Ron Paul, uniter

American politics is polarized.   Our government is in a state of paralysis.  Conservatives, liberals, and moderates are at each other’s throats.  National unity is no more.   And yet, I see a presidential candidate who might be able to bring the country together:  Ron Paul.

He has the support of the Tea Party dissidents on the right who yearn for a more limited, more constitutional government.  But he also has significant support from the Occupy Wall Street dissidents on the left for his criticism of big corporations and the banking interests.   And yet he appeals to business folks as a free market purist.  He is pro-life, which is enough to satisfy lots of social conservatives (and he would certainly appoint “original intent” judges).  He is also anti-war, which attracts lots of liberals disillusioned with Obama’s war machine.  Above all, he has appeal to the vast internet subculture, which, as observers have noted, is essentially libertarian.

Whether or not you want him as president–and please don’t confuse my mental experiments on this blog for my own endorsements–could it be that Dr. Paul or someone with an ideology like his shows the way to bring this country together again?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • SKPeterson

    He makes a good case for it, but I think there are too many discordant elements on the both sides with Paul’s core political philosophy. Their own internal inconsistencies become too glaring and uncomfortable in view of Paul’s. Hence, he’s “too extreme.” He’s against big banks but not big business. He’s for free trade but not empire (or the corollary – he’s against empire but he’s not a protectionist). He actually thinks the Constitution should be followed by all three branches of the federal government, at the same time. That is radical, extreme, straight out of the 18th century kooky, and hopelessly naive in this modern world.

    While he certainly has a populist anti-bank streak, he’s not by the same token a progressive. He believes the banks and their attendant malfeasance are products of regulation and government protection, not entities that need more regulation, i.e. protection. Paul believes truly free markets protect against monopolies and concentration of market power (something actually borne out by the historical record), yet he is excoriated for not promoting excessive regulation of business by those who see no irony in the government being the biggest monopolist of all, and those who view any attempts to diminish that monopoly power as anathema.

    For social conservatives on the right attracted by Paul’s abortion stance, they don’t like the idea that he doesn’t want to make a federal case out of it. Just like most murders, thefts, and other crimes it should be dealt with outside the federal level. If you want a good argument for removing the federal government from most law enforcement I suggest checking out a series of articles the WSJ has done this past year on the problems that ensue when the federal government gets involved. Almost Waco-style overreach and overreaction becomes the norm, not the exception. His similar stance on the Defense of Marriage Act is also troublesome for the exact same reason. Finally, the third leg of the social conservative stool is Israel. Paul is not a dispensationalist for whom aiding and abetting Israeli power projection is a core religious belief. He thinks Israel can take care of itself and doesn’t need billions of U.S. dollars and a range of explicit and implicit military guarantees. For many social conservatives, he is insufficiently hawkish on behalf of Israel, which bleeds over into his core neo-con opposition from both the Clinton-Obama wing of the Democrat Party and the every-other-candidate-except-maybe-Huntsman wing of the Republican Party. This group loves Israel, not so much from a social conservative perspective, but because they can silence social conservatives and use Israel as a foreign policy prop for expanding U.S. influence in defense of “national interests.” Hence, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran. While Afghanistan is the most legitimate of our foreign military actions, we’ve long since accomplished our stated war aims. Now we’re just empire building. Paul objects to that. The pro-Empire group objects to Paul’s objection. It’s “kooky” to be American and against Empire.

    How far we have fallen from the Founding – Patrick Henry was right.

  • SKPeterson

    He makes a good case for it, but I think there are too many discordant elements on the both sides with Paul’s core political philosophy. Their own internal inconsistencies become too glaring and uncomfortable in view of Paul’s. Hence, he’s “too extreme.” He’s against big banks but not big business. He’s for free trade but not empire (or the corollary – he’s against empire but he’s not a protectionist). He actually thinks the Constitution should be followed by all three branches of the federal government, at the same time. That is radical, extreme, straight out of the 18th century kooky, and hopelessly naive in this modern world.

