3 Impolite Facts About Ron Paul I Hope Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter Mention Next Time
Last night on Fox News Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter discussed the sorry state of the GOP primary. (Video here.)
I share Coulter’s analysis:
1. Governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Michele Bachmann are the most conservative candidates in the race.
2. Bachmann resembles Sarah Palin too much (just as Governor Rick Perry recalls George W. Bush) and neither have the political skills to win a national contest.
3. Thus we resign ourselves to Romney as the least-worst option who may actually beat Obama and may actually govern a center-right nation differently than how he led a center-left New England state. (And I affirm this as someone who signed an anti-Romney pledge back when Newt Gingrich sat at the bottom of the polls and the genuine Tea Party candidates had yet to implode.)
4. Gingrich and Rep. Ron Paul are the least conservative choices.
My only concern with Coulter and Hannity’s analysis is a more general problem that continues throughout the Conservative Movement: a lack of clarity when talking about Paul.
Last night Coulter and Hannity identified Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy as their primary disagreement. They — and most conservatives it seems — tend to have the attitude, “Well if only Paul would just get over these goofy foreign policy ideas then he’d be great!” But Paul’s “non-interventionism” is only a symptom of a far more serious intellectual and spiritual disease. I present these 3 impolite facts about Paul and three relevant books in support of them from some of his movement’s most vocal advocates. Don’t take my word for it — read their books for yourself.
1. Paul’s intellectual mentor Murray Rothbard was the founder of anarcho-capitalism and opposed the legitimacy of all nation-states, including ours.
2. Paul openly proclaims himself a revival of the Old Right, the movement which opposed our entry in World War II. He and his followers proudly reject the New Right tradition established by William F. Buckley Jr., Ronald Reagan, and Barry Goldwater.
“When I was deciding whether or not to run for President as a Republican, I re-read Justin Raimondo’s Reclaiming the American Right and it gave me hope—that the anti-interventionist, pro-liberty Old Right, which had once dominated the party, could and would rise again. Here is living history: the story of an intellectual and political tradition that my campaign invokved and reawakened. This prescient book, written in 1993, could not be more relevant today.”
— RON PAUL, Ten Term U.S. Congressman (TX) and 2008 Presidential Candidate
3. Paul is an antisemite.
This is not a complicated point (as some polite conservatives might think it is.) And it has nothing to do with Paul wanting to end foreign aid to Israel and all other nations. (I know plenty of passionate Zionists who think the same thing for different reasons.)
If you believe that the ideas of the Old Right have great value and that we should have followed a “non-interventionist” path during the rise of Nazism then you are an antisemite. You know good and well that the practical consequence of American inaction would have meant an even higher body count in the Holocaust. But dead Jews are apparently not something that concerns you much.
Just as today Paul doesn’t care if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arms the Islamic Republic of Iran for a nuclear-charged assault against Israel.
Yet when conservatives talk about Paul they just politely note that they disagree with Paul’s policy of standing by while the next Holocaust begins.
When will the Conservative Movement finally finish the job Buckley started and stop tolerating the racist, anarchist, useful idiots for Jihad in their midst? Ever?
Update: Ex-Conservative Andrew Sullivan endorsed Ron Paul for the GOP nomination today. Perhaps I’ll have a response later…
“When will the Conservative Movement finally finish the job Buckley started and stop tolerating the racist, anarchist, useful idiots for Jihad in their midst? Ever?”
Oh, around the same time said Conservative Movement apologizes for tossing telegenic talent like Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell in the garbage at the first sign of bad press.
The NY Sun editorial board takes issue with your 3rd “fact,” writing the following:
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-ron-paul-question/87146/
“Ron Paul strikes us as nothing like Ezra Pound. Dr. Paul’s dissent from American policy may, at times, be as bitter as Pound’s was, but, in sharp contradistinction to Pound, Dr. Paul has never broadcast against America from enemy soil or done anything else even remotely comparable to treason. On the contrary, despite Dr. Paul’s dissent on policy, he has adhered to America and repeatedly sworn the constitutional oath. He served as an officer of the United States Air Force in a time of war. Since then he has made his career as a physician and as a congressman.
