STERN: Ron Paul’s America

Fewer than 45 minutes after Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, Senator Ted Kennedy stormed onto the floor of the Senate and gave one of the more passionate speeches of his career. Kennedy’s speech, forever known as “Robert Bork’s America,” discussed an America in which Robert Bork was a Supreme Court Justice. Kennedy said,

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.” Four months later, the Senate rejected Bork’s nomination by a vote of 58–42.0

After Paul’s strong performances in both Iowa and New Hampshire, I am not moved to write by passion, as Kennedy was, but by fear. Ron Paul’s America would be a country I would not be proud to call home. But strangely, the same cannot be said for thousands and thousands of college students nationwide.

College-age Americans support Ron Paul in droves. According to exit polls from the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary, nearly 50 percent of 18-29 year olds say they support Paul. Even in a place as ostensibly liberal as Yale, in just an hour of random polling, I encountered seven students — out of 76 interviewed — who claimed to support Ron Paul. All declined to comment.

Why do young people support Paul? Is it his pledge to legalize marijuana? Is it his plans to fundamentally change student loans (though not eliminate them entirely, he insists)? Or is it just the fact that he is so, so ideologically different from every other candidate seeking the GOP nomination?

Young people are among those most likely to feel disconnected from the political process, and they are also among those most likely to support Ron Paul. Perhaps those two feelings are connected. Ron Paul represents an utter break from the normal political scheme, so those looking for something radically different rally behind him.

For this very reason — his completely unorthodox views — Ron Paul is almost certainly not going to win the GOP nomination. But the fact that he has any support at all — particularly among the youth — gives me pause. Those youth who support Ron Paul apparently envision an America quite different from the one that I hope for.

Paul sees a role for the federal government in national security, some very limited regulation, appointments and not a whole lot else. President Paul would be restricted by the letter of the Constitution, with no room at all for what might be considered completely reasonable and necessary interpretation.

Paul’s consistency and candor are admirable. But there is a dark side to his true ideological purity: a federal government that is so limited that it can hardly do anything at all.

Ron Paul’s America is a land in which the federal government cannot ensure civil rights in public schools — because Paul would eliminate the Department of Education. In the 1960s, had the federal government left educating solely to the states and municipalities, many Southern schools would still not be integrated. Brown v. Board of Education was a Supreme Court decision, but it took a strong executive to enforce it. Federal marshals were sent in to literally enforce federal policy. In Ron Paul’s America, the federal government would never go so far. It is shocking to me that young people — students — support someone with this view.

Ron Paul’s America is a land in which poor immigrants die before they can attain medical care because he would end mandated hospital emergency treatment for illegal aliens. This idea sounds appealing enough in theory; it could be seen as preserving American healthcare for Americans. But what of the desperately ill immigrant child? Should emergency rooms really be allowed to turn that child away? Should localities really be allowed to make that decision? If the legislatures from Arizona to Alabama are any indication, the federal government must mandate, as it currently does, that all direly ill individuals get treatment.

The federal government is not our enemy. We should not blindly trust the government, but neither should we indiscriminately dismiss its attempts to better our lives. In Ron Paul’s America, the federal government’s ability to help its citizens would be hopelessly limited.

Scott Stern is a freshman in Branford College. His column runs on alternate Fridays. Contact him at


  • Sovereign

    I think you have been misinformed about Dr. Paul. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist and as such abides by the 14th Amendment. That amendment states that the rights laid forth in the US constitution apply to those of the states. Dr. Paul knows and recognizes this. The argument you make about Brown v. Board of Education is invalid because the 14th Amendment does indeed authorize the federal government to enforce anti-segregation in all public facilities including public schools. In Ron Paul’s America this would not change.

    As for medical care of illegal immigrants you are also misinformed. Those needing emergency care would not nor should not be turned away. Instead, there would not be federal funds allocated to the GENERAL WELFARE of illegals. Ron Paul has not once stood on a position that emergency care should ever be outlawed based on ability to pay. If we even look at health care in this country before all the mandates for medicare, medicaid, prescription drug laws, etc. I can not find the part in history where people in dire straits were turned away because they were unable to pay their medical bills. Instead we find that the medical industry to be one of the few institutions where as technology increases so does the price. With research I have found that this is a common occurrence with all business where the government is most involved.

