51 votes

"DRIFT" Book About Perpetual Wars

Rachel Maddow's new book "Drift" argues that we've drifted away from America's original ideals and become a nation weirdly at peace with perpetual war, with all the financial and human costs that entails.

http://youtu.be/Y9xoM7TMiTA

Get it at Amazon
______
Related: VIDEO: Maddow thanks The Daily Paul!

Comment viewing options

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

You guys need to chill out

This isn't some giant laser tag game where everyone is either on the red side or the blue side. She has done a lot of positive stuff on RP on her show, including covering the incidents that took place in Maine. She has also mentioned the Daily Paul by name, twice. IMO she gives us a lot fairer of a shake than almost all other media outlets, so just relax. If you aren't a fan then there are thousands of other posts for your to read on this wonderful website. Just remember, everything you do reflects back on us and on RP. after all we are always going to be referred to as the "Ron Paul People" so maybe think twice before acting.. or speaking.

Be fact based. Maddow is a schill

I'm sorry, but I reject this woman. She distorts facts in favor of Obama and left socialists repeatedly. Why is she even in this forum?

Know who your friends and enemies are.

media people have limited room for their personal political beliefs. maddow has used that room for libertarian-leaning purposes like her book - buying this book is a good cause for liberty. money is well worth it than for certain ads.

maher is also a good guy.

jj

Nope, do not buy her book.

Send your money direct to Ron Paul.

And Maher is not a good guy.

Wrong, send you money to

revpac for Paul purposes, not to endorse liberty. choose revpac over the official campaign as long as paul is in gop.

buying drift will send signals that a book on anti-war is worth it, so then even more people will buy it.

jj

are you insane?

bad troll!

sharkhearted's picture

Forget Rachel Maddow???

"She never will be on 'our' side?"

Really??? Who are you to determine what "our side" is??

I certainly don't subscribe to whatever you think you can herd me into what you refer as "our side".

Is your name Eugene Doakes?

This demagoguery is the shame of this all. Rather than being the better man and showing honor and welcoming Ms. Maddow here and thanking her for her input...you write her off.

That is a primitive, primate, majority rules tyranny BS that the message of Ron Paul is exactly NOT about, as opposed to being for.

Comments like yours only help hasten the darkness, as opposed to dispelling it.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Forget Rachel Maddow... she

Forget Rachel Maddow... she is not and will never be on our side. She's another ivy league socialist. She's only giving us some attention to sell some books.

She tried to destroy Rand Paul's campaign in 2010 by asking him ridiculous questions about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was as disgusting and dirty an attack as any I've seen on Tv.

Do we really have that short of memories?

sharkhearted's picture

Do YOU really have that "short" of understanding?

If we are EVER going to defeat the leviathan, the Beast, the big government-corporatist bastard child which is sucking the life out of everything we know...

Then yes, we will need to extend the olive branch and reach out to other liberty-minded individuals...be them statists and entrenched in their own hobbesean belief systems...whatever. Doesn't matter at this point.

Please stop fucking throwing the god dern baby out with the bathwater and for ONCE learn how to team up with people you might disagree with on most issues.

Otherwise...if we continue this partisan nonsense and fail to rally around Lady Liberty as our mutual friend, then WE will be the reason that Lady Liberty was slaughtered by the Beast.

I won't let that happen. Not on my watch goddammit.

Even though I disagree with Rachael on a plurality if not a majority of what she says....I believe she is a friend because she, like we, is searching for the TRUTH.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

I hope she does come over

to the side of freedom. It would be great!

I have no animosity against her. I just don't accept the policies that she normally supports.
If she can prove that she's moved in our direction, I'll be very happy about it and welcome it.

But, I've been around the block enough times to wait until somebody backs up their rhetoric with actions.
So, let's see how it goes.

Let's see some favorable Ron Paul air time, and more Ron Paul interviews, and some Ron Paul supporting commentary by Rachel.
That would go a long way to showing me that she's seen the light. And we really need some air time right now.

I preordered one...

For my Kindle collection. Looking forward to it.

Though the subject and topic is not new to a DP'er & RP supporter, I think it is important to "show support" for ideas. They are the true change agents in the world.

I linked to the book from here... so BullNotBull should get the sale! ;)

Great book, I'll get a copy as well....

Our Foreign policy has been senselessly hijacked by Globalists for going on ten years now.

They have ruthlessly asserted their agenda since Roosevelt, however. A key piece of history. Roosevelt literally formed the platform for the Democratic party & the playbook...

Roosevelt far from being a hero, was quite the tyrant. He led a small clique of liberals into the GOP, taking it over from the top down with his same policies.

Now that these quite obvious tyrants are being tossed out of the Republican party, the truth can finally be understood. How we got there is not a mystery anymore..

However, it behooves Ms. Maddow and the rest to not cheer on Obama when he's clearly grandstanding on mass genocides in Lybia & Pakistan by declaring war. Without Congress, as Roosevelt did, as Bush, Clinton & Truman all did...because all of them are in favor of liberal foreign intervention based war.

In undertaking this disastrous policy, they have gone against and violated the Constitution. And that is the real story, even if MSNBC is not allowed to air it all, for 40+ years of FDR.
(And good ol' slick Rick, is just the latest Rockefeller clone)

What a breathe of fresh air!

