19 votes

DailyIowan - Ron Paul Wrong on Constitution (Watch the comments section and laugh hysterically)

Had a good laugh today, reading an article on the Daily Iowan, from a TEACHER!


Yes, apparently Paul knows nothing about the Constitution and the necessary and proper clause... watch the comments section, I think we're at 100 plus now easily enough.

Eric Hoffer

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They disabled the comments

We r doing our job.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

When Ron Paul talks about being a Constitionalist

He needs to state that he follows it by the intent expressed by the Founder's, and not selectively or to misrepresent it's meaning to align with 'special interest' intent. This also relates to legislation that's passed through Congress, that I refuse to vote for, because though it may sound good, if it's unconstitutional I will not vote for it. However, most of the Congress members tend to side with what is politically expediant to lobbyists and 'special interest', rather than making sure it stays in the boundaries of the Constitution. The Founder's created an Amendment process to enable changes or additions to the Constitution, but it's a difficult process, which takes a 2/3rds majority in Congress and 2/3rds majority in the states to be enacted. The reason the Founder's made it so difficult, was to prevent changes that didn't represent the majority of the American people. Most who are elected to public service, tend to let their new gained power go to their heads and focus on getting reelected, rather than their duty to protect the liberties and rights granted by the Constitution. Instead, they tend to side with 'special interest', who can help them get reelected, by creating or voting for legislation that's unconstitutional, and represents a small minority or corporation. If you want to know how we have got into the economic and foreign policy mess we are currently in, we have to look at all these unconstitutional bills that have been usurping the Constitution. All this left vs right, liberal vs conservative, he said she said crap, will never solve our problems. The only solution is to follow the Constitution using the Founder's intent, not twisting the meaning to fit 'special interest' desires.

Read Tom Woods' update here:

Read Tom Woods' update here: http://www.tomwoods.com/

Apparently, McKeag isn't even a teacher.

He substitute teaches...

He substitute teaches... which the editor then stretched into him being a teacher in the Iowa City School District (according to McKeag).

I have to say I was not too thrilled with the comments from some RP supporters at the papers site. Vindictive is how I would describe one of them. It gave the Email address to McKeag's alleged employer (the a fore mentioned School District) and urged people to warn the school administrators that McKeag was incompetent as a teacher. This is completely uncalled for, in my opinion. It would be one thing if I had a child being taught under McKeag. But to call forth jackasses from coast to coast and produce a landslide of negative Emails to his employer, it's just not Ron Paul like in any sense.

Comments Removed!

I'm thinking this may have been like one of those boxing matches where the referee jumps in and stops the fight.

Note to Mr. Scott McKeag; It is always better to keep your mouth shut and make people wonder if you are smart, than to open it and confirm you are stupid.

Just Sent a Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

I see that not only is any further commenting to Mr. Scott McKeag's recent opinion piece on Ron Paul been disabled, but you have also hidden the entire block of already posted comments. Surely not all these comments violated your "comment policy", which in part states: "We welcome intelligent discourse on stories and features through our reader comments feature."

I read many comments that sought intelligent discourse. Of course few (if any) agreed with Mr. McKeag's opinion. In fact, I'd venture to say that those which were the most engaging and thoughtful made it quite clear that Mr. McKeag's opinions were based on bad or incomplete information, and/or fallacious reasoning.

What is even more remarkable is that your comment policy also states: "Our policy prohibits us from knowingly condoning others to be libelous, defamatory, indecent, vulgar, or obscene." Is it not clear that at least some of what Mr. McKeag's article contained was indeed inaccurate and 'defamatory' comments concerning Ron Paul? Is it the policy of your paper to censor reader comments that are false and defamatory, but that the articles chosen for publication do not need to meet the same standard?

I urge you to publish a reply to Mr. McKeag by Tom Woods. He has already commented on his blog and the ensuing discussion should be quite interesting. I doubt that you will be so quick to close comments that are negative in tone to Mr. Woods rebuttal.

"The newspapers which once existed to tell the truth, now exist to keep the truth from being told." from Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton

R. M. H.

Went Back to look at the

Went Back to look at the posted comments and discovered that not only is any further commenting disabled, but the comments already posted are not to be found.

Boy, this poor guy has been

Boy, this poor guy has been hammered into dust.

I don't believe I have ever seen a more violent smackdown inflicted in all my years on the web.

I think that has to do with him being a teacher.