    With the countless undeclared and unending wars, erosion of civil liberties with the patriot act and the NDAA, the eroding of the middle class and increasing poor due to the federal reserve’s controlled devaluation of the nation’s money, I honestly believe that the status quo is doing more harm than Dr. Paul ever could. I feel that his stance that the federal government has no authority to criminalize drugs is not the driving force behind his youthful support either. Many things have been said about Ron Paul’s libertarian leaning philosophy that, just because they are different, are considered dangerous. However, radical does not equate danger. The status quo would have us believe this, but I think the younger generation, growing up with the internet, finds his mantra appealing because they are seeing things from more points of view than what the traditional media has been giving us. I think THAT is why so many youth support Ron Paul. Because there is more to him and his philosophy than what the traditional news media is reporting to us. The young people have figured this out.

    I urge you to check out and to maybe learn a little more. Trying to understand Ron Paul’s foreign policy and economic views myself, I read the books “Blowback” by Chalmers Johnson and “The Creature From Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin. Since then I have a much better understanding of his positions and they are way more logical than what is given to us by the talking heads in the media.

  • kanwilsal

    I have lived in Africa all my life, and there is some positive signs here but still more poverty war and misery then you will ever imagine. The poverty exists because in most of Africa all land belongs to government, very few African countries have entrenched property rights. I have seen the one after the other wealth redistribution program end in disaster, when wealth is redistributed it is the ones doing the redistribution getting rich. Equality does not exist and to chase it is like chasing a ghost that leads you to disaster. Here is my take on America and the so called civil rights act: You basically had forced segregation by government intervention and you decided to get rid of it via forced integration by government intervention, nowadays I read they have forced multiculturalism in Europe; Well how the hell is that going to create a peaceful world of tolerance if jack and his 2 buddies want a whites only chess club they should have that right as much as John & Peter cannot legally be stopped having a gay affair. Slavery, Segregation this was all goverment policies, oh nooo you fear a free market, why? The point is apart from your lack of knowledge on Austrian Economics, you think government “makes things better”; clearly you missed the last 200 years of history. Technology and progress is not because of government it is in spite of it.

    • independenthought

      Amen brother. Both the GOP and Democrats have destroyed the founding principles of a free society. It is unfortunate that Dr. Paul’s vision of liberty and freedom is not shared. It is not surprising that Austrian economics is loathed by the establishment that desires complete control over our lives. It is the power wielding elites that educate our children in a Marxist fashion and it is no surprise that the welfare state continues to promise more and provide less. If the purpose of history is to not repeat past mistakes, our country’s leaders undoubtedly require many lessons before making any more decisions.

  • MichaelF

    I’m a Ron Paul supporter. I’ll relate to you Representative Paul’s plans for health care.

    Dr. Paul disagrees with many who argue that free markets can’t deliver medical care. The problems we face today are not a consequence of the market place: it’s a failure of the government. This idea of managed care was introduced during Nixon and designed to force people into medical care through tax credits for certain groups, PPOs, and HMOs. So we’ve been enduring managed care for the last 35 or 40 years. And what has developed from this has been corporate medicine. The individuals who were best able to gather up the money passed out and mandated by the government became chief lobbyists on behalf of drug companies, health insurance companies, and health management companies.

    In hindsight, it turned out that those companies started running the show, which made it less efficient. There was too much management. At the same time, too much money went into these corporations that were the middlemen: patients suffered and doctors became unhappy.

    The main complaint that Dr. Paul hears is that medical care costs too much. People can’t afford their insurance. There’s a lot of truth to that. One thing people don’t talk much about is why costs are so high. Why are the costs higher than say the cost of computers, television sets, or whatever? And the truth is it’s a reaction to government; it’s a reaction to our monetary policy. We do inflate the money supply; we do have price inflation. Prices go up more in certain areas where government is involved than in others. Since the government is more involved in education and medical care, we have more inflation in that area. That is part of the problem. However, over the years, there has been less competition in medicine, a gradual process which has taken place over the past 100 years or so. People who entered the medical field couldn’t do so without getting a variety licenses and protecting special groups.