Dr. Paul, moreover, has a quality that we quite like. He “thinks constitutionally,” to use the phrase the editor of the Sun used, in a television interview, to describe the congressman. He may not be unique in that way, but he is unusual. He is fairly obsessed with following the plain language of the Constitution. Precisely for this reason he is coming in for a new look by many at a time when our country is in what we like to call a constitutional moment.
We are aware of Dr. Paul’s attacks on neo-conservatives, including several heroes for whom our friendship is abiding, and there is no doubt that his views on foreign policy are at odds with those of this newspaper. Yet we don’t believe that his views stem from a hostility to Jews. He is a libertarian and believes that war is a friend of the state, meaning that war invariably empowers the state over the individual. We don’t disagree about that, only about whether the costs of war are justified in the current conflict. Dr. Paul is opposed to foreign aid on constitutional grounds; we’re not so sure he’s wrong about that. His aversion to both war and foreign aid have put him at odds with those of us who support the expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan and also robust American backing of the Jewish state.”
I hope you retract that third attack as it does not stand up to honest scrutiny.
Actually, it does stand up, quite well. Paul used to have a newsletter, and let some nastily racist and antisemitic articles be published under his name. He’s either an idiot, doesn’t care, or agrees with what was published.
I think “idiot who doesn’t care” is the most likely explanation, but it’s not unreasonable to assume otherwise.
Please respond to this point which you are currently ignoring:
This is not a complicated point (as some polite conservatives might think it is.) And it has nothing to do with Paul wanting to end foreign aid to Israel and all other nations. (I know plenty of passionate Zionists who think the same thing for different reasons.)
If you believe that the ideas of the Old Right have great value and that we should have followed a “non-interventionist” path during the rise of Nazism then you are an antisemite. You know good and well that the practical consequence of American inaction would have meant an even higher body count in the Holocaust. But dead Jews are apparently not something that concerns you much.
Moose of Reason…fail…
I don’t know much about Newt.
I think what’s interesting about Ron Paul is how he tries to sneak libertarianism into the Republican party. Libertarians are funny folks, and not the sorts you’d expect getting applause from a Republican audience, I can think of a few who’d attract rotten eggs and tomatoes if they showed up on stage and made their point of view clear.
… the idea that Romney is more conservative than anyone in the party is an odd one. I thought he was a centrist who is trying to pretend to be further right because that’s what it takes to get past the primaries now.
Of course the switch from centrist to right requires a lot of changed positions which he’s handling by denying his former positions.. He’s your John Kerry.
I’m a lefty who voted for GWB because I didn’t believe that Kerry would finish Iraq and I thought he has always had contempt for the public and lies during his speeches.
Newt isn’t that electable, but who knows…
I think Romney would have a chance with the general public if he was running as a Democrat. But as a man working hard to disavow his strength as a centrist? I doubt it.
“from a Republican audience, I can think of a few who’d attract rotten eggs and tomatoes if they showed up on stage and made their point of view clear.”
Lefties are infinitely more likely to assault speakers, “Josh”.
(And before you ask, I base this on multiple cases of assault on speakers by leftists, and none — that I know of — by Republicans.)
There’s a big difference between Ron Paul’s paleo-libertarianism and Libertarianism.
I agree with you on everything except for the fact that you think Romney is Conservative and you’ve completely neglected Rick Santorum who IS still running, by the way, and is very strong against islamic supremacists and their jihad. You can read about that here:
http://zillablog.marezilla.com/2011/12/anti-jihad-blogger-announces-official.html
Rick Santorum’s campaign is steadily gaining momentum, unlike the fast rise and fall crash and burn of many others.
Oh and one more thing, and this is VERY IMPORTANT:
Mitt Romney said that islam is NOT violent and that ISLAMIC JIHAD has nothing to do with islam. Yes he did:
http://zillablog.marezilla.com/2011/12/dhimittude.html
Can we PLEASE stop putting dhimmi islamophiles into office and get someone who won’t try to tell us that islam is peaceful even as they kill us over and over and over again? Pretty please?