    While he certainly has a populist anti-bank streak, he’s not by the same token a progressive. He believes the banks and their attendant malfeasance are products of regulation and government protection, not entities that need more regulation, i.e. protection. Paul believes truly free markets protect against monopolies and concentration of market power (something actually borne out by the historical record), yet he is excoriated for not promoting excessive regulation of business by those who see no irony in the government being the biggest monopolist of all, and those who view any attempts to diminish that monopoly power as anathema.

    For social conservatives on the right attracted by Paul’s abortion stance, they don’t like the idea that he doesn’t want to make a federal case out of it. Just like most murders, thefts, and other crimes it should be dealt with outside the federal level. If you want a good argument for removing the federal government from most law enforcement I suggest checking out a series of articles the WSJ has done this past year on the problems that ensue when the federal government gets involved. Almost Waco-style overreach and overreaction becomes the norm, not the exception. His similar stance on the Defense of Marriage Act is also troublesome for the exact same reason. Finally, the third leg of the social conservative stool is Israel. Paul is not a dispensationalist for whom aiding and abetting Israeli power projection is a core religious belief. He thinks Israel can take care of itself and doesn’t need billions of U.S. dollars and a range of explicit and implicit military guarantees. For many social conservatives, he is insufficiently hawkish on behalf of Israel, which bleeds over into his core neo-con opposition from both the Clinton-Obama wing of the Democrat Party and the every-other-candidate-except-maybe-Huntsman wing of the Republican Party. This group loves Israel, not so much from a social conservative perspective, but because they can silence social conservatives and use Israel as a foreign policy prop for expanding U.S. influence in defense of “national interests.” Hence, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran. While Afghanistan is the most legitimate of our foreign military actions, we’ve long since accomplished our stated war aims. Now we’re just empire building. Paul objects to that. The pro-Empire group objects to Paul’s objection. It’s “kooky” to be American and against Empire.

    How far we have fallen from the Founding – Patrick Henry was right.

  • kenneth

    On that description of success on the right, it is the first person I would want to work and vote for. Only one thing galls me about Ron Paul is his libertarian take on prostitution and pornography, et al…

  • kenneth

    On that description of success on the right, it is the first person I would want to work and vote for. Only one thing galls me about Ron Paul is his libertarian take on prostitution and pornography, et al…

  • Steve Billingsley
  • Steve Billingsley
  • Rich Shipe

    There goes Dr. Veith trying to boost traffic again with the Ron Paul bait. :)

    I think a candidate who ran on the Constitution could potentially be very attractive to those on the left and the right for some of the reasons you mention, Dr. Veith. Paul is more than just a strict observer of the Constitution. That more is what I don’t like.

  • Rich Shipe

    There goes Dr. Veith trying to boost traffic again with the Ron Paul bait. :)

    I think a candidate who ran on the Constitution could potentially be very attractive to those on the left and the right for some of the reasons you mention, Dr. Veith. Paul is more than just a strict observer of the Constitution. That more is what I don’t like.

  • larry

    Dr. Veith very nice analysis, and in fact rather brave to put out there if I might add. I too have never been a “pro” (endorser) of Dr. Paul, yet there’s this glaring, if one can go into the neutral zone of analysis long enough, unification within his camp for the reasons you and SK well outlined. It also shows the real agenda behind “conservatives” on the one hand and liberals on the other and hence the reason many of the same don’t like Paul. Could he be elected if ever given the primary opportunity? I wonder because his core ideas strike at the very core of the “conservative”/”liberal” power complex. These two typically “good cop/bad cop” us to death into ironically bigger government and bigger (pseudo government) banks/business (the ill that tea party folks and some occupy folks see). The so called conservative wing usually ends being a back door for bigger government while it pretends to be for smaller.

  • larry

    Dr. Veith very nice analysis, and in fact rather brave to put out there if I might add. I too have never been a “pro” (endorser) of Dr. Paul, yet there’s this glaring, if one can go into the neutral zone of analysis long enough, unification within his camp for the reasons you and SK well outlined. It also shows the real agenda behind “conservatives” on the one hand and liberals on the other and hence the reason many of the same don’t like Paul. Could he be elected if ever given the primary opportunity? I wonder because his core ideas strike at the very core of the “conservative”/”liberal” power complex. These two typically “good cop/bad cop” us to death into ironically bigger government and bigger (pseudo government) banks/business (the ill that tea party folks and some occupy folks see). The so called conservative wing usually ends being a back door for bigger government while it pretends to be for smaller.