    But if there were more competition and less insurance, costs would go down. If you look at some of the procedures provided by eye surgeons who perform keratotomies or plastic surgeons, you’ll notice that they’re not covered by most insurance companies; therefore, those prices actually go down.

    We don’t have insurance for medical care; we have distorted that word. “Insurance” is supposed to measure risk; we’re supposed to buy that protection. So if we want medical insurance, we would insure against bad accidents, major surgeries, or detrimental cancer–something like that. But today people expect prepaid services; they want every penny covered and drugs paid for, which invites abuse.

  • MichaelF

    (continue from part 1)

    When third parties pay the bill, doctors, labs, and hospitals all of sudden charge the most–not the least. Dr. Paul knew a time when managed care wasn’t available and patients were always charged the least. Nobody went without medical care. The churches and volunteer hospitals took care of the people. But now everybody has to have this so-called “insurance,” which doesn’t do a whole lot more than boost prices and cause shortages. Afterward, demand for more government grows. That’s where we are today.

    So we’re going from corporate medicine, which was deeply flawed and not working, to government medicine (socialized medicine). It hasn’t worked well anywhere else. Sure, people get care if they want to wait and watch, but–today–even in spite of America’s shortcomings, people still come to this country for top medical care, but that will soon change if we want to equalize everything by leveling it and making sure that everybody gets poor medicine rather than extra and better medical care.

    We could do better. What we could do is introduce the notion that patients do have rights. We need to fight for choice; in particular, fight against anything that comes out of government that hinders our freedom of choice. We shouldn’t be forced into a program. If the government starts a program, we should have the choice to opt-out of that program. Dr. Paul believes that government should be generous with tax credits. Give tax credits for the entire amount of money that we spend on medical care so that we can be independent. He believes that the concept of having a medical savings account is a good concept, and we should promote and encourage that. We should also demand privacy. This is one of the tools that government agents employ, and they’ve already enacted programs such as this. Legislation for it has been passed already that essentially assesses no medical privacy.

    So there are a lot of things that could be done to protect individual privacy through tax codes and tax credits. Now one thing that people in Washington could do is pass legislation that would actually help promote these ideas, especially with regard to malpractice lawsuits. What we should do is talk about getting rid of anti-trust laws against doctors. Give doctors the freedom to negotiate with their patients without the need for attorneys. Patients and doctors could agree on an arbitration board and get tax credits for buying insurance policies. So there are ways through the market place to reduce fear-mongering and excessive costs that are involved in litigation against doctors.

    Basically, we need to know that there are alternatives.

    Medicine is no different from any other service. Freedom works and does a better job than coercion. Government programs and socialized programs can’t work.

  • independenthought

    Though passionate, Kennedy was wrong on the abortion issue among the other issues. Ironically in Kennedy’s America (current): The federal government takes money from citizens to fund abortions (abortion clinics are more conveniently located in black communities). Blacks are segregated in political conversation into people groups and are targeted for “special treatment” which leads to government dependency. Creationism is not allowed to be taught in schools unless ridiculed. Department of Education attempts to administrate the entire country into one school of thought thus giving teacher’s and local schools less power to educate on a more specific level. The list could go on, but in reality Ted Kennedy’s America is hardly a beautiful one and if you think that our America should be led with a heavy hand instead of individual freedom, that it is hardly America at all.

  • MichaelF

    On another note, there are many fallacies in the author’s reasoning. America is in debt and cannot afford to provide services for everyone, especially manage the so-called “freedoms” and “military dictatorships” of the world. Yes, you heard me. Or is your understanding of history also inept? That’s not the role of government.

    Personally, I’m tired of traveling the world with a devalued dollar. My purchasing power is restricted.

    Dr. Paul didn’t support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he believes government could have been done it in a better way. For the record, he voiced his disapproval of Jim Crow laws.

    What we don’t want to do is undermine the concept of liberty in the process of enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Within this bill, its contents destroyed the principles of private property and private choices. We need to remember that all civil liberties are protected by property rights, whether it’s tv stations, newspapers, church buildings, or bedrooms. People don’t understand that civil liberties aren’t divorced from property. So if we try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can’t do–ignoring and undermining the principles of liberty–then the government can invade our privacy (e.g., The Patriot Act).

