« Weird Obama fundraising tactics | Main | Obama: 13 innocents executed on death row »

October 02, 2007


He's an MD. They have notoriously bad handwriting.

Hey Mr. Reasonable,

Ron Paul is "nutty" because he hand-wrote a letter to supporters, he wants out of the UN, and he opposes the NAU?

If that's "nutty," sign my ass up!

Ditto FZappa.

Wow, "Mr. Reasonable" lovely snark on the handwriting analysis. Is this the sort of thing they teach at Duke these days or did you come up with this on your own? What's next numerology?

We'll see how "nutty" he is when he starts winning many of the primaries.

I'm sure it'll be attributed to a few zealous nuts "spamming" the polls.

Cascadian -- I like how he randomly inserted a Unabomber reference to back up the claim of "nuttiness"...writing on a legal pad = Unabomber! Makes sense to me.

Geez, Ron Paul. i mean, come on, it is breath of fresh air to have a guy, discussing economic issues openly and in a way that doesn't insult the intelligence of his audience even if he is a bit on the "heterodox" end. Has any other politican talked about corn subsidies and ethanol possibly being a bad thing? Maybe there is a problem with the Fed, especially since most people don't even know what it is? At least someone is vocal and raising an opposition that is almost palatable to the mainstream about "the Washington consensus." Maybe these things actually need a public discourse, not just academic and deal-room discussions on one side and milita-group seperatism on the other.

But the nutjob legal pad routine about the UN? Come on Ron, drop the authoritarian anti-abortion pro-gun pro-weed anti-immigrant routine and just stick to monetary politics. (P.S., the black helicopters are black b/c they've got infrared scanning rigs on them to locate grow ops, not because they're part of the One World Gov't)

Some Guy,

Google is your friend. UN gun control mandates are par for the course:


As an aside: one of the oddest features of what currently passes for the American intellectual landscape is that otherwise smart people like Brendan and Some Guy think they can end an argument, immediately and in their favor, simply by labeling the other side "nutty" or referring to "black helicopters."

PS --

Some Guy:

Ron Paul is most certainly not "anti-immigrant." He's anti-illegal immigration, against birthright citizenship for children of illegals, and against providing financial incentives for people to enter the country illegally. In this he is in synch with the vast majority of the American population.

But wait, there's more: Dr. Paul is on record (e.g., his talk at Google HQ in July, it's on YouTube) as saying that under a Paul Administration, we would have an extremely healthy economy where immigration would increase and no one would care because we'd need the workers.

So I'd suggest you take the time to understand Dr. Paul's position before tossing around a phrase like "anti-immigrant." It's completely inaccurate, and he has strong support from immigrants to this country, as a quick youtubing of his meetup groups will show you.

No one here has stated their opinion ends an argument; I would say for some commenters, arguments never end.

Anybody swayed by a facsimile of handwriting as some kind of "personal touch" must be drowning in credit cards because they were suckered in by the personal letters from bank presidents. As for Paul's letter, the reason people are calling it nutty is because it is. The rumor that the UN could take our guns away is being spread by the very people who would fight to the death to prevent that from happening. The irony is hilarious.


I linked above to a story about the UN's widespread gun control mandates. You don't reference that piece or any of the other easily Google-able material online about it, you just label it "nutty" and think you've won the argument.

Which supports the point of my post at 5:12 yesterday.

Actually, I'm not trying to end a debate with the "black helicopters", i'm just showing my age by trying to evoke a past milleau. Let it not go unsaid that harbor a lot of sympathy for your garden-variety conspiracy theorist, most of those guys are probably barking up the right tree just from the wrong side, to quote another dated source: "Maybe we wouldn't be so FUCKING PARANOID if you hadn't FUCKING LIED so many times". But Ron Paul's pandering to 90's Syndrome political anomie among the lower-middle class with the whole UN schtick stands in striking contrast to the relative insight he brings to banking. That and you can't be a populist libertarian and oppose the free movement of labor capitol while advocating increasing liberalization elsewhere, it's just not consistent, especially when labor is the only capitol most people can access.