So we can count on her to endorse the ONLY candidate that will end the wars!

I wonder if Rachel...

Touches on the subject of Phil Donahue's history at MSNBC & about Jesse Ventura's show that was supposed to be at MNSBC?

Normally skeptical

I'm normally skeptical of public figures releasing books, but this one is clearly something that we need.

+ Follow the Cooperative principle
+ Civility first
+ Constructive comments

Rachel,..

..you are welcome to the DPers. Keep it up.

I'll buy the book but...

right now Dr Paul needs what money I can spare more than I need to buy another book, lol! Tomorrow is an important money bomb you know!

I appreciate thought provocation more than unabashed gushing about any politician. I appreciate what few clips I have seen of Rachel Maddow because she brings things up that IMO encourage people to take a closer look.

I know I agree 100% with the introductory statement "we've drifted away from America's original ideals and become a nation weirdly at peace with perpetual war, with all the financial and human costs that entails.". IMO though, the "we" who have drifted is the politicians. I think the American people just got lazy and trusted someone else to do the mooring.

That will change. Is changing...

Maybe Rachael will offer a

Maybe Rachael will offer a means of paying for the book where all profits go to Ron Paul's campaign. :)

She's not a Rhodes scholar for nuthin'

If you don't know what the Rhodes scholarship program is all about, read Cecil Rhodes' last will and testament, especially the explanation of his political views. Should be out there on the interwebs.

Peace

Rhodes scholar...so what.

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar too.
Both twist facts.

That's precisely the point.

You have to research Cecil Rhodes, and what his vision for the world was, and what his scholarships provided for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItIx01MT8s&feature=plcp&cont...

Dear Ms. Maddow.. if you're scrolling.. Dr. Paul is advocating a foreign policy of non-intervention.. not "isolationism".. You often mix those two things up.. ;-)

Rachel just mentioned the Daily Paul

and that her book was being discussed here. She even posted a shot of the web site.

It's cute how Rachel Maddow

It's cute how Rachel Maddow claims we've drifted from America's original ideals when it comes to war(which we have), yet she was on the forefront cheerleading the passage of Obamacare. Such hypocrisy.

I don't know if you can call

I don't know if you can call it hypocrisy. When a person dosn't understand that the "General Welfare" clause is part of a preamble to the actual rules that follow, but instead think that it is a rule or law . . . that person just has a severe lack of understanding of the Constitution. She doesn't understand that the rules that follow the "General Welfare clause" are they manner in which the government is to promote the general welfare and the rules are to be enforced in a way to promote the general welfare.

The progressives appear to like to break all the constitutions rules in order to satisfy the one and only "General Welfare clause" as they understand the common good.

I guess I can see your point,

I guess I can see your point, but I highly doubt a person in Rachel Maddow's position is not smart enough to look at the intent of the Founders through their writings and see our government was not set up to provide us with everything we need. Maddow is smart, but what she doesn't understand is that free markets provide the greatest good for the greatest number. Because of this, she turns a blind eye to the Constitution when it comes to social issues, but since she understands war suits the rich and the state, she carries the Constitution like a baton on the issue. Sort of a glass half empty or half full type issue. Regardless, I still don't trust her. She is equivalent to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly in my book, she just happens to be on the other side of the aisle: people who care more about the game we know as politics than the people whose lives are getting destroyed in the process.

But don't you realize that

But don't you realize that the founding fathers didn't really understand the constitution? We are much better equiped today to understand it. After all, look how they accepted slavery.

Don't laugh, I saw that come out of a court descision a few years back about some issue that I forget. Amazing but true. You can hear that in the progressives attitude everywhere.

Some of the founders accepted

Some of the founders accepted slavery, some didn't. The original Declaration of Independence denounced slavery, but it was edited it out afterwards. Without getting into an argument about slavery, the sentiment to get rid of it was there, importing slaves was made illegal in 1807, but the economic means had not been invented yet. No farm could survive back then without slaves. It took the industrial revolution to made slavery obsolete. Even if we legalized slavery now in the United States there would be no slaves, people are more expensive than machines. Another example of how the market, not the government, is a better improver of society.

The Founders may not have understood the Constitution because it was the first document of its kind, but they knew the intent behind it, small, limited government, ensuring personal freedom in all matters, only having the government exist to protect life, liberty and property. All other powers were left to state governments. A concept, Bill, Rush and Rachel still can't wrap their brains around.

I agree with you. I was

I agree with you. I was being sarcastic and pointing out the ridiclous times we are in. I do disagree on one point you said . . . I think the founders understood quite well what they wrote. Much better than anyone today.

Ron Paul says he wants to end the FED, but he won't end it right away. Does that mean he thinks the FED is good in any way? It appears this sort of thinking was going on with many about slavery for the Founders. They had to be concerned with things like - what would happen to your slaves if you set them free? The slave would not neccessarily stay free because the state laws still needed to be changed.

Why did they have slaves in the first place? Sometimes they were given as gifts . . . that would be one reason. Other times they may start out thinking there is nothing wrong with owning slaves, but then they wake up . . . now what do I do with my slaves?

Tom Woods On The General Welfare Clause

See 10:13-11:43: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/295582-1

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard