Skip to comments.Rush: Ron Paul is Right
Posted on 10/17/2011 6:39:36 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
click here to read article
The title is misleading. Why so many posters here fell for it is beyond me.
I listened to the show. Rush didn't say Paul is right in everything and anything. He embraced Paul's ideas for limiting government spending, although pointing out he (Rush) has been saying the same thing for years.
All these stupid headlines do is give Rush boo-birds the opportunity for their two-bit minutes of flame.
The Federal Government is guilty of either failure, reneging, or wholly unconstitutional overreach on each of those powers.
The Treasury prints enough to ensure we become Zimbabwe; the Post Office is bankrupt; they REFUSE OUTRIGHT to enforce the border or immigration laws; the SCOTUS rules through judicial tyranny; the Debt is unmanageable; they've unconstitutionally re-interpreted the word "regulate" to mean "stymie", and the word "commerce" to mean "NOT-commerce"; taxes are prohibitive and redistributional a la Karl Marx's Second Plank; and they wish to use the "necessary and proper" clause to institute an all-powerful totalitarian State.
So, of all the "enumerated" powers in the Constitution; the Federal Government still handles National Defense (numbers 10 through 16) better than the States would on their own.
Other than that, they've screwed up every responsibility they've been given in one way or another; so, what's the point of keeping them around even for those "enumerated" purposes? The Federal Govt is clearly too irresponsible to handle even these limited powers.
A NATO-like defense treaty among the States, and NOTHING ELSE, would suit me fine.
It's exactly the time actually, cause another RINO President doesn't do us any good in the long term. The guy who invented Obamacare and would support another bailout (Romney) is unacceptable, period. The man is a flip flopping liar who only cares about 1 issue, getting elected President.
? Why would that stun the audience? The only way I can think it would is because most people would like to cut more than 1 trillion.
Ignoring your omition of Dr. Paul's hiatus, I would remind you that for any bill to pass, it requires a majority in Congress, and a willing executive.
If one were genuinely interested, one could look it up, but among other bills introduced by Dr. Paul is his bill to get the United States OUT of the U.N. This bill has been on the books for about 20 freakin' YEARS without much support from the Dems and RINOS, let alone from our past Presidents.
Now I ask you; even considering that your question was rhetorical, what kind of future do you want for your family? One in which the U.N. continues to grow in power, or on in which the U.S. no longer participates?
Why would Rush's audience be stunned by this? Conservatives and libertarians almost always agree about issues like gov't spending.