Those who find Rep. Paul's foreign policy vision fringe-like or crazy would do well to read what other libertarian non-interventionists were saying before the Iraq war began. They were remarkably prescient. Some even predicted a Sept. 11-like attack years before it happened. For example:

— The Cato Institute's Gene Healy: "After our quick victory, and after the "Arab street" fails to rise, you're going to hear a lot of self-congratulation from the hawks. But the fallout from this war is likely to be long-term, in the form of a protracted and messy occupation, and an enhanced terrorist recruitment base."

— Ted Galen Carpenter, also of Cato: "The inevitable U.S. military victory would not be the end of America's troubles in Iraq. Indeed, it would mark the start of a new round of headaches. Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems."

Now contrast those forecasts — both made before the war — with predictions from the war's architects:

— Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

— Vice President Dick Cheney: "I don't think it would be that tough a fight."

— White House economic advisor Glenn Hubbard: "Costs of any [Iraq] intervention would be very small."

— OMB Director Mitch Daniels: "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."

It's striking just how right people who think like Ron Paul were before the war, and how incredibly wrong those now pilling on him were. And yet Paul Wolfowitz was promoted to head the World Bank; Dick Cheney is still vice president; and Mitch Daniels is the governor of Indiana.

The people who were wrong were rewarded. And they go right on mocking the people who were right.

Reconnaissance de la théorie de l’évolution contre le créationnisme

La question de la théorie de l'évolution et du créationnisme, a été abordée lors du premier débat télévisé entre les dix candidats à l'investiture républicaine. 3 candidats ont levé la main lorsqu'un journaliste a demandé qui croyait au créationnisme. Ron Paul n'a pas levé la main. Un bloggeur a par la suite posé la question par email au staff de campagne de Ron Paul. La réponse fût « Ron Paul est un médecin et croit dans la théorie de l'évolution ».

Michael Bloomberg, l'actuel maire de New York, quitte le parti républicain pour se présenter en indépendant !

Tago l'objectif de ceci selon les journalistes est de torpiller les démocrates, cette candidature sous le label "indépendant" devrait ponctionner des voix au parti démocrate... (un peu comme la candidature de Parot qui avait torpillé les républicains)...