1. He’s for the constitution, which calls for states rights and limits the Federal government.
2. He doesn’t like to meddle in other countries politics which many of the founders warned us against.
3. He wants the US to stop telling Israel what to do. Is that antisemitism?
I gotta disagree with you on the 3rd point, in terms of whether Paul’s an anti-semite. The world isn’t divided into people who support sanctions against Iran, and anti-semites. You can’t define anyone who disagrees with you on a policy issue like that in terms as derogatory as “anti-semite” and just walk away without being challenged.
Did you ever consider he might just be stupid? Just because he’s “smart” in some ways doesn’t mean he can’t be an idiot in others. Obama, supposedly, is the “smartest man in the room” and look where that got us…
Please respond to this point which you are choosing to ignore:
This is not a complicated point (as some polite conservatives might think it is.) And it has nothing to do with Paul wanting to end foreign aid to Israel and all other nations. (I know plenty of passionate Zionists who think the same thing for different reasons.)
If you believe that the ideas of the Old Right have great value and that we should have followed a “non-interventionist” path during the rise of Nazism then you are an antisemite. You know good and well that the practical consequence of American inaction would have meant an even higher body count in the Holocaust. But dead Jews are apparently not something that concerns you much.
Foreign policy is important. The debt and regulation are real and stifling, however the big spending W did give us Roberts and Alito on the SCOTUS. It took a little arm twisting. I’m going to have to agree with Coulter and I hope that Ron Paul just fades away. As much as I appreciate Ayn Rand’s writing I don’t think she could’ve governed and neither could Ron Paul. I know I’m off topic, but my point is that regardless all the troubles in the world, we can’t afford another Sotomayor or Keagan on the court. I going to go with Romney because I think his arm can be twisted right if the time comes.
“I going to go with Romney because I think his arm can be twisted right if the time comes.”
I suppose that’s the positive side of nominating a flip-flopper. If we don’t like some of his positions then we simply have to hope that we’ll be able to nudge them to do what’s best for them — which is what’s best for America. Thanks for reading.
You’re welcome and it is a good read. I think it’s an odd twist that Reagan gave us Sandra Day O’Conner while Bush 41 gave us Clarence Thomas and Bush 43 Gave us Roberts and Alito. I know Scalia counts for two O’Conners, but I think Reagan just wanted to appoint a woman. I was a big fan of William Safire and I loved his book The First Dissident. I think Romney understands that loyalty is a two way arrangement whereas I think Gingrich sees Loyalty as top down only and Paul is loyal only to his ideology.
Those are all good points too. Well said.
False. There were many valid reasons for not interfering in internal German politics in the 1930s, notably a little economic downturn called the Great Depression. The fact is, America had all she could do to stay afloat while Hitler was consolidating power.
Moreover, a casual student of American demographics will be aware that a significant percentage of immigrants to this country came from Germany or neighboring counties. Sympathy with Germany the fatherland, as opposed to Germany the fascist state, was significant, even compared with the strength of our ties to Great Britain. It was hardly a no-brainer to go to war a second time with Germany, particularly when our WW I allies were mincing around the issue themselves.
Please respond to this point which you are currently ignoring:
This is not a complicated point (as some polite conservatives might think it is.) And it has nothing to do with Paul wanting to end foreign aid to Israel and all other nations. (I know plenty of passionate Zionists who think the same thing for different reasons.)
If you believe that the ideas of the Old Right have great value and that we should have followed a “non-interventionist” path during the rise of Nazism then you are an antisemite. You know good and well that the practical consequence of American inaction would have meant an even higher body count in the Holocaust. But dead Jews are apparently not something that concerns you much.
This is extraordinary. At your own blog you concede that I am correct:
“Now, Swindle is undoubtedly correct in saying more Jews would have died in Hitler’s ovens if the U.S. had not become involved in WW II. The Nazis would not have been defeated without our contribution, so no other argument is possible.”
Thank you for admitting that your cult leader Ron Paul’s Old Right philosophy would have resulted in the deaths of more Jews, Poles, Roma, gays, freemasons, blacks and disabled persons.
And in answer to another statement from your blog:
“Nevertheless, to equate non-interventionism with anti-Semitism is both outrageous and fallacious.”
I have not equated non-interventionism with antisemitism. (And note that I choose to use this spelling of it. See The Nine Questions People ask ABout Judaism by Prager and Telushkin to understand why.) I have equated the Old Right with antisemitism. I have equated the indifference to the Holocaust and the potential for a second Holocaust as antisemitism.