I'm not even going to touch the gun control thing, aside to say that I personally am comfortable around weapons, i just wish the whole debate would go away

Then again, what with the return of Hilary Care, OJ Simpson in the news again, Newt Gingrich briefly considering a presidential bid, and the US in Iraq again, well, history repeats, first as tragedy then as farce

Brendan, I advise you to NOT post info on Ron Paul because all you get are a jillion (mostly unhelpful) comments from his internet-scouring [sic?] supporters.


The validity of the fear of Ron Paul's message turning real is the only thing that counts. Fearmongering over the New World Order has been going on among right wing extremists for decades. It's a favorite call-to-arms for white supremacists. Has it hit the mainstream now? Once Somalia falls...

You continually accuse people here of believing they have won arguments. I don't know where you get that from, but it's no rebuttal to someone simply expressing their opinion.


"That and you can't be a populist libertarian and oppose the free movement of labor capitol while advocating increasing liberalization elsewhere"

I think you are not understanding Paul's position on immigration. He is against illegal immigration and the current reading of the 14th Amendment that grants children of illegal immigrants born on US soil US citizenship. That is eminently sane.

BUT, he also favors high levels of immigration done legally, in fact very high levels. As he has said repeatedly in the debates, the current "system" we have only makes scapegoats out of needed workers.

His writting looks ok to me. Do you have the original? Can I buy it? I love to have a hand written note from Ron Pauls desk!!!!

Go here http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/ to see more on Ron Pauls writtings. Ron Paul is the guy that knows the issues and has solutions. Read his writtings.

"Unabomber effect"

Oh please, give us a break.

What people will say to get there column read on the net.

Now Kevin Drum has picked up the "Unabomber" theme -- because Ron Paul handwrote a note to supporters on a legal pad and Brendan Nyhan, whoever that is, decided that struck him as having a "Unabomber Effect."

I won't miss the MSM when it's gone. Not long now!

Guess what, I see these thing happening all the time, slowly but surely so I'll trust the judgement of someone who has not waivered for 30 years. You can trust the flip floppers, proven liars and charlatans, OK? Vote for Ghouls, John "amnesty" McCain, Mitt "flipper" Romney or that guy Nixon called "dumb as hell" Thompson. Put Thompson on latenight and Lunesta goes out of business.

I am so sick of this pathetic display of mainstream media. A horrid display of adults acting like children name calling instead of Fair reporting of facts. Wake up America. What Ron Says is true and these pukes are getting paid to turn him into a "nut". Media wake up and realize your selling your own self down the river along with your country reporting they way you are. Our lives have value. We deserve the truth.

Unfortunately for the Ron Paul nuts who like to cite the U.N. Protocol against illicit arms trafficking as proof that the UN wants to take away Americans' guns, the facts are against them. The actual text of the protocol has a provision that says it doesn't override the legality of arms traffic within a country.

I also like this observation about the "North American Union": "If they are successful, as they were with the European Union, the good ol' USA will be only a memory." Yes, the USA would fade into the pages of history, just like France, Germany, Italy, and the rest.

Sorry, that was meant to read:

"Yes, the USA would fade into the pages of history, just like France, Germany, Italy, and the rest have all already done."

And it was meant to be sarcastic.

The reader should also google the phrase in the first sentence of the second paragraph. There's a lot of information out there.

For the righties, here's just one of many:


And, for the lefties, start here:


After doing your research, do you trust Brendan Nyhan more than you did before, or less?

I don't even like Ron Paul, I wish you would have made an argument against him but you did not, this blog entry is childish, shallow and rather stupid.
Please stop waisting everyones time.
I would also recommend that you spend more time on your studies.

I can see why people might think it's nutty, because a lot of what is actually being proposed (The NAU, Global Taxes and gun bans by the UN, as well as increasing UN attempts at rejecting national sovereignty--not just ours, but everyone's) is not widely covered by the media, perhaps because it sounds like the conspiracy theories of ten or twenty years ago. Are you having a similar knee-jerk reaction, or have you researched beyond the numerous admittedly unabomber-esque factions out there who are victims of telephone-game style parroting, to see that these things are actually on the table, and certainly no more dismissible than any of the terror scare nonsense that we're hearing from the other side?