  • Larry Wilson

    In an effort to abstain from being as verbose as I was last time this topic came up, may I simply suggest this video — http://youtu.be/I8NhRPo0WAo — with this caveat: Psalm 146:3.

  • Larry Wilson

    In an effort to abstain from being as verbose as I was last time this topic came up, may I simply suggest this video — http://youtu.be/I8NhRPo0WAo — with this caveat: Psalm 146:3.

  • Dennis Peskey

    Rich (#4) I confess ignorance of Ron Paul’s support for our Constitution; your comment of “more than just a strict observer” needs a bit of unpacking. When I compare this with what SKPeterson wrote in post #1 (“He actually thinks the Constitution should be followed by all three branches of the federal government, at the same time. That is radical, extreme, straight out of the 18th century kooky, and hopelessly naive in this modern world.” I am left feeling like I’m in the wrong century (again) and deeply in need of edification.
    PS – my best Republican friend is an ardent supporter of Mr. Huntsman who’s very name seems to be anathema among other Republicans (is being appointed by a Democrat considered the “kiss of death” to a Republican career?)
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    Rich (#4) I confess ignorance of Ron Paul’s support for our Constitution; your comment of “more than just a strict observer” needs a bit of unpacking. When I compare this with what SKPeterson wrote in post #1 (“He actually thinks the Constitution should be followed by all three branches of the federal government, at the same time. That is radical, extreme, straight out of the 18th century kooky, and hopelessly naive in this modern world.” I am left feeling like I’m in the wrong century (again) and deeply in need of edification.
    PS – my best Republican friend is an ardent supporter of Mr. Huntsman who’s very name seems to be anathema among other Republicans (is being appointed by a Democrat considered the “kiss of death” to a Republican career?)
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dan Kempin

    Question of nomenclature:

    Is it proper to address Ron Paul as “Congressman Paul” or “Dr. Paul?”

  • Dan Kempin

    Question of nomenclature:

    Is it proper to address Ron Paul as “Congressman Paul” or “Dr. Paul?”

  • Lou G.

    He was on Jay Leno and the crowd went wild when he was sharing his various positions. Several of my friends said that they thought his ideas were amazing and would stand behind him.

    I have the same opinion now as I did in 2008. Ron Paul, no matter how good his ideas are, is not electable as himself. Sorry to say, but he is 76 years old and does not have the personna to pull it off. I think that is a bit of a shame on our culture, but it is a reality we must deal with. Now, just imagine, a guy who looked like Rick Perry with Ron Paul’s positions? Or someone like that…

    I think the most important thing Ron Paul needs to do is find himself a mentee who can carry the torch and be the front runner for his cause. Otherwise, the cause is just going to fizzle out as his age creeps…. Just a few random thoughts…

  • Lou G.

    He was on Jay Leno and the crowd went wild when he was sharing his various positions. Several of my friends said that they thought his ideas were amazing and would stand behind him.

    I have the same opinion now as I did in 2008. Ron Paul, no matter how good his ideas are, is not electable as himself. Sorry to say, but he is 76 years old and does not have the personna to pull it off. I think that is a bit of a shame on our culture, but it is a reality we must deal with. Now, just imagine, a guy who looked like Rick Perry with Ron Paul’s positions? Or someone like that…

    I think the most important thing Ron Paul needs to do is find himself a mentee who can carry the torch and be the front runner for his cause. Otherwise, the cause is just going to fizzle out as his age creeps…. Just a few random thoughts…

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    The fact that he (Paul) is garnering so much support does not bode well for our country.

    He has a distorted and naive view of history and his followers do not see this. His anthropology is all wrong. He does not think that evil people in other parts of the world will affect the U.S..

    He’s very dangerous, therefore.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    The fact that he (Paul) is garnering so much support does not bode well for our country.

    He has a distorted and naive view of history and his followers do not see this. His anthropology is all wrong. He does not think that evil people in other parts of the world will affect the U.S..

    He’s very dangerous, therefore.

