Unfunny Leftist Comedian: Truth Doesn't Matter

What (Some) Ron Paul Supporters Don't Get About the Constitution

By now it's been seen and enjoyed by thousands of people on YouTube: a clip from National Geographic's Frontier Force in which a drunk driver hautily lectures Montana state troopers about the constitution.

After being put in the back of the police cruiser to be taken away, the man pronounces "Ron Paul 2012."

Whatever the constitution has to do with this individual driving while his blood alohol content is four times over the legal limit is something that the driver himself probably doesn't know. He's just that drunk.

But in the midst of his ramblings, the drunk slurs something that might give one pause to consider just how well this individual understands the US constitution at all. He declares, "constitution! Read it and... live by it."

Reading too deeply into it given the level of inebriation of this man may be a mistake. But it could be interpreted as a sign that this individual, for all his devotion to the constitution, doesn't understand it.

Simply put, the constitution is not actually a code for its citizens to live by. It's a code for a country's government to govern by. While there are numerous bodies of law by which the power of the state is used to bind citizens, the constitution is the body of law by which the power of citizens is used to bind the state. It simultaneously grants the government powers and limits them. It simultaneously assigns the state responsibilities and limits them as well.

The US constitution, specifically, is preoccupied with the freedom of its citizens. The US constitution actually offers no comment on how citizens should live their lives; rather, it grants them the freedom to do it as they will.

There's no reason to definitively believe that this individual really believes one should live by the constitution. There's also no reason to definitively believe that there are no Ron Paul followers who do not hold this belief.

It's likely a belief that Ron Paul himself would reject. Even so, there's some cause -- however slim -- for Americans to be concerned about such notions among his followers.

Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over

Tim Pawlenty: The No-Decline President

Pawlenty set to take on all comers regarding foreign policy

In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Republican Party Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty auditioned a new mode for the primary election: the combative Tim Pawlenty.

In a speech on his foreign policy vision, Pawlenty took no prisoners. He relentlessly pursued the foreign policy missteps of President Barack Obama, and fellow Presidential candidates Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and John Huntsman.

“America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment and withdrawal,” he declared. “It does not need a second one.”

Pawlenty excoriated Obama for not being prepared to support the famed "Arab spring" uprisings in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, and Libya. (Only in the case of Libya did the US offer any significant amount of support.) He scathed Obama for failing to support an Iranian protest against a rigged Presidential election that could have brought a pro-democracy revolution (if that is, indeed, what the Arab Spring is) to the Middle East and Africa.

He teed off on fellow Republicans Paul, Huntsman, and Romney -- especially Romney. For a lack of commitment to the war in Afghanistan. Romney recently declared that the US has no business fighting another country's war of independence, seemingly forgetting that the United States and NATO invaded Afghanistan in a bid to dislodge a government that tolerated the operation of terrorist groups within its borders and eventually replace it with a stable, international-law-abiding, government.

That may not fit in with Ron Paul's "fiscally conservative at any cost" agenda, or Mitt Romney's "say anything to become President" agenda. It's what Pawlenty promised when he launched his bid to be President: the truth.

Pawlenty spoke strongly about the need for a US foreign policy that focuses on bringing democracy, and refuses to spare un-democratic US allies like Saudi Arabis is or Egypt was.

Ron Paul will inevitably confront Pawlenty with questions about how the costs of a strong interventionist will be controlled. He will be absolutely right to do so, and Pawlenty will need good answers.

But there is one thing the GOP can depend on: the Democrats are not having these kinds of debates as they roll toward the 2012 election. If the Republicans choose the right candidate, they can turn these debates into occupancy in the White House, and Tim Pawelenty -- whether he's President or not -- will have been key to it.

President Paul? Which One?

Rand Paul won't run for President against his dad

It's hard to know whether a Rand Paul run at the Presidency would be what the Republican Party wants more, or what the Party wants least.

But speaking at the University of Iowa recently, Paul made it clear that he's considering a run... provided that his father, Ron Paul, doesn't make a run himself.

“The only thing I’ve decided is that I won’t run against my dad,” Paul said.

Like his father, Paul is accruing himself a reputation as someone who will speak out against his own party. Very recently, Paul has criticized his party over its reluctance to fully address the United States' fiscal woes.

For Paul, absolutely nothing is off-limits in the fight against the growing US deficit, not even that traditional sacred cow, the military.

“It’s what I call the inconvenient truth in Washington," Paul remarked. "Conservatives have to acknowledge that not all military dollars are well spent. We have to acknowledge that or we’re not serious about balancing the budget.”

It doesn't end there. Paul has also come out in favour of slashing all US foreign aid... including to Israel, itself often considered an untouchable corner stone of American foreign policy. Paul has even provoked the ire of Senate Democrats with that particular idea.

There's little question that a Rand Paul Presidential run would be revolutionary; not only for the Republican Party, but also for the United States as a whole. Perhaps even more revolutionary than a Ron Paul Presidential run.

Whether Republicans are ready for a Rand Paul Presidential run or not, they'll be waiting on baited breath for Ron's decisions as much as for Rand's.