Ron Paul makes a lot of sense. Elitists want to take control of everything they can get. Since the United States has a lot, elitists want it. Now, the US and its constitution make it difficult for elitists to do this domestically. But, if they force the US into major organizations that have sovereignty, ala the UN and World Trade Organization, all the elitists have to do is control those organizations, and thus control the United States.

The European Union was okay because that was Europe and they can secede from it and no one will send an army to stop them. But the North American Union that George W. Bush, Carlos Slim, Wal-Mart, and most major established corporations would like is designed to put the United States of America in equilibrium with Mexico and Canada. They want the US to amalgamate with the cultural degeneracy and overpopulation of Mexico since their nationalist milagro ended, and the government interference of Canada. They also want to give Totalitarians, Communists, and Fascists like Wu Yi and Hu Jintao more power over the US.

That is all that I am going to say right now. Big government is only good when it uses its power to provide freedom. Ron Paul will abolish government that diminishes freedom.

How about doing a little research next time?


And hey, I guess Huckabee is also "nutty" for saying the exact samething Ron Paul is about guns and the UN:


As for the North American Union this is something that even Lou Dobbs on CNN discusses, does stories on and recognizes is very real:


Well, look at that, 14 states considering legislation opposing a North American Union which you seem consider not real. I guess they're all "nutty" too.



There's plenty more where those came from.

Again, next time, do your research. It's not going to kill you to do a simple Google search.

It doesn't matter what you say. He's much better than the Statist Quo and slimeballs like Julie Annie and Willard (his real name, the rat)Romney that you seem to like so much. He has my vote and 200 dollars of my money (so far). Besides, my uncle had a heart attack and died while arguing with an IRS agent. I'm voting to put that guy out of a job.

Ha! I was going to write "Mr. Reasonable" (*gag*) to correct him on his "Nutty" blog entry, but I see that several dozen others beat me to the punch! Good for you all!

Only Ron Paul has proven that he will truly honor his oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Only Ron Paul deserves your vote in the upcoming election. The others may just now have started "talking the talk" - but Ron Paul has 30 years of proving that he also "walks the walk!"

Well, you know, I don't think you can call any of this nuttier than the beliefs of movement conservatives like Brownback regarding the Rapture, and justifications for support of Israel. In fact, I think it would be fascinating to subject candidates to the scrutiny that Kennedy was subjected http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2007/10/ron-paul-still-.html
Brendan Nyhan: Ron Paul: Still nuttyto. The religious beliefs of all the others, except maybe Giuliani, have foreign policy implications.

Atrios points to this link:


that quotes Kennedy:

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote, where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source, where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

At the time, of course, Kennedy was under right wing attack for his papist background. It would be interesting to ask the Republican candidates to comment on this statement.

Jeez, I thought the critics were being hard on Ron Paul, until you meet his supporters.

No wonder the Republican Party is the the party of Big Right-Wing Governmemnt. All their talk of anti-state is cover for their desire for right-wing statism.

I posted on this on Sept. 20 http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/09/ron-pauls-fear-mongering-candidacy.html

Absolutely astounding that he's still allowed in the debates. Is "Idiocracy" coming true?

Don't be to hard on ole Brendan here. I think he's a double agent, spouting out bad ideas to give us that support Ron Paul a chance to get our opinions out. Good work, Mr. Reasonable.

Well, it looks like real handwriting instead of those faux script fonts, but it's difficult to be personal when your handwriting is then photo-reproduced tens or hundreds of thousands of times to send out to potential contributors. It's like those little "handwritten" notes printed in blue ink to make it look like the mass-mailing beggar took a moment to write a special personal note just for you! Religious organizations use that gimmick all the time, and who's to say that Paul's campaign is not a religious crusade?

Thanks for the post, Brenden. Not only does it share some peculiar aspects of Paul's outreach effort, it flushes out his most devoted lunatic fringe of gay-sex and masturbation-obsessed fans. One wonders how they found time to type a response.