He's poisoning young impressionable minds with his liberal garbage and I think that's why he was smacked down so hard. Would you want this idiot teaching your kids?

Good Heavens, NO! In fact, I

Good Heavens, NO! In fact, I left a few comments myself. If anyone deserves public embarrassment, this guy does.

Am I missing something?

I don't see a comments section for the article. There's a little link that says "comments powered by disqus" but it doesn't go anywhere useful. Have the comments been removed?

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Allow javascript

From discus.com or w/e it is...

Thanks. Running W.E. did it.

Javascript is allowed on my browser (Firefox), but I still couldn't see comments. Then I fired up my long-unused Windows Explorer (retch), and voilà, comments appear.

You gotta pity the author. He's a kid who just graduated from a cow college (class of 2010), and hasn't yet discovered the value of his "public education." He's got to be reading these comments & contemplating hara kiri.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose


Found him:


I just wrote this piece to:

Debbie Green
Director of Development
College of Education
(319) 467-3624

"Dear Ms. Green,

I’m not certain if Scott’s piece published in the Daily Iowan reflects your system’s view on history, but if this gentleman will such an uninformed view of history is teacher your children government, you’re in bad shape.


His ignorant representation of the Constitution can be found there, along with all the usual ad hominem attacks. It’s a disgrace to your organization to say the least, and I can find the best rebuttal here:


Again, the fact that this man is teaching children history and government is just astounding to me.


James Moore
Ideal Calibrations, LLC."

Eric Hoffer

You want to say "teaching your children....." and not "teacher".

If you send things like this representing the Revolution please be sure it makes us look good. Thanks.


Editing on the fly, it happens, swapped a few words from the original and missed that.

I don't represent anyone aside from myself, but feel free to stuff your condescending tone any time. Thanks.

Eric Hoffer

Trying to be helpful, not condescending.

But you obviously meant to be rude, so that negates my guilt over an unintentional transgression. You are welcome.

did you leave out a word or something?

"but if this gentleman will such an uninformed view "

'Cause there's a monster on the loose


Was supposed to be "with" instead of "will."

Never type when you're annoyed.

Eric Hoffer

Noticed you did not call him condescending.



Thanks for the laugh

I needed it.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

DailyIowan to Run Tom Wood's Response

Tom Woods Responded in his blog and the Opinions Editor contacted him in the comments section:

Chris Steinke 29 minutes ago
I would love to run some version of this (500-600 words) in the Daily Iowan. Feel free to email it to daily.iowan.letters@gmail.com or csteinke25 @ gmail.com
Thanks,Chris Steinke, Opinions Editor, The Daily Iowan

Tom Woods 0 minutes ago in reply to Chris Steinke
Thank you. I will send something along this afternoon when I get home.


Go Tom GO!

I suppose it would be too much to ask to have this covered by broader news outlets. I mean it's only real political news, not to mention educational, and even has dramatic entertainment value they crave.

thank you for the link to tom woods

His response is hilarious.


Excellent response.

Eric Hoffer

Debbie's picture

Yes, thank you very much for the link to Tom Wood's smackdown!

Love it!


So far I have read 2 articles

from the Daily Iowan.

I have to say that I'm not favorably impressed with the quality of that newspaper.

A response to Scott McKeag

Scott McKeag implies that Ron Paul lays the blame for No Child Left Behind on the Dept. of Education. That's missing the point. Of course the DoEd has to implement federal law. The real point is No Child Left Behind is onerous and uncalled for.

He says Ron Paul display constitutional incompetency, and states that Congress has the power with the general welfare clause to create the Dept. of Education. Well, with that interpretation of that clause, there's basically no need to enumerate the rest of Congress's powers, is there? Not to mention any need for any of the rest of the Constitution. The response to this line of thinking from the Federalist is well-known.

Now moving on to Ron Paul's claim that the DoEd is forcing medication on children. McKeag says the "[i]n fact, parents, teachers, counselors, and other professionals are required to work together ..." on education and medicine. OK, we're not children. "Work together" means they decide and you do.

Either you have the right to determine medicine for your child or not. How would you feel about a bunch of your neighbors coming to "work together" about which car you're allowed to buy?

Then the issue of the Founding Fathers and government-assisted schools: assuming Jefferson liked the idea, that still doesn't mean Federal-level involvement.

That paper surely needs

That paper surely needs another "guest opinion" and some of the many commentators could do the job well.