60 votes

Not so fast, Mr. Johnson

The revolution continues, and so does Ron Paul's campaign. The articles and comments I have been reading of late state how similar Paul and Johnson are, but, during my own research I have come across significant differences.

I'll start with foreign policy, since that is an issue that I hold near and dear to my heart. It would seem that Johnson is not a non-interventionist. He has justified continuing undeclared wars under the guise of 'humanitarian' reasonings, and is in support of continued drone attacks. He has also stated he would not close Guantanamo and supports military tribunals. Paul, on the other hand, is in opposition of undeclared wars, targeted assassinations via drone strikes and Guantanamo. I stand with Paul on these issues.

Johnson's views on immigration, an open border policy and his support of the mis-named "free trade" agreements are also in contrast to Dr. Paul. I was surprised to learn of the open border policy, afterall, what is a country without borders?

Johnson promotes the so called "fair tax" as a replacement for the federal income tax. Paul said he could go along with that if the tax rate was zero.

One of the most important differences between the two is monetary policy. Johnson has not given me any reason to believe that he realizes financial fraud is doing more harm to our country than any terrorist ever could. Paul does realize this and has been fighting against it for thirty plus years. The monetary system is the driver and the power behind ALL political issues, without exception. Johnson seems to be content to work with in the Federal Reserve, whereas, Paul would like to see it abolished.

Yes, yes I know when Johnson was governor of New Mexico he left that state with a surplus. I do, however, find it interesting to note that Federal government spending was a major driver of the New Mexico economy. In 2005, the Federal government spent $2.03 on New Mexico for every dollar of tax revenue collected from that state. During Johnson tenure, it was about dollar for dollar.

Another difference can be found at opensecrets.org. Johnson is running his campaign in the red, whereas, Paul is running his campaign debt free. It would seem that Paul walks the walk, and Johnson talks the talk.

My apologies to those who might perceive this post as an anti-Johnson rant, for that is not my intent. I am just sharing some of my perspectives in hopes of opening an honest dialog. I feel debate is healthy, and I might learn something new. The recipe for perpetual ignorance is being satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.

The libertarian in the video linked below, doesn't seem to care for Johnson, but I posted it for a bit more insight. I would love to find a "ronpaulican" to cary our movement forward, should Paul not get the nomination, I am just not sure who to trust and haven't been convinced to jump on the Johnson brandwagon.


Comment viewing options

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



“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

Excellent post.

To sum everything up:

No One But Paul 2012. By write-in, if necessary.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul


what everyone's opinion on Dr Stein - Green Party is?
I only heard her speak on foreign policy and I liked what I heard....
other than that - anyone know?

She is a socialist!

Half of the Green Party platform is pure socialism! The first thing listed on their website is universal health care.

Their foreign policy of peace is good, and so is their emphasis on conservation and going green. However, they are calling for more spending and social programs across the board!

Personally, I think they are mostly Communists, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt with the Socialist label.


The obvious point you miss is....

Ron Paul's campaign is over. Johnson's is just beginning. Paul's supporters will back him if they want their libertarian cause to continue. A good place to start is to make sure Johnson gets in the debate by signing this petition: I highly recommend each and all give serious consideration to signing this petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/commission-on-presidential-d...

NEWS FLASH.....Ron Paul has

NEWS FLASH.....Ron Paul has not ended his campaign and the lawyers for RP and the delegate battle is heating up.

I created this post to gain a bit more insight on Johnson and his version of Liberty. Thanks to everyone for their input, much appreciated. I will continue to scratch beneath the surface, but as of now, I can not support Johnson. At this point in time, it feels as if Johnson is the ace up the establishments sleeve.

Tell me how...

Johnson could be the 'ace up the establishment's sleeve'?

How is he a threat to Ron Paul? That's what no one will answer.

In what scenario is there a conflict in supporting Ron Paul and Gary Johnson?

1. GJ was part of the

1. GJ was part of the orignal GOP necon lineup and is now masquerading as a libertarian. He is the ace up the sleeve, because he is nothing more than 'acceptable opposition'. His role is to deflate the enthusiastic movement inspired by RP.

2. Divide and conquer.

3. For me, it's more of a personal conflict. He is too wishy-washy on foreign policy and is an intellectual lightweight on monetary policy. It would seem he is trying to speak like RP, but doesn't have the integrity, knowledge, or principled convictions. He talks of non-intervention, yet supports Guantanamo, military tribunals and the continuation of the so called war on terror, except in Iraq or Afghanistan, of course. Those wars (Iraq/Afghanistan) are unpopular. He talks about the horror of destroying innocent lives with the drone wars, but would not commit to taking them off the table. He fell for the Kony propaganda and has stated his support of intervention.


To each their own, but I can not support someone undeserving of my vote.


I just went through a few pages of comments for this post. All it consists of is a bunch of great people fighting against one another! This is so sad that things are like this. I bet when establishment people read stuff like this they are talking and thinking "Ah-ha! If we can continue to work in division or let them fight against one another, they will never stand!" But I guess that is what D.P. is all about...discussing everything...even our differences! As long as we stick together!

For me it's....

With everything I have done, every dollar I've spent, every tear I've shed, every precious minute I've spent,and everything else too numerous to mention that I have lost in my life supporting this cause I will be damned if I will vote for anyone but Dr. Paul, be it on the ballot or write in. I think most of us here have earned that right.
I will also take great pride in looking at the long faces of the disappointed GOP poll workers and relish in the frustration they will feel because I so brazenly dismiss their candidate as a loony mittwit. Now they can feel what I have felt for many years now.
Nobody but Ron Paul!