Come on guys .. he certainly isn't much more then a "reporter wannabe" but without the research or the slightest vacking of truth (not that that means much these days) but he makes the guy with the "seeks unabomber vote" article seem like a distant memory. The guy's dumb like a fox. He got all of us here to get traffic for his "blog". that we thought might be worth reading. Dam*, foilled again!

Hellooooo!!!! They won't close the border in the middle of a war on terror and YOU DON'T THINK THEY WANT A NORTH AMERICAN UNION???? YOU ARE THE NUTTY ONE!

The biggest continental threat we have in this country is our open border yet we spend 12 billion in Iraq a month! Check out the publications from the CFR. They want a North American Union. It's true. WAKE UP!

No, the UN does NOT have an agenda to prohibit private ownership of small arms. And I have a bridge to sell you.

Global Gun Grab
By Thomas R. Eddlem
Published: 1999-11-22 06:00 Gun Control | United Nations | Email this page | printer friendly version

The United Nations is very troubled that the United States has retained its Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Radical new UN proposals treat free people with the means to effect their own self-defense as a vital threat to the United Nations and its quest for what it calls the "peace-building process."

More troubling still is the fact that for the first time this radical UN agenda represents a clear and present danger to our right to keep and bear arms. This is in part because the Clinton State Department is collaborating with the UN and its proposals. But another, perhaps more dangerous, prong of the UN attack on the right to keep and bear arms comes from an insidious quasi-private institution heavily funded by socialist Northern European governments. This little-known, UN-backed organization charges itself with developing "message strategies" and "campaigning and advocacy strategies" to obtain a UN-managed global ban on the private ownership of firearms.

Anti-Gun Agenda
The United Nations "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms" issued on August 19th bitterly complains that "there are wide differences among States [nations] as regards which types of arms are permitted for civilian possession, and as regards the circumstances under which they can legitimately be owned, carried and used. Such wide variation in national laws raise difficulties for effective regional or international coordination." That the UN "experts" are complaining mainly about the United States is made clear from the concluding recommendations in the report. Among the "coordination" proposals adopted by the panel — enthusiastically seconded by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his foreword to the report — are the following:

"All States should ensure that they have in place adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the legal possession of small arms and light weapons and over their transfer...."
"States are encouraged to integrate measures to control ammunition...."
"States should work toward ... the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons...."
The UN report defines small arms to include just about every category of firearms that exists: "The category of small arms includes revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns." The United Nations call for banning even hunting rifles and antique revolvers from civilian possession demonstrates the radical and groundbreaking nature of the report.

Though the current United Nations attack on the Second Amendment fails to take aim at civilian possession of shotguns, shotgun owners should find no security in the current UN focus. The UN report in no way limits global firearms restrictions to "military"-related firearms such as "revolvers" and "rifles." The UN "experts" explain that the United Nations must deal with firearms on social as well as military criteria: "Virtually every part of the United Nations system is dealing in one way or another with the consequences of the armed conflicts, insecurity, violence, crime, social disruption, displaced peoples and human suffering that are directly or indirectly associated with the wide availability and the use of these weapons."

To implement their gun control measures, UN officials plan to ignore the reservation of national sovereignty guaranteed in the UN Charter the same way that the U.S. Congress often ignores the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The UN Charter bans UN intervention in "matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state," but the UN is no longer concerned with legal niceties. Annan explained in his September 22nd address before the UN General Assembly that "state sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined.... A new, broader definition of national interest is needed in the new century [where] the collective interest is the national interest." In Annan's view, the "collective interest" mandates that Americans and other peoples of the world should not own firearms and that the UN should be the key organ charged with collecting them. Annan emphasized in a September 24th speech that "controlling the easy availability of small arms is a prerequisite for a successful peace-building process," which is why the "United Nations has played a leading role in putting the issue of small arms firmly on the international agenda."

UN control over a global movement to ban private firearms ownership has already begun. According to a September 23rd UN press release, the United Nations convened a two-day workshop to set up a test arms register and "database" maintained by the UN for the entire continent of Africa. There have already been calls to make this regional database binding on all nations.