  • SKPeterson

    Dennis @ 7 – I should have probably added a ;) to that comment, but to your point I wold like to see Rich @ 4 and Steve @ 10 unpack their statements a little more. How is Paul’s view of history distorted and naive? What is this “more” to which Rich refers?

    Is Paul perfect. By no means. But, he appears to be the least imperfect candidate at this time. Obama? Please. There’s already too much Chicago politics for the state of Illinois to handle, the rest of us don’t need any more. Romney? An absolutely uninspiring choice, one that doesn’t even have an aura of competence to mask the deficiencies. Perry? Yeah, save a pretzel for the gas jets. Bachmann? Seems like she watched “Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown” a few too many times. Gingrich? Throwing bombs is all fun and games, until somebody gets their eye poked out. But, I forgot, there’s no such thing as backlash. Huntsman? Maybe. I’m willing to take a look, but he’s all green screen – you can project whatever feelgood scenario you want as his back drop.

  • SKPeterson

    Dennis @ 7 – I should have probably added a ;) to that comment, but to your point I wold like to see Rich @ 4 and Steve @ 10 unpack their statements a little more. How is Paul’s view of history distorted and naive? What is this “more” to which Rich refers?

    Is Paul perfect. By no means. But, he appears to be the least imperfect candidate at this time. Obama? Please. There’s already too much Chicago politics for the state of Illinois to handle, the rest of us don’t need any more. Romney? An absolutely uninspiring choice, one that doesn’t even have an aura of competence to mask the deficiencies. Perry? Yeah, save a pretzel for the gas jets. Bachmann? Seems like she watched “Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown” a few too many times. Gingrich? Throwing bombs is all fun and games, until somebody gets their eye poked out. But, I forgot, there’s no such thing as backlash. Huntsman? Maybe. I’m willing to take a look, but he’s all green screen – you can project whatever feelgood scenario you want as his back drop.

  • Mike Cooper

    Maybe, just maybe, a victory by Paul in Iowa would get Ryan or Jindahl into the race.

  • Mike Cooper

    Maybe, just maybe, a victory by Paul in Iowa would get Ryan or Jindahl into the race.

  • DonS
  • DonS
  • Lou G.

    someone asksed: “How is Paul’s view of history distorted?”
    Well, I do remember 5 or 6 years ago hearing him talking something about Lincoln as the worst president and the Civil War as the biggest mistake in American history. He said some other things too about abolition and things which were pretty bothersome to me…

  • Lou G.

    someone asksed: “How is Paul’s view of history distorted?”
    Well, I do remember 5 or 6 years ago hearing him talking something about Lincoln as the worst president and the Civil War as the biggest mistake in American history. He said some other things too about abolition and things which were pretty bothersome to me…

  • Lou G.

    Lou G.: I don’t know if Paul has actually said such things about Lincoln, but, if he did, bully for him. If one actually respects constitutional government and robust federalism, Lincoln ranks, in objective terms, as one of the worst, if not the worst, president in American history.

    Meanwhile, I have no idea what Paul has said about abolition, either, but many serious historians of the period are willing to admit that immediate, radical abolition was a bad idea and, paradoxically, set back pursuits for equality and civil rights by several decades at least.

  • Lou G.

    Lou G.: I don’t know if Paul has actually said such things about Lincoln, but, if he did, bully for him. If one actually respects constitutional government and robust federalism, Lincoln ranks, in objective terms, as one of the worst, if not the worst, president in American history.

    Meanwhile, I have no idea what Paul has said about abolition, either, but many serious historians of the period are willing to admit that immediate, radical abolition was a bad idea and, paradoxically, set back pursuits for equality and civil rights by several decades at least.

  • Cincinnatus

    In a brain fart of fantastical pungency, I input my name as “Lou G.”@15 when replying to, well, Lou G. Sorry about that.

    Meanwhile, Lou G., my point is that the fact that you “don’t like” some things he has said about the orthodox American narrative doesn’t mean that he’s “historically illiterate.”

  • Cincinnatus

    In a brain fart of fantastical pungency, I input my name as “Lou G.”@15 when replying to, well, Lou G. Sorry about that.

    Meanwhile, Lou G., my point is that the fact that you “don’t like” some things he has said about the orthodox American narrative doesn’t mean that he’s “historically illiterate.”

