to any candidate?" Is that because you believe it is so? Come on, Robert. That email took me three hours to write - I was hoping for a more full-bodied discussion from you. Didn't they teach you the socratic method in school? Argue the facts. This is a debate. Not a shouting match. Making blanket-dismissive statements, like 'bullshit' doesn't further your argument at all. Debate the facts. We are getting our campaign donation information from the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC). Where are you getting yours? Church? Active-duty and retired servicemen overwhelmingly support Dr. Paul, because he's the only one who has demonstrated - over thirty years - that he takes his oath of office seriously, and that he - like the servicemen - raise their right hand to defend the Constitution from enemies - FOREIGN and DOMESTIC. And that he disagrees with the notion that our men in uniform are disposable, sent casually to far-off lands to fight undeclared, unfunded, unconstitutional, unwinnable wars. You guys must really be backed into a corner to feel like you have to support a flip-flopping socialized healthcare-architecting, pro-anti-pro-anti-abortion, 2nd-amendment-infringing, war–happy chameleon, or hypocritical politico-turned-millionare-lobbyist pro-anti-pro-anti-abortion bedroom-invading 2nd-amendment-infringers, or a global warming supporting used car salesman. Why not vote for the one who has – since the beginning of his political career – been the most ardent defender of the constitution, who believes that job–one is defending America (not Japan, Germany, S. Korea, or Israel), and cannot be bought, cannot be corrupted, and is the TRUE CONSERVATIVE on stage: RON PAUL. The Mainstream Media (that includes Fox, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, Bloomberg, CNN, etc.) have been caught red-handed, too many times, tampering with our electoral process. How else was McCain chosen as 2008 front-runner? How else was Obama chosen over Clinton? Question EVERYTHING you are told!! What do YOU think we should do with the Federal Reserve (a private, criminal offshore banking cartel)? What do YOU think we should do about having our troops in 900 bases in over 130 countries worldwide? What do YOU think we should do about the fact that for every one dollar we send in aid to Israel, we send SEVEN TIMES that much, to Israel's avowed enemies? You and my father are lucky because you're going to die soon. I'm going to have to live through this mess, and clean up your generation's false, credit-based 'prosperity' horseshit.


I'm a retired senior military officer whose Son is very well plumbed in the intelligence community and also a military officer. We are well trained to investigate sources and obviously you are not! Like those of your generation who have not lived much life or know much history, the good domestic ideas of Ron Paul are shadowed by his frightening foreign policies.

If RP was a true Constitutionalist, subsequent to Obama making recess appointments when the Senate was legally "IN SESSION" , he would have taken decisive action. The action taken by the president was an ABSOLUTE VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW and, as a seated Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Paul could have personally initiated action to have filed ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT against the president. During an election year, Obama would experience "anal isometrics" (butt puckering all the way around) and a Republicans chance of taking Barry out would have dramatically increased.

Ron Paul has done little of significance in a quarter of a century in congress, this would be his chance to be of service to our country. In my less than humble opinion, Ron Paul is a self-serving threat to the security of our country.

Finally, I choose not to engage in further "debate" with anyone who is so intellectually inferior, so please save yourself embarrassment by taking me on. I am a confirmed conservative, and would be ashamed of backing either lunatic from the Lone Star State (that also includes Perry).



You don't need to resort to name calling. We're both adults here. Have you checked the Federal Election Commission source yet? I provided a link.