Clinton Administration Assent
More troubling than the fact that a corrupt United Nations is seeking to attack the U.S. Bill of Rights and confiscate firearms legally owned by American citizens is the fact that the Clinton administration has been actively conspiring with the United Nations to accomplish this subversive goal. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan emphasizes in his foreword to the "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms" that it was "prepared, and adopted by consensus" and was the product of "unanimity" among the "expert" members of the group. Based upon Annan's statement, we can presume that none of the "experts" object to such a naked attack on the right to bear arms. Yet among the "experts" who drafted the report was U.S. State Department Senior Foreign Affairs Specialist Herbert L. Calhoun.

State Department assistance to the UN global gun grab agenda dates back to at least 1994, when the Washington Times reported in its May 24th edition that "the Clinton administration has agreed to participate in a discussion of ways for the United Nations to control the manufacture of guns and their sales to civilians.... The UN working paper declares that governments individually are 'impotent' to deal with global arms trafficking and proposes 'harmonization' of gun control standards around the world to make trafficking easier to spot and prevent." The Times report noted that "any 'harmonization' would inevitably mean tightening controls on the loosely regulated U.S. gun business."

State Department officials have expressed general sympathies with the current UN proposals without mentioning the specific attack on citizen firearms ownership. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the first-ever UN Security Council Small Arms Ministerial on September 24th that "the United States strongly supports these steps," that we "welcome the important precedent which the UN has set," and that the U.S. would work to "commit to finishing negotiations on a firearms protocol to the UN Transnational Organized Crime Convention by the end of 2000."

"The United Nations' call for gun control is an affront to our way of life and our constitutional government," Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) told THE NEW AMERICAN. "Mixing gun control with internationalism is certain to result in an assault on American rights and liberties." Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) pointed out to THE NEW AMERICAN that the UN's escalating gun confiscation campaign "fits the pattern of a UN that's become a refuge and a foundation for promoting socialism and undermining national sovereignty and individual freedom." The eager involvement of the Clinton/Albright State Department in that campaign illustrates anew the administration's contempt for the Constitution, the rule of law, and our national independence.

NGO Advocacy
Conspiring officials within the Clinton administration do not constitute the only prong of the UN assault on the right to keep and bear arms. The UN has established within its Department for Disarmament Affairs a department of Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA). According to an August 14th UN press release, CASA would be charged with coordinating all UN small arms control efforts, including a responsibility "to encourage civil society involvement in building societal resistance to violence." The reference to "civil society" suggests that the UN is trying to mobilize private sector Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and citizen pressure on behalf of its agenda.

The attempt to generate pressure from below as well as from above has already obtained results. In November 1998 the UNESCO Courier suggested that "the political tides may be changing. An international campaign is now underway with non-governmental organizations of all stripes and colours — disarmament and gun control groups along with development and human rights associations in the North and South — building common ground with the active support of governments like Mali, Canada, Norway and Japan."

This year the international campaign sought by the UNESCO Courier acquired an organizational face, although there is very little "non-governmental" about it. Annan specifically cited this new organization, as well as the UN-generated "momentum" justifying this impending power grab, in his September 24th address on small arms: "The momentum for combating small arms proliferation has also come from civil society, which has been increasingly active on this issue. The establishment early this year of the International Action Network on Small Arms [IANSA] has helped to sharpen public focus on small arms, which has helped us gain the public support necessary for success." IANSA is intended to "provide a transnational framework" for the mobilization of a broad citizen movement in favor of gun control, according to the organizational goals posted on its website. The services IANSA intends to provide the UN-led global gun control movement include "campaigning and advocacy strategies," "developing culturally appropriate 'message' strategies," "information sharing" among NGOs, and "constituency building."

Funding for this incipient propaganda campaign comes from the public trough of the taxpayers of the European socialist nations. IANSA notes on its website that its eight most significant financial donors include five government agencies: The Belgian Ministry for Development Cooperation; the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the United Kingdom Department for International Development; and the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (The remaining three are small, pacifist, U.S.-based tax-exempt foundations.)

