The problem with conservatives is that they don't have a lick of reactionary behavior in them. Historically speaking, it is very difficult for any conservative movement to sustain any agenda with boycotts, protesting, civil disobedience, multi-media organizing, etc.

I think that is changing, as evidenced perhaps by comments from the bloggers here and those cited in the article, as well as the obvious emergence of the Tea Party the last few years. People are waking up.

Once conservatives and libertarians feel a little more comfortable and nuanced in their reactionary activities, Progressivism's death grip in the above institutions will be on numbered days as we outnumber them greatly.

I think the "math" the author used was either a mistake in the calculation or a lazy bit of propaganda. Either way, I noticed its implausibility immediately. The point of that statement, however, is that conservatives far outnumber liberals and progressives. Thank God for that.

And yes, it is common knowledge both Hollywood and public education indoctrinate young people inside of their institutions. The former is unfortunate, the latter is unforgivable.

BINGO. We have a winner!

Checkmate? I'm not sure Dr. Paul was trying to play chess with anyone.

He was merely speaking the plain truth.

For those who chide the "naive" foreign policy of Ron Paul, you may want to re-examine your simplistic rhetoric when considering Ronald Reagan, no doubt many of yours' hero (and a recipient of my own admiration as well).

"Reagan admitted that the worst mistake of his entire presidency was his decision to commit troops in Lebanon, and he thought American efforts in that part of the world would always be severely limited by the region’s political and cultural realities. Whereas both Presidents Bush and Obama embrace the Wilsonian notion that America can help transform parts of the Middle East into democracies, Reagan took a decidedly more conservative approach, or as Paul described in 2005: “We should remember Ronald Reagan’s admonition regarding this area of the world. Ronald Reagan reflected on Lebanon in his memoirs, describing the Middle East as a jungle and Middle East politics as irrational. It forced him to rethink his policy in the region.”

ALSO:

"Paul recalled Reagan’s reassessment of our involvement in Lebanon in an effort to get America to rethink its current overall involvement in the Middle East. Yet, anytime Paul applies a cost/benefit analysis to our foreign policy or suggests diplomacy is preferable to war, he is roundly denounced by Republican hawks as weak or naïve.

Many of these hawks had the same attitude toward Reagan. Beinart writes:

Nothing compared with the howls of outrage that accompanied Reagan’s dovish turn toward the Soviet Union. In 1986, when Reagan would not cancel his second summit with Gorbachev over Moscow’s imprisonment of an American journalist, [Norman] Podhoretz accused him of having “shamed himself and the country” in his “craven eagerness” to give away the nuclear store … When Reagan signed the INF Treaty, most Republicans vying to succeed him came out in opposition. Grassroots conservative leaders established the Anti-Appeasement Alliance to oppose ratification and ran newspaper advertisements comparing Gorbachev to Hitler and Reagan to Neville Chamberlain."

Before you wrongly criticize Paul's foreign policy one more time, at least read this article.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/08/ron-pauls-reaga...

I agree. Pretty lame cut-off.

You should be more concerned that you and others continually fail to recognize the fact there is no real difference between the two threats. They are all the same.

What are you talking about?

I'm a libertarian / paleo-conservative. I'm claiming Republicans are responsible for, and continue to support, the Patriot Act.

Are you confused?

Repubs have no use for genuine liberty. It's all talk. Their bold recitations of the Founding Fathers are nothing but theater.

I respect Newt for being smart and being very knowledgeable. But I certainly don't respect him for being wrong. And wrong he is.

Claiming there is some moral or legal, or even philosophical mandate for justifying the Patriot Act because it may catch one or two terrorists is no different than supporting gun control because such laws will undoubtedly save lives.

Repubs' hypocrisy and selectivity of the B.O.R. is rather curious.

Name one? How about hundreds or thousands of possible cases?

"In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts.[12]" --Wikipedia

Many illegal examples here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invoca...

Please help me understand exactly what process of cherry-picking of rights and liberties you Repubs undertake whilst boldly quoting the Founding Fathers out of the other side of your collective mouths.

It's phucking ridiculous.