    The principle of private property has been undermined; it started back then. You can’t seriously accuse Representative Paul of being racist or favoring Jim Crow laws. It’s the government that causes so much of the racial tensions (i.e., look at anything from slavery to segregation in the military to Jim Crow laws). And, right now, the real problem we face today is the discrimination in our court system; for example, it’s prejudice against minorities in the War on Drugs. They go into prison way out of proportion to their numbers; they get the death penalty way out of proportion to their numbers. And if you look at what minorities suffer in ordinary wars, whether or not a draft is in place, they suffer much more out of proportion. So we need to deal with that kind of discrimination.

    However, we don’t even want to undermine the principle of private property and private choices in order to solve some of these problems. Over the centuries, laws propagated by the government needed–or could have been–repealed. Because it is the government, so often, that institutionalizes segregation, slavery, and everything else.

    So the understanding of private property would solve our problems. Furthermore, if anybody cares about the abuse of our civil liberties and the abuse of minorities in the court system, we should direct our attention to the War on Drugs.

  • monterey93940

    Ad this discussion has so far revolved around health care, I’ll continue the theme. There are numerous ways in which medical care, and medical “insurance” could be improved upon in this country, and the point earlier discussing fallIcy of the “insurance pays all copays” model is spot on.
    We don’t have medical insurance in this country, we have a system where cost burden for medical care is shifted to third parties and incentivized “good health” policies are operated on the premise that people will respond to offers of covered preventative medicine because it makes healthy sense to do so. Unfortunately almost noone makes decisions regarding preventative health care based solely on what’s good for their bodies, as so many people worry more about the pocket book.
    Health insurance should be just that, insurance against catastrophic health emergencies, like heart ailments, cancer, diabetes, major accidents like lacerations or trauma, stuff like that. Paying 90-100% of routine doctors care and visits is not insurance and should not be part of coverage plans.
    If insurance companies want to save money, they should offer incentivized premiums based on routine medical visits, general healthy lifestyle choices, and history of high-risk behaviors. The only form of regulation required would be to prevent denial or canceling of insurance based on genetics in the first case and/or pre-existing conditions in the later. If you have diabetes, and a health insurance plan, that plan can’t jack your rates or cancel you, but you develop diabetes and never had insurance, well shame on you and now there may be some garunteed government managed last resort health insurance plan that you can get but your premiums are going to be through the roof as to cover the cost of treatment for your already existing condition that you refused to practice risk mitigation for earlier.
    Health insurance companies could acctually mandate of their subscribers that they visit a doctor for a checkup or physical every year prior to renewing insurance (just bar them legally from canceling insurance based on the doctors findings). My car insurance company asks me for my drivers license number and a history of accidents I’ve been involved in, why can’t medical insurers do the same thing. The checkup shows you have high cholesterol, the insurance company says “hey, if you lower that LDL number 20 points we’ll cut your premiums 5%” – poor body fat levels, “start an exercise plan that puts you under 25% and you stay at that level for 3 months and we’ll give you 10% off premiums”
    Incentivize the crap out of these plans and watch the market economy work. I bet we’d even have a healthier society as a result.

  • bfa123

    Not to get off the healthcare argument, which I find fascinating, but I just have to say: I sympathize with libertarians, but I think Scott makes a decent point. The federal government can’t be TOO small.

  • mohanad

    Its sad to think the author believes that the social movements to stop injustices were spearheaded by the government. The push to end segregation was a peoples’ movement in the face of power elite. There is no place in America the Free for such injustices to even exist if it weren’t for corrupt sanctioned government policies that condoned racism. The actual problem is that the author seems to think that these issues are rampant in society and they also believe that freedom won’t be used to exercise tolerance and acceptance, this raises fundamental questions about the the intent of the author and their state of mind. Does the author secretly believe that people when granted freedom will become cross burning KKK members or maybe they fantasizes about it? Maybe the author should question their grasp and comprehension of the concept of freedom and place a little more faith and trust in themselves and the people that live in their community and country. Racism’ in the US existed because the public’s condolence of it, and that was enforced for the betterment and prosperity of some, which i return garnered support and complacency from the governments who themselves helped maintain the status quo for personal benefit . Its when the people stood up and society changed its core beliefs and took back the power of the majority that these things changed, and not some miraculous revelation of the power elite (state and federal governments included). Strangely biased journalists instilled similar fears into society by questioning the elimination of segregation and how it would bring about social derogation. I think the authors of such articles, as this one, are they themselves racist, and wish to wash their conscience clean by implying the evil other in society will bring back segregation and other social tragedies by fighting for a true free society. Maybe they worry that they might be the ones burning crosses (maybe they even fantasize about it), I for one believe in freedom.