Clinton's "Buy-back" Initiative
On September 9th, Bill Clinton unveiled a proposal that represents yet another prong of the UN-directed global gun grab: A $15 million federal gun "buy-back" initiative to be implemented by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Through subsidies from HUD, local police departments will be awarded up to $500,000 to collect and destroy an estimated 300,000 firearms. The UN Centre for Disarmament Affairs (UNCDA) refers to such "buy-backs" as a "practical method of micro-disarmament," which has been field-tested by municipal governments in the U.S. — and by UN "peacekeeping" forces in Haiti, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and other countries. A 1995 UNCDA paper by Dr. Edward J. Laurance, a consultant to the UN Register of Conventional Arms since 1992, notes that the UNCDA has studied both "buy-back programs as practiced in many American cities" and those "conducted by the U.S. Army in Haiti" — the latter being part of a "peacekeeping" mission carried out on orders from the UN Security Council.

According to Dr. Laurance, government "buy-backs" of small arms "must be conducted in parallel with other efforts," such as "seizure programs." He also points out that "buy-backs" have a propaganda benefit, in that they focus "attention on the link between weapons availability and crime" — thereby preparing the public for more aggressive civilian disarmament measures. To illustrate a UN-supervised civilian "micro-disarmament" program that worked, he refers to El Salvador's "new laws outlawing possession of military weapons and requiring all citizens to register hand guns and personal weapons. A new police force was created [and] trained under UN supervision ... [which] received specialized training in searching for, confiscating and destroying ... military-style weapons...."

Sami Faltas of the Bonn International Centre for Conversion, an international "think tank" that has advised UN officials on civilian disarmament programs around the world (and for which Dr. Laurance serves as a consultant), has laid out the program with stunning candor:

A subtle mix of rewards and penalties is needed for a weapons [confiscation] program to succeed. Ultimately, the ownership of arms should not be left to the personal choice of individuals. The state needs to preserve its monopoly of the legitimate use of force. So sanctions against the illegal possession and use of arms are necessary and should be imposed. However, during a weapons collection program, an amnesty is needed, and the emphasis should be on voluntary compliance and positive incentives.

The equation is quite easy to understand: Gun "buy-backs" prepare the public for uniform gun registration, which leads to universal gun confiscation and a state monopoly on lethal force. This was the process that led to mass murder of subject populations in Soviet Russia, National Socialist Germany, Communist China, and other despotisms. With the covert aid of the Clinton administration, the UN is now implementing this process on a global basis.

Brendan Nyhan teaches political science at the university level? No wonder our children are so ill-educated and uninterested in the democratic process. He writes like a high school freshman. I wonder who paid him to do this hit piece.

Its obviously apparent Brendan wrote off the cuff without any validity or research on the topics that Mr. Paul addressed in his hand written notes.

“If one can predict one can control” it’s so simple its stupid, but the vast amount of Americans are simply stupid.

Google Rudy comments regarding his position on the 2nd Amendment and gun control then read the comments below from the UN.

The UN is trying to “outlaw” world-wide citizen small arms ownership; all you have to do is look again its all public record.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said “A program of small arms action is a beginning, not an end in itself. Implementation will be the true test.”

A Japanese delegate to the UN said “We strictly punish and control possession of small arms by civilians.”

An Australian delegate to the UN said” Firearm owners in Australia must also demonstrate a genuine reason for ownership.”

A Netherlands delegate to the UN said “It is my firm belief that the illicit trade cannot be tackled without involving the legal arms trade.”

Now go to the United Nations webpage; Peace and Security through Disarmament, carefully read their crafted proposals.


The 2nd Amendment is in peril if anyone other than Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul or Fred Thompson gets the nod.

Foreign Trade, I really don’t think your smart enough kid to grasp the concept and how our current and past elected leadership have weakened our international trade positions and unfair practices.

Just blog what you know is true and check your ignorance in at the door Mr. Nyhan.

UN gun control mandates are par for the course:

FZappa and the other Paulites: objectively pro-child-soldiers-with-AK47s.

If you really think keeping small arms out of the hands of kidnapped children goes anywhere near the Second Amendment, you're as nutty as Ron Paul. Oh, we already established that.