  • Dennis Peskey

    SKG (#11) Thanks for the reply. I will attest to the members of my State, Michigan, being envious of the voting records for Illinois citizens, particularly after they’re deceased!
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    SKG (#11) Thanks for the reply. I will attest to the members of my State, Michigan, being envious of the voting records for Illinois citizens, particularly after they’re deceased!
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • steve

    As the Occupiers get more co-opts by the government employee unions, they will come to hate Ron Paul too.

  • steve

    As the Occupiers get more co-opts by the government employee unions, they will come to hate Ron Paul too.

  • steve

    #18 should be “co-opted”

  • steve

    #18 should be “co-opted”

  • trotk

    Steve Martin (I can’t help but read your statements as the comedy they are) said, “He has a distorted and naive view of history and his followers do not see this. His anthropology is all wrong. He does not think that evil people in other parts of the world will affect the U.S.”

    This is comic. He has the best understanding of history of any of the candidates, because he is the only one who understands cause and effect. It is also patently false, particularly the last sentence of your claim. He nowhere claims that evil people won’t affect us. They may attack us no matter how perfectly we behave. He simply (and rightly) recognizes that our interventionism has caused many of the issues and compounded many of the problems.

    I don’t get what is so difficult to see about this. The terrorists themselves have acknowledged that their actions against us were not for any reason other than retaliation because of what we did in their countries. The CIA knows this. Everyone knows this, except neo-cons and mainstream republicans. When you mess with a foreign country, you get blowback. All of history is a testimony to this basic fact. This is why so many kings and emperors killed or removed the males sons in countries they invaded – they didn’t want retaliation. The fact that, when Ron Paul points it out, he gets labeled as someone who doesn’t know history or who has a scary foreign policy only indicates that his critics are ignorant of the actual recorded facts of history.

  • trotk

    Steve Martin (I can’t help but read your statements as the comedy they are) said, “He has a distorted and naive view of history and his followers do not see this. His anthropology is all wrong. He does not think that evil people in other parts of the world will affect the U.S.”

    This is comic. He has the best understanding of history of any of the candidates, because he is the only one who understands cause and effect. It is also patently false, particularly the last sentence of your claim. He nowhere claims that evil people won’t affect us. They may attack us no matter how perfectly we behave. He simply (and rightly) recognizes that our interventionism has caused many of the issues and compounded many of the problems.

    I don’t get what is so difficult to see about this. The terrorists themselves have acknowledged that their actions against us were not for any reason other than retaliation because of what we did in their countries. The CIA knows this. Everyone knows this, except neo-cons and mainstream republicans. When you mess with a foreign country, you get blowback. All of history is a testimony to this basic fact. This is why so many kings and emperors killed or removed the males sons in countries they invaded – they didn’t want retaliation. The fact that, when Ron Paul points it out, he gets labeled as someone who doesn’t know history or who has a scary foreign policy only indicates that his critics are ignorant of the actual recorded facts of history.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Steve@10

    “The fact that he (Paul) is garnering so much support does not bode well for our country.”

    Brother, you need to take a look around. This country is already in far deeper trouble than you think. We are in more danger from enemies at home than we are from foreign enemies. Wake up and smell the coffee.

    Rest assured though, our demise will be at the hands of those who oppose RP, because one way or another they WILL NOT allow him to get the nomination

  • Patrick Kyle

    Steve@10

    “The fact that he (Paul) is garnering so much support does not bode well for our country.”

    Brother, you need to take a look around. This country is already in far deeper trouble than you think. We are in more danger from enemies at home than we are from foreign enemies. Wake up and smell the coffee.