    • bfa123

      I don’t know this for sure, but I’d be willing to bet that the author believes in freedom as well. Don’t attack a straw man.

  • btcl

    Regardless of how you feel about Ron Paul, this has got to be one of the worst editorials written in the YDN EVER. Rather than telling us that Paul has won the hearts of college-age Americans and then dispelling the beliefs that may have caused them to feel this way, Stern spews out (as he usually does) analysis that could be found in the introduction to a Wikipedia article. If he is ostensibly trying to change people’s minds, wouldn’t it be more effective to present them with a new take on why the lack of government Paul supports is bad? Instead, he kind of just states it for half a column, and then chooses the least compelling reason to attack these views. I agree that many such reasons exist, but the job of a good writer and good columnist is to pick the best ones, not just any random one. Does Stern actually think that the MAIN problem with eliminating the department of education is that nationalized government assured integration? Granted, eliminating the Dept. of Education would cause thousands of problems, but I honestly doubt that the biggest one is that all the schools in America would immediately go back to segregation.

    • lvjamieson2

      Regardless of how you feel about Ron Paul, this has got to be one of the meanest, least-informed, least-called-for comments in the YDN EVER. You are just personally attacking some 19-year-old kid, not his point. You should be ashamed of yourself! It is telling that you don’t sign your name, but rather write your snide drivel under a pseudonym. I felt this column was good and insightful. But even if I didn’t–even if I hated it–I wouldn’t just viciously attack it. (Furthermore, Stern doesn’t say that the MAIN problem with eliminating the department of education is that nationalized government assured segregation; he said that it is one possible, hypothetical result. This is just how Kennedy did the Bork Speech.) You should be ashamed.

  • wwrpd

    A major reason why Ron Paul appeals to people under 30 is that they have not been brainwashed on the concept of American Exceptionalism. Technology and the internet has enabled the younger generations to access more information (and misinformation) and provide themselves with broader, more global perspectives (as well as the ability to decipher for themselves what information is more credible.) They see that there could be ulterior motives to our Military Adventurism. They, like the vast majority of Americans, want to act in the right and moral manner as it relates to our foreign policy. Unfortunately, we have all seen just how aggressive, immoral and irresponsible America’s foreign policy has been and it is very unsettling for young Americans. Ron Paul has a consistent and proven record on calling out the war propaganda to benefit the Military Industrial complex. Ron Paul’s foreign policy that emphasizes a strong American defense, global trade and strong economy and stays within in the confines of the constitution strikes young people as more sensible, safer and more moral. It is insulting to suggest the youth’s support of Ron Paul is because they want pot legalized that is a very minor issue in the grand scheme. The youth deserve more credit and personally I am very impressed to hear how worldly and thoughtful this generation is; they are what gives me hope for our country’s future.

    • MapleLeaf14

      I agree. Solid column.

  • lvjamieson2

    I thought this column was pretty good. Reasonably original and insightful. It makes a good point, saying that Paul’s true libertarian leanings are a bridge too far.

    But the personal attacks and straw man assaults on Stern appall me. Why do people feel the need to do that? I guess it is telling of their fervor for Ron Paul that they must lash out like this. You can and should disagree, but don’t be horrible about it!

    Don’t listen to them, Scott! You’re doing well.

  • ghendric

    re:”Ron Paul’s America is a land in which the federal government cannot ensure civil rights in public schools — because Paul would eliminate the Department of Education. ”

    … my experience has been that it hasn’t been about civil rights but what federal government says we have to teach our children. What does that have to do with civil rights? The biggest problems we have in education have been caused by bureaucratic b.s. from the Department of Education. It isn’t working and needs to be eliminated forever… This function should held by local and state authorities, not the federal government. This country isn’t a Socialist Democracy, although its being ran as one, but is a Republic. Ron Paul has begun the “un-brainwashing” and people are finally waking up. A Ron Paul presidency would be good for America because it would put us back on the intended path of individual freedom and liberty and sound money..

