14 votes

Yahoo headline spins Ron Paul's farewell speech...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

In the minds of our

In the minds of our overlords, they might agree and say "we no longer need a Constitution".

It's an excellent article and

It's an excellent article and I hope the sharp title brings in more readers than it otherwise would've.

"You must be frank with the world; frankness is the child of honesty and courage...Never do anything wrong to make a friend or keep one...Above all do not appear to others what you are not" - Robert E. Lee, CSA

The