Ahmadinejad has stated his intent to develop nuclear weapons. He has also stated his desire to wipe Israel off the map. Ron Paul claims that we should try and befriend this man. How is this complicated? Ron Paul claims the United States should befriend a genocidal antisemite. Is it a coincidence that he would not return the donations of Neo-Nazis who gave money to his campaign? http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
Dave (nice name, by the way… I share it with ya)…
You can’t argue with these people, even with their own words. They’ll just keep spinning and spinning and spinning until you’re tempted to hook them up to a generator to see how many houses you can light up… including Christmas lights!
Thanks for trying, tho.
Oh don’t worry — I have no illusions about being able to reason out BS that wasn’t reasoned in. Just throwing thoughts out there for those on the fence lurking.
“I have not equated non-interventionism with antisemitism.”
“…and that we should have followed a “non-interventionist” path during the rise of Nazism then you are an antisemite.”
Ummm, yea you absolutely did equate non-interventionism to antisemitism. Having said that, your implication is that we have an obligation to stop all genocide, otherwise someone opposed to that intervention would be racist towards whatever people are being persecuted.
To take your assertion to the next logical step, we had an obligation to stop Guatemalan civil war, but wait, we actually had CIA working with military who is responsible for the slaughter of over 180,000 people.
By the same assertion, the US should have intervened much sooner in the Rwanda genocide that killed over 1 million people.
According to you, we should have also intervened in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which killed 1-2 million Afghans.
For the sake of time I will list many other genocides that you argue we should have intervened in: Ethiopia Red Terror (500,000 deaths), Kurdish genocide (2.1 million deaths), Continuing genocide in Congo (kills 45,000 per year), 2nd Sudanese civil war (2 million deaths and Darfur.
Using admittedly made up numbers, you have just committed the US to hundreds of thousands if not millions of troops, not to mention hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars to fight in these interventions. Oh yea, and the possible start of World War III and a global nuclear holocaust.
I hold no illusions that you will address this in any way except to call it extreme, or give some insignificant differences between the genocide of the holocaust and the genocides mentioned above. Obviously this is going to be turned into BS spin… To use conservativewander and your words.
” Having said that, your implication is that we have an obligation to stop all genocide, otherwise someone opposed to that intervention would be racist towards whatever people are being persecuted.”
No, that is not my implication. That is your irrational thinking. We do not have the ability to stop ALL genocide. But we do have the ability to prevent, sabotage, and not enable further genocides. But we need to have the intelligence and courage to recognize that those who want to kill the Jews will not stop once they’re finished. Then they move on to the rest of us.
““I have not equated non-interventionism with antisemitism.”
“…and that we should have followed a “non-interventionist” path during the rise of Nazism then you are an antisemite.”
Ummm, yea you absolutely did equate non-interventionism to antisemitism.”
No, I equated “a non-interventionist path during the rise of Nazism” with antisemitism. Not jut “noninterventionism.” There’s nothing antisemitic about New Zealand (or some other nation state) wanting to be non-interventionist or the America of 1825 being non-interventionist. Context changes the appropriate actions of a state. We’re not the same country we were 200 years ago and the world is not the same.
Thank you for your comments which demonstrate the irrationality of the True Believer mentality — you are unable to even attempt to perceive what I am saying. You can’t even perceive thoughts in complete sentences. It’s not a coincidence that the paranoid, conspiracy-minded, paleolibertarian Rorschach in Watchmen speaks in sentence fragments and individuals like yourself are incapable of reading an entire sentence’s meaning.
“But we do have the ability to prevent, sabotage, and not enable further genocides.”
Again, my question is this: There is continuing genocide all around the world, is it your view that we should have active roles in preventing, sabotaging and not enabling all of it? I only ask because it seems like a huge undertaking.
I wrote this already: “We do not have the ability to stop ALL genocide.” We should try and stop genocide when we have the ability to do so. But the fact that we cannot stop all genocides does not mean we should not stop genocide when we are able to.
We can’t stop it every time our neighbor beat his wife. But we can stop it sometimes by doing what is in in our power to do — call the cops and report the crime. During WWII it was in our power and interest to fight the Nazis. But the Old Right antisemites deny this. Do you?