  • watcher

    I got to say this editorial really sucks. I can’t really blame the author though. A lack of exposure to how the real world works can really divert attention from issues that require examining. Does the author ever ask himself why hardly any news outlet gives Ron Paul any coverage? Or when he is covered, it is highly skewed? Why is it when he is on tv, the news feed suddenly goes into technical difficulties? It isn’t because of his Civil Rights views, or really anything the author mentions. It is because he tries to reveal the truth. A truth that most older people have a hard time seeing because they have had the veiled pulled over their eyes for so long. Young people, on the other hand are more adept at being bulls— artists, thus they can see thru bulls— alot easier. The author imagines an America under Ron Paul as one he would not want to live in. Does the author ever really imagine an America without Ron Paul? An America where if someone commented or blogged against the establishment, he would be branded an enemy combatant. An America where citizens can have their citizenship stripped away within any due process? (look up Enemy Expatriation Act) An America where everyone is electronically tagged and tracked?; it is already beginning in India. An America where you can work for a company for 20 years, get layed off, and then have the government tax you and give it to the company’s CEO as a bonus? Where do you think TARP funds went?
    But then again, what do I know…TC ’03, worked on wall street for 5 years, went into business for myself thereafter. The reason why young people like Ron Paul is because his message lacks bulls—. And I am saying “the message” not “the person”. Who knows about Ron Paul, the man…Back in 2008, I voted for Obama, believing that his message of change was going to make things different. Guess what?? Things are the same if not worse. They are all playing for the same team. Democrats, Republicans, they are all on the same team. Trust me. There is no “free election”, only the perception of one. All these candidates are puppeted up there giving you the illusion of choice, but in the end, whoever is President carries on the same agenda. The Ron Paul is the only one whose “message” has an inkling of trying to expose the agenda. That agenda is the Federal Reserve. One day, the author will understand. Throughout the history of mankind, no fiat currency has lasted more than 100 years. And as this one nears its end, the people will have to make a real choice and a real change.

    • MapleLeaf14

      I agree with you to some extent, but words like “sucks” don’t help your point. We should promote civil rights and civil liberties, but the federal government does have the power to do that, you know. (And the Fed isn’t some evil conspiratorial cabal, I’m pretty sure…)

      • watcher

        “Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws”
        Baron Rothschild

        Take that to its logical conclusion…one currency, one nation, one world, one order.

  • Lofabred

    Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only Ron Paul will remain.

  • River_Tam

    > “The reason that small government is bad is that it can’t do as many things as big government”.

    Well, no crap. I’d say that’s exactly its appeal as well.

    By the way, happy to see the Paultards out in force.

  • sydchez

    Just a quick comment about some of your facts about the Department of Education: you claim that without it, schools wouldn’t have been desegregated in the 60’s. However, the DEd wasn’t created until 1979 under Jimmy Carter. The only major overarching federal program that the DEd has created is No Child Left Behind, and I think we can all agree that it’s an extremely flawed piece of legislation.
    Yale (and college) students like myself support Ron Paul because the current America isn’t one we’re proud to be a part of – one in which both citizens and non-citizens can be indefinitely detained, in which unconstitutional wars are waged at great cost to our government, in which minorities are disproportionately persecuted at the hands of the War on Drugs (while crimes with victims go unsolved in favor of sending SWAT teams into people’s houses), in which the majority of congress wants to censor the internet, and in which corporations have far too large of a hand in government thanks to lobbying and bailouts, among a host of other things. Our liberties are far too precious to give up lightly – I’d much rather support Ron Paul than any of the other pro-war (both abroad and in the drug war) and anti-civil liberties candidates.

  • Goliath07

    This is a ridiculous article. Is the undergrad program that relaxed at Yale? Is this the future of politics? Here is my summary of this article:

    “Ron Paul’s “unorthodox” beliefs of freedom, liberty, and constitutional accountability are so weird and foreign. So unorthodox! Don’t spend a lot of money you don’t have? Whoa, so unorthodox! Leave people alone and give everyone the same rights? Weird! Don’t go around the world doing globalist dirty work, dragging America’s name through the mud and start world war 3?! WHOA! THIS GUY IS OFF HIS ROCKER! Crazy Ron Paul.”