In the meantime, keep drinking the pure distilled American alcohol and defend your precious bodily fluids.

Brendan who?

A poly sci non-phd who hasn't read the Constitution, amazing.

Unfortunately, I am in the service of defending citizens such as you pseudonymous. Wish I could indulge in a nice single malt scotch but General Order #1 prohibits that.

And yes, I do attempt to defend my bodily fluids every time I leave my forward operating base in Afghanistan.

You’re just another sheep representing the status quo.

Ron Paul is our next President. He leads over half the straw polls. The media moguls are trying to "poo-poo" his whole candidicy, but he still is pulling the votes needed to get the GOP nomination. Ron Paul's message of freedom from BLOATED government, freedom from the Fed printing money like it's going out of style, and stopping unjustified Wars has reached the American People. The American people have spoken, and Ron Paul is our 44th President.
God Bless You and your Families
God Bless America
God Bless Ron Paul

If the idea of a North American Union is so "nutty", then why is Fox featuring it...and the building of the 10-lane highway which will allow trucks from Mexico to come into our country without even being subject to search at the border...on the news???

By the way everyone, not that it matters -- but I got the same letter, and it was not written on a yellow legal pad. It was reproduced as part of a larger mailing. Ron Paul has over 40,000 campaign volunteers, including myself. Do you really think he could hand-write 40,000 letters?

He *does* keep in contact with his supporters, via email and flyers and letters (typed) mailed via the USPS.

This guy Brendan is the one who is "nuts".

I used to like Ron, but when I got this letter, i saw it as pathetic Fear-Mongering. Repetition of the word elite to get the loe-income crowd jealous and angry. The usual mythical NWO, NAU, gun grabber junk. He is pandering to the most gullible poeple, just to get their $. Yes, I did my research, so to www.spp.gov, see myths vs. facts.

Mark, you have are obvioulsy a plant or a libtard of the most ignorant kind. Get your head back down in the sand just a little deeper. If you raise up your posterior just a little more, you might not be able to hear what's coming!

So you went to SSP.GOV, and you're right, they DO deny on there that they are trying to form a North American Union. You are a gifted fact checker! edit-(read Lou Dobbs, maybe he can help you)

You know the other day a man broke into my house. I asked him what he was doing and he said he was lost. So I went ahead and went to work. When I got home all my guns and silver and gold were gone. I wonder who stole those things? Certainly not the man who broke in. He said he was lost??!!

Look, this is a HIT piece pure and simple. The turd that wrote this is as crooked as Rudy, and the handwritten note is a manufactured ploy to discredit Ron Paul.

I WAS a Fredhead UNTIL I heard about Ron Paul! This is the FIRST time I have EVER given money to a political campaign.

Watch out America, with guys like Mark watching the henhouse, the foxes WILL be celebrating!

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

It appears that we've entered stage two.


Call Dr. Paul nutty, but at least he isn't the kind of nutty that --

*Leaves thousands of Americans oversees in a costly war that the majority of Americans don't agree with.

*Spends billions of dollars on wasteful programs that are doomed to collapse in the future.

*Endorses acts that clearly violate sections of the Constitution, that one particular document they have sworn to uphold.


Attack his nuttiness all you want, but you cannot dig up any legitimate dirt on Ron Paul. He's as clean and sincere a candidate as they come. His voting record reflects his position, one which the majority of Americans agree with.

And if you don't agree with it, you can at least feel partially assured in the fact that he doesn't lie about his "nutty" views.

Ron Paul will be the last of the candidates to flip-flop. If you want a candidate that will stab you in the back, vote for someone other than Ron Paul.

But then, you'd be the nutty one, wouldn't you?

Brendan Nyhan,

I recommend you rebuke your ignorant stance on this matter. Do this by putting something to the effect of, "I've read more about Ron Paul and he's the best politican we have in Congress."

I suggest you do this if you intend on keeping any intellectual or well-read web-surfers frequenting your blog.

-Ron Paul supporter.

P.S. I do appreciate all forms of free speech and applaud your interest in thinking differently.

The comments to this entry are closed.