    Rest assured though, our demise will be at the hands of those who oppose RP, because one way or another they WILL NOT allow him to get the nomination

  • Cincinnatus

    cue Grace: “Ron Paul supports pedophiles and hates Jews!!!!1″

  • Cincinnatus

    cue Grace: “Ron Paul supports pedophiles and hates Jews!!!!1″

  • SKPeterson

    Lou G. @ 14 – Paul’s views on abolition were that it was a good thing, but that John Brown’s means were not. He actually advocates, or rather would have advocated, that the slaves be freed by some orderly means over a period of years (likely 10 or so) and that slave owners be compensated for their losses, probably under the auspices of the “Takings” clause. While this would be no panacea, and there would be all sorts of opportunities for trouble, it would have avoided the death and devastation of the Civil War. Notably, the aftermath of the war did not bring integration of blacks into American society; in fact it created an enormous and devastating backlash that was only fitfully set aside over the next century. In contrast, Brazil was another large slave-holding society in the 19th century, yet it successfully ended slavery without resorting to an internal war. Moreover, they did not experience the significant levels of racial polarization that the U.S. realized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Now, as to the Civil War, I do largely blame Lincoln for it. However, I also place much of the blame on the idiot fire eaters of South Carolina who took Lincoln’s bait. A few cooler heads and the course of the war may have changed if the Union troops at Ft. Sumter had fired on a British ship entering Charleston Harbor. So, perhaps there would have been British intervention and financial/military support for the South, yet coupled with the active encouragement of that same nation to rapidly and humanely end slavery in a new Confederacy.

  • SKPeterson

    Lou G. @ 14 – Paul’s views on abolition were that it was a good thing, but that John Brown’s means were not. He actually advocates, or rather would have advocated, that the slaves be freed by some orderly means over a period of years (likely 10 or so) and that slave owners be compensated for their losses, probably under the auspices of the “Takings” clause. While this would be no panacea, and there would be all sorts of opportunities for trouble, it would have avoided the death and devastation of the Civil War. Notably, the aftermath of the war did not bring integration of blacks into American society; in fact it created an enormous and devastating backlash that was only fitfully set aside over the next century. In contrast, Brazil was another large slave-holding society in the 19th century, yet it successfully ended slavery without resorting to an internal war. Moreover, they did not experience the significant levels of racial polarization that the U.S. realized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Now, as to the Civil War, I do largely blame Lincoln for it. However, I also place much of the blame on the idiot fire eaters of South Carolina who took Lincoln’s bait. A few cooler heads and the course of the war may have changed if the Union troops at Ft. Sumter had fired on a British ship entering Charleston Harbor. So, perhaps there would have been British intervention and financial/military support for the South, yet coupled with the active encouragement of that same nation to rapidly and humanely end slavery in a new Confederacy.

  • JunkerGeorg

    Dr. Veith? Considering Ron Paul? Wow. Welcome! Glad you’ve chosen to take the little red pill of liberty. :)

  • JunkerGeorg

    Dr. Veith? Considering Ron Paul? Wow. Welcome! Glad you’ve chosen to take the little red pill of liberty. :)

  • JunkerGeorg

    @SKPeterson,

    You, Sir, are a genius. Seriously. After reading one brilliant post after another, I don’t why I or anyone else bothers to write. Better to just wait for the next piece you post. Kudos for your enlightenment and style.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @SKPeterson,

    You, Sir, are a genius. Seriously. After reading one brilliant post after another, I don’t why I or anyone else bothers to write. Better to just wait for the next piece you post. Kudos for your enlightenment and style.

  • Lou G.

    Cincinnatus #16: No need to use the quotes around: “historically illiterate”, since you were the first one to use this phrase. Someone said Paul’s view of history is distorted and I responded to that statement. You don’t have to agree with me. That’s fine. Just no need to use quote marks for the first reference used by yourself.

  • Lou G.

    Cincinnatus #16: No need to use the quotes around: “historically illiterate”, since you were the first one to use this phrase. Someone said Paul’s view of history is distorted and I responded to that statement. You don’t have to agree with me. That’s fine. Just no need to use quote marks for the first reference used by yourself.

  • Cincinnatus

    Lou G.@26: Thanks for that informative, pointless reminder. Yes, it was a mistake on my part.

  • Cincinnatus

    Lou G.@26: Thanks for that informative, pointless reminder. Yes, it was a mistake on my part.

  • fws

    I am an obama supporter and I would love to see ron paul be the republican candidate. maybe for once we would have a debate over some real and fresh ideas….. and maybe I could even vote for ron paul

  • fws

    I am an obama supporter and I would love to see ron paul be the republican candidate. maybe for once we would have a debate over some real and fresh ideas….. and maybe I could even vote for ron paul


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X