Same here OP

I did the same research a few months back and I came to the same conclusion... GJ just aint for me....

I elect not to cast a vote in support of a presidency.

Unless Ron Paul is on my State's Ballot as the Republican nominee for President then I elect not to cast a vote in support of any balloted candidate for president.

State legislatures should nullify the 17th Amendment and choose our Senator.

We should replace every last Representative. This Congress has failed its Constitutional duty to provide a budget two years in a row.

All This Congress did is put up more of our collateral so they can raise the debt ceiling with our creditors. Twice.

Our chance to make a change is in Congress. The Founding Fathers gave us term limits. Every two years if we want them we can limit their terms.

Free includes debt-free!

I Don't Give A Flying Sack Of Beans About GJ. . .

. . .NO ONE will be on MY BALLOT other than RON PAUL, PERIOD!

Write it, pull the lever, chisel it in stone - RON PAUL - no one else.

That's my "debate" - which method I will use to get RON PAUL's name on my ballot.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. ~Thomas Jefferson

“It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie...the greatest enemy of the State.” ~Joseph Goebbels

Just looking around....

In the event Dr. Paul is not the candidate. (Let me make this clear. My heart and vote are with Dr. Paul.)
Dr. Paul will make an endorsement for president. He did it in 2008. He will probably do it again.
Will he endorse Johnson? I'm not to sure of this. Or, will he endorse Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party? I read a lot of Goodes stances. Many are in line with Dr. Paul's. As are G. Johnson's. I did not see any stance from Goode on The Fed. Was wondering how he stood on this? I know GJ from what I have heard, isn't pushing the dismantling of the Federal Reserve.

I'm ready for the convention to unfold.... Hope there are a lot of surprises and victories!!!!!!

. . . . . . _ . . . _ _ .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .

The Constitution Party, in my

The Constitution Party, in my opinion is just a safe place for neo-con philosophy. There are ares of overlapping interest with Libertarians, but an excess of fundamentalist Christian religious influence. NOT quite as "constitutional" as is claimed.

totally disagree

their platform plainly states "no unconstitutional wars"

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

That's an area of overlap.

That's an area of overlap. What about the religious views that fly in the face of both the Constitution and Libertarianism?

well,they also believe the drug issue should be left to the ....


what unconstitutional laws do they support?

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Also, "leave it to the

Also, "leave it to the states" is religious conservative speak for "we'll ban it 50 ways to Sunday".

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

well, i saw they wanted to end the FDA, and I was glad for that

. Ron Paul also wants these issues left to the states. i think banning porn,drugs,etc. is futile, but i do believe these are major downfalls for a nation---that's why the establishment uses them against the populace all the while laughing their heads off.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Well, the CP might be better

Well, the CP might be better than the Republicans or Democrats, but not by much.

I consider their name to be a misnomer.

It really annoys me that they would usurp the Constitution as justification for religious orthodoxy and control.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

I know you've been banned for some reason

But I'll posthumously agree with you 100%.

They support anti-immigration

They support anti-immigration laws because they don't understand that immigration isn't a delegated power of Congress.

They also believe that the Constitution applies to the unborn, but that was never viewed to be the case at the time of the Constitution, which they claim.

Anti-pornography, anti-gambling, anti-sin, all regulated and controlled by the govenrment for your protection.

They don't even understand "provide for" in the Constitution and make this ridiculous argument about it not knowing the original meaning and it makes them sound utterly ridiculous.

They are ignorant neo-con religious conservatives hell bent on instututing a Christian Bible Thumper Taliban Lite government.

Other than that, I have no problem with them. I remember thinking "wait, there's a Constitution Party? Cool! Wait, WTF is THIS?!? This is ultra religious conservatism hiding behind the Constitution!"

How repulsive they are.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Their primary concerns are

Their primary concerns are religious. Have you read their platform?

"The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries."


This is all neo-conservative mumbo-jumbo with a light sprinkling of Constitution talk. All baloney! As a supporter of freedom and the Constitution, all of the needless insertion of pre-eminent Christian values is pandering to the Christian base of Republicans. What horse flop.

i don't mind if someone believes America was founded by

Christians, though I do believe they are mistaken.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

What if...

Ron Paul endorses Romney? I'm certainly not going to follow Dr. Paul down that road.

That's just not going to happen!

Why on God's green earth would he even think of trashing 30 yrs. of integrity and crush the hearts of millions of people he represented in our cause for liberty. No way, no how!

I would always choose Paul,

I would always choose Paul, but if I only had Mitt, Obama, and Gary Johnson to choose from, I would choose Johnson! He may not be very much like Paul, but there is no better way to stick it to the establishment then to vote GJ! Even Paul, last time, encouraged people to vote third party! We could use a little competition in the political arena, and if Paul is not on my ballot, I will gladly vote for GJ.

More specifically, he endorsed Chuck Baldwin---

the Constitution Party's candidate. I've been wondering why so many here are talking Gary Johnson when Virgil Goode is running on the CP ticket this year.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Chuck Baldwin was

Fine. Goode voted for the Patriot act, and if I remember correctly, the Iraq war. I am not voting in the presidential elections, (though I understand why some would feel inclined to do so) so it really does not matter to me. Local and state level is where I will vote.