    A sophomore at Yale who will probably end up being the next president in spite of himself

    • MapleLeaf14

      By: A freshman, not sophomore. Yeah, he’s the dumb one; I suspect he can read. The level of hatred on the part of Ron Paul’s supporters disgusts me.

      • watcher

        Ron Paul supporters are due their hatred and disgust. It’s been in the making for 100 years. Imagine yourself an Iranian or a Greek. Or an Italian living in those respective countries. Yesterday it cost you 100 dollars or euros or whatever to buy a microwave. Today it cost you 400. Tommorrow 1000. It’s happening right now in Iran as I type this. Should those people be politically correct and nice? Or are they entitled to taking matters into their own hands? I don’t remember the founders of this country being PC and nice to the Brits and Kings and Lords when it came time to kick them out. Now imagine this: Ron Paul supporters are the ones that see this coming down the road. They see the modern day Kings and Lords for who they really are. They see the eventual worthlessness of their hard earned money and disappearance of God-given liberties. And they try to warn everyone, but everyone is too busy being PC and nice. That’s the difference between Ron Paul supporters and others. They see the endgame coming.

      • fuzzywzhe

        You know what disgusts me?

        That the NDAA that was just signed into law allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial or evidence as long as the Federal government, which lied us into a war in Iraq, claims the person is a terrorist.

        Or that Anwar al-Awlaki was under suspicion by our government for over a decade and during all that time, our government couldn’t be bothered to issue a warrant for his arrest or try him in absentia – instead they just blew him up.

        Or that his 16 year old son Abdul-Rahman was killed by a drone 2 weeks later. He wasn’t wanted by the US government or accused of being involved with terrorism, he was just a 16 year old kid who is now dead because a drone killed him.

        I’m also pretty upset that a bunch of criminals in our financial sector didn’t only avoid prosecution for gross corporate malfeasance among a litany of other crimes, but they got bailed out by our Federal government who had to get a loan to do it, and I’m responsible for paying it back, on top of the 15 trillion dollars already racked up.

        I’m a little upset that we went to war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction, and when it turned out there weren’t any weapons, nobody was held accountable for this ‘mistake’.

        But do you know what I’m really disgusted by?

        I’m disgusted with the American populace that puts up with all this crap, because silence is complicity, and people like you – you’re complicit. You disgust me, and if you are offended by my hatred of you, you need to understand why you deserve and have earned my hatred.

        You deserve the government you get, but the problem is, I’m going to get the same government, I don’t deserve it because I’m not complicit, and I’m not condoning it.

        I’m older than you and I have witnessed the fall of the USSR. I had family in Poland who lived there as it happened. I have family in Argentina and I know what steps they took in the 1990s to remain in power and I know why their peso collapse about a decade ago happened.

        What you stupid morons don’t realize is that this nation is following in the same exact steps and there’s only one man that has any potential of stopping it. He’s got a 30 year record of honesty and he follows the Constitution to a fault in all cases and in every case.

        And what do you people do? You hate him him for it. Well, enjoy the grave you’ve dug. You will get no sympathy from me when you finally realize at some point that you had a chance to stop it, and instead you ushered yourselves and everybody else right into a statist nightmare country run by a corrupt, lying, bankrupt government.

        [This comment has been edited by moderators.]

  • fuzzywzhe

    I was pretty surprised when I hit this part of the editorial:

    “Ron Paul’s America would be a country I would not be proud to call home. ”

    Are you proud that the United States is in Iraq with the excuse of removing weapons of mass destruction that don’t exist?

    Are you proud of the United States federal government just signing into law the right of the government to indefinitely detain any US citizen once the government declares that they are associated with terrorists, without trial or evidence?

    Are you proud of this country allowing criminals like Dick Fuld, Angelo Mozilo, Jon Corzine, and Franklin Raines not being prosecuted for gross corporate malfeasance? Are you produce these type of people are being bailed out with borrowed money you and your children will have to pay back?

    Are you proud that Guantanamo still remains open?