I know history quite well, Robert. The main thing that we learn from history, is that we clearly don't learn from history. Here's some history: how is that Afghanistan - nicknamed 'the graveyard of empires' couldn't be conquered by nations that had a thousand miles of common borders with Afghanistan, and yet we can assume we can? You, as your son, would be quiet plumbed into the term 'Blowback' – as defined by the CIA to be: "the unintended consequence of foreign operations that were deliberately kept secret from the American public." - a term that was first used by the CIA, as the consequences of our overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran (Blowback of which being the 1979 revolution and holding our hostages for 444 days). How is that 'exporting democracy' working out for us? Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, acknowledged that the 911 attacks were partially attributed to 'blowback' from stationing our troops on muslim holy lands in Saudi Arabia, our killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Since your son is involved in the intelligence community, then he may have heard that CIA chief of the Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer, attributed the 911 attacks to 'Blowback' - of bombing muslim countries that haven't attacked our soil (only attacked our occupying forces, if at all), our imbalanced Israeli policy, and our invasion of Iraq. This same Michael Scheuer has publicly endorsed Ron Paul. If you're happy to continue parroting the Fox News talking point that we were attacked because we are free, prosperous, and our women wear short skirts, then you're ignoring the true facts at your (and our) own peril. Let's talk about who's foreign policy is dangerous. Kick a hornet's nest, and expect to get stung. Instead, consider a policy of containment – it worked against the Soviet Union – a bigger, more powerful, better-funded foe with thousands of nuclear weapons and a leadership that had killed tens of millions of its own citizens. It's worked with North Korea – with whom we've had a hot war, and the autocratic leaders have been near-certifiably insane… Why shouldn't it work with a smaller country that doesn't even refine its own oil, and our own SecDef admitted that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, the only 'weapons of mass destruction' that were in Iraq, were the ones your government sold to them. Oldest trick in the book: Create the problem, then offer the solution.

Are you getting tired yet, of fighting Israel's wars against their 'existential threats' - with our boys' blood and our treasure? Trust me, Ron Paul will be proven right - either now, or down the road, because if we continue our adventurism of unwinnable, undeclared wars, coupled with the collapse of our dollar and the crushing debt, that decision will be made for us. It's best to make that decision now, with our heads held high, rather than later, with our tail between our legs.

You're a 'confirmed conservative'? I am as well – question is: which kind? I'm a Goldwater/Reagan/Taft conservative. Which conservative are you? Bush Jr?

It's funny that you bristle at Obama's recess appointments, and yet you guys are appallingly silent on the drafting and signing of the vageuly-worded NDAA (which allows arrest without charges, and indefinite detention of US citizens) - AN ABSOLUTE VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Don't expect articles of impeachment to go very far, since 93% of Senate agreed with Obama on the NDAA. And an impeachment during an election season would only galvanize Obama's base of welfare recipients and minorities. Our best bet is to keep them complacent at home.

You claim that Dr. Paul has achieved nothing while in office. Among a congressman's list of duties, only one of them is writing new laws - something that I believe we already have more than enough of. The bigger duty is to protect and defend the constitution, and nobody on the hill can take more credit. Furthermore, he facilitated the first audit of the Federal Reserve in the private entity's 99 year history – which revealed that FOURTEEN TRILLION of your dollars was printed and handed over to private banks, and foreign governments and foreign banks. Hear that sucking sound? That's our middle class disappearing.

Above all else, though, one thing we should all find common ground on – regardless of our political affiliation, and 'litmus-test' issues – is the historical and mathematical INEVITABILITY of two things:

1) our US Dollar will collapse. China and Japan are already abandoning the US Dollar as the currency-of-reserve for trade between the two countries. Plus, China, Russia, Japan, Europe, and the Gulf Arab States are already architecting a plan to abandon the US Dollar as the currency-of-reserve for all global trade, instead resorting to a basket of currencies. Once that happens, demand for our dollar will plummet, and our buying power will plummet. The day we have to buy oil via a currency other than the US Dollar, EVERYTHING will change.

2) our debt will crush us. Once we get to the point that we can't even pay the interest on our debt, and our creditors get tired of watching us monetize our debt (quantitative easing a-la Weimar Republic), they will either: a) stop lending to us, or b) lend to us in their currency (or other currency), then EVERYTHING will change.

Once one of the two abovementioned items happen, then all those issues that may divide us all – be they abortion, foreign policy, taxes, welfare (corporate or individual or agricultural), gay marriage, whatever – those issues will become MOOT, because when our dollar collapses, our constitutional republic collapses. And whatever springs up in its' place will be a government that represents NONE of us, and will likely be martial and oligarchical.

Let's keep our eye on the ball. These two issues are the elephants in the room that everyone is apparently too afraid – or too intellectually dishonest – to talk about.