Ron Paul does not represent the mainstream of the libertarian movement. Rather he, Raimdondo and Lew Rockwell are on the far-left fringe of our movement. Be better if they called themselves something rather than “libertarian.” But there’s not much we can do about it. Libertarian has become a vogue term as of late.
Mainstream libertarians are pro-defense, pro-military and stridently anti-Islamist. Think Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, Dennis Miller, Boortz, Glenn Beck Ted Nugent, Pamela Geller and Tammy Bruce.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
LibertarianRepublican.net
If I may take the liberty of responding for our illustrious author…
I believe he made that point earlier in this comment thread.
Eric what are you talking about? Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul ARE the libertarian movement.
Dana Rohrabacher, Dennis Miller, Boortz, Glenn Beck, Ted Nugent, Pamela Geller and Tammy Bruce are not even close to libertarian.
Libertarian means adherence to the non-aggression principle which is completely incompatible with your philosophy and the philosophy of those you listed. Please do us all a favor and just call yourself conservative. You give the rest of us a bad name.
And this is why I’m sick to death of talking to libertarians.
It’s a mushy, fluid philosophy that ducks every argument by jumping behind the retort “[so-and-so] doesn’t represent TRUE libertarianism.”
There’s nothing you can say to a libertarian that won’t get you that line as a answer.
I wish they’d quit calling themselves conservatives and go the hell away.
Yes, I’m in agreement and plan on making the same point in a post today.
This is the same tactic used by everyone on the left…you just restate something about Ron Paul without any commentary as if it is self-refuting. For example: “Paul’s intellectual mentor Murray Rothbard was the founder of anarcho-capitalism”
No attempt to refute anything Murray Rothbard has written. No mention of his ideas. I highly doubt this author has every read even one paragraph of Rothbard. Nope, just the mere mention of Rothbard is supposed to be self-refuting.
“If you believe that the ideas of the Old Right have great value and that we should have followed a “non-interventionist” path during the rise of Nazism then you are an antisemite.”
Not to mention you have absolutely no knowledge of history. It was the INTERVENTIONISM of WW1 and the aftermath that created the environment for WW2. Actually non-interventionism would have avoid the rise of Nazism altogether. In reality it was interventionist policies that YOU support that directly led to the death of six million jews. Maybe we should be calling you antisemetic.
What a piece of trash you are.
“I highly doubt this author has every read even one paragraph of Rothbard. Nope, just the mere mention of Rothbard is supposed to be self-refuting.”
Both of the first two books linked to in this post are ones that I’m reading right now. What am I not getting exactly about the antisemitism of the Old Right, Ron Paul’s desire for friendship with the genocidal antisemite Ahmadinejad, his unwillingness to return money donated to him by Neo-Nazis, and the bigotry of his 1990s newsletters?
While I am a fan of Raimondo (although I haven’t read those books), you should read one actually written by Murray Rothbard, rather than one about him. I would recommend For a New Liberty. http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
What am I not getting exactly about the antisemitism of the Old Right, Ron Paul’s desire for friendship with the genocidal antisemite Ahmadinejad, his unwillingness to return money donated to him by Neo-Nazis, and the bigotry of his 1990s newsletters?
The author is apparently unaware of the long and honorable and strong current of non-intervention in American History that lasted from the foundation of the nation up through the beginning of WWII. It has nothing to do with anti-sematisim whatsoever. Calling all non-interventionists of the early 20th century anti-semitic is, well, simply an ignorant and wildly absurd overstatement.
Non-interventionist thinkg may have been influenced by:
“The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”
Often paraphrased as “Beware of foreign entanglements” spoken by (in Swindle’s mind) the anti-Semite George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796.
Jim, your comment would make sense BUT George Washington wrote nothing like the Ron Paul Newsletter, which, for a decade or so, was filled with anti-black, anti-gay and anti-Semitic statements.
For those who don’t already know about this, they can read about it here:
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS
A Google search will reveal much more. This skeleton in Paul’s closet would destroy the Republican party were he to be nominated. In the long run, he won’t be. But he may cause serious problems.
I’ve had the privilege of getting to know Dr. Paul personally. He is not an anti-Semite.