    Are you proud that your nation overthrew the Iranian Democracy in 1953 in order to secure access to oil, and installed a dictatorship that was maintained by the ruthless SAVAK security force the CIA helped setup?

    Are you proud that the United States supported Saddam Hussein for 8 years when he was at war with Iran and that the US did this in hopes of recapturing control of Iran after their puppet tyrant was thrown out by Iranian Revolution?

    Guess who is the only candidate running for president who isn’t proud of any of that, and wants to stop similar things from happening again?

  • watcher

    Let me pose this question to all Yalies who are reading. Forget Ron Paul, or Mitt Romney, or Bush, Obama, Clinton whoever. Let me ask you a pragmatic question. Suppose you are a seismologist. Your job is to predict earthquakes. Now let’s say there is this guy you read about (Mister X) who tells you that an earthquake will occur at such and such place at such and such time. You don’t believe him. Magically, the earthquake occurs like Mister X said. You may say he got lucky. Then he predicts another earthquake, and it turns out true as well. And then Mr. X makes another prediction, and another, and another. And they all occur exactly like he said. Being the scientist that you are, you are still skeptical. But then Mister X puts out a bulletin stating that an earthquake will occur at your present location in the next 10 minutes. Are you going to dismiss it as just more Mr. X hocus pocus, or are you scared and consider getting the heck out of there??? My point is maybe Mr. X has some truth to him after all. Maybe you might not agree with him 100%, but the least you can do is have an open mind…

  • JavaMcPhearson

    The author leads with the assertion that Paul’s philosophies of a constitutionally abiding federal government would result in a country that the author “would not be proud to live in”. The two examples are concern for emergency healthcare for illegal immigrants, and perhaps by extension anyone who did not have insurance or money to pay for healthcare, and the enforcement of civil rights in public schools. The question begs an analysis of whether eliminating the ED Department of Education, a cabinet level function created in 1979 and who’s budget has grown from 32 billion in 2009 to 71 billion in 2011, will have a negative impact on the quality of education or as the author cites civil rights in public schools. While arguments can be made as to the efficiency of the ED, the increases of 20 billion dollars per year certainly seem to be out of step with the budget and deficit growth. Recognizing that elimination of ED has been a Republican platform promise in 1980, 1996, and 2000. Paul has not been the first Candidate to question the ED on constitutional, budgetary, and efficacy grounds. On the question of healthcare, the author questions whether Paul’s budget structure will eliminate compassionate care for emergency patients without regard to their ability to pay. While Paul favors strong border controls he has not sided on deportation of the existing 16 to 25 million illegal aliens and seems to favor assimilation without direct amnesty. Both these questions are legitimate concerns of the author and would obviously need a much more serious effort to begin the debate than allowed in this article.
    While the question of individual department cuts and their effects merit significant debate, the author should well consider the cuts being forced into the current administration by simple lack of revenue and overspending. It makes little sense to opine one or two areas of impact without recognizing a continuation of the current spending and debit ceiling increases will cause near term collapse of either the currency, the government infrastructure such as ED, and perhaps both. Equal concern for overall spending plans would put the cuts in any one department or cabinet level function in perspective. We should encourage the author to redouble his efforts and give some serious thought to what he would be proud of, and what he feels the country can and should afford.

  • The Anti-Yale

    Way too complicated.

    People like Ron Paul because he’s honest. He doesn’t kiss ass.

    All the others—including the candidates with religion inn their portfolio— are sycophants to public opinion polls.

    Paul sucks up to no one.

    More power to him.


  • Ron4President

    i do like the 1st amendment, but i think that journalist should not be allowed to publish there own views and opinions to pass as news, if you want to do that as a journalist, START A BLOG! but to post your own opinion as news, WELL IT IS NOT NEWS! you should have to post the NEWS, as it pertains to the open world, not your own misinformed, delusional views, millions of americans express there 1st amendment through blogs. but you better do it soon, because as soon as PIPA and SOPA pass, your views could make you a terrorist in the eyes of the government with the help of the NDAA!



  • Mikelawyr2

    If we could magically transport the Framers to 2012, would they view America as a confederation of sovereign states?

    • redman

      The Framers would be shocked that we have given up so much out freedom. The end does not justify the means.

  • ZhongZh

    oppose government education is NOT anti-education