Someone intelligent and articulate enough to write for PJ Media should be able to criticize Dr. Paul’s policy stances, as I have done, without slandering him. Try harder.
These 2 paragraphs here are ones that you are ignoring. Please respond to them.
This is not a complicated point (as some polite conservatives might think it is.) And it has nothing to do with Paul wanting to end foreign aid to Israel and all other nations. (I know plenty of passionate Zionists who think the same thing for different reasons.)
If you believe that the ideas of the Old Right have great value and that we should have followed a “non-interventionist” path during the rise of Nazism then you are an antisemite. You know good and well that the practical consequence of American inaction would have meant an even higher body count in the Holocaust. But dead Jews are apparently not something that concerns you much.
And Obama is not a classic anti-Semite either, in that he has Jews in his administration and certainly hobnobbed with some to raise money from them. However, he and RP have one thing in common: Both hate Israel.
There are a good number of hateful and stupid statements RP has made over the years about Israel. He has accused Israel of keeping the Gazans in a “concentration camp”, and later said it was a slip, a gaffe, but repeated it another time. He lambasted Israel for attacking Gaza when rockets were falling daily into the southern communities of Israel, and then making light of the Palestinian rockets, though these rockets did manage to kill and maim and terrorize the citizens of those communities such as Sderot.
RP and his fellow paleocons (such as Lew Rockwell, who wrote the hate-filled screeds of the Ron Paul letters that Paul said he had no knowledge of…kind of like Obama saying he slept through 20 years of Jeremiah Wright jeremiads!)feel that Israel does NOT have the right to exist, that they stole the land from the Palestinians and are still engaged in ethnic cleansing and land theft. Yes, RP has made such statements.
RP loves to single out Israel and Israel ALONE when deriding foreign aid. He only would add other countries when pressured to say if he was anti-Israel, but the repeated nastiness of his comments about this belie the fact that he simply hates Israel.
We can quibble if that makes him an anti-Semite. I don’t really give a crap, because I know that were Israel in the same situation as they were in 1973, when Israel was shut off from any ability to even buy arms, Nixon…yep, Nixon who probably was an anti-Semite, a more classic one, overruled an even bigger anti-Semite, Henry Kissinger (yes, Jewish, but Jews can be their own worst enemy) and saved Israel by lifting an arms embargo and supplying Israel with weapons. Paul would just shrug and maybe even secretly relish it if Israel were to be defeated and its people annihilated. He would think it justice for the poor Palestinians that he has shown his sympathy for.
The man is simply, as we say in Yiddish, a PUTZ. At best. At worst he is an anti-Semite who manages to fool even otherwise intelligent folks like Francis (whose blog I enjoy, btw).
Please join us in listening to the Chamber2Go Webinar on Mobile Non-Dues Revenue. We invite you to listen at your convenience to this exciting and informative webinar.
Join the webinar now! click here: vlt.me/.2jo7
Please feel free to view a summary of our Mobile Chamber2Go program by opening our showbook ( vlt.me/.2jo4 ) and learn more about what Chamber2Go has to offer. Also, enjoy this news coverage of our app program in Bentonville, AR: … 5newsonline: Bella Vista Chamber Launches Smartphone app. click here: vlt.me/.2jo3
Again, feel free to listen to the Chamber2Go webinar, and take advantage of these links and explore the opportunities Chamber2Go has to offer you and your chamber. click here: chambers2go webnar
Have a great day! Thanks! David and the Chamber2Go Team
P.S. We just announced our new event calendar integration with Google Calendar, and we launched our new 50% non-dues revenue share for Premium Pages.
How is increased spending.. and over the entire Globe for goodness sakes, make one a “conservative?” Ron Paul is about cutting spending.. and cutting various ways of throwing away money, like we’re made of it.. in order to do so. Some things are just plainly, common-sense. We can raise the cap until the cows come home.. but, whats tat going to do in the way of reducing the debt? Not one thing!
These idiots try to play the American people as such.. and its not working. I’m no financial genius but, I do know that to reduce the debt, we must reduce spending. If we are to see our own country thrive, we spend on our own country… not throw money hand over fist at everyone else. This mess needs to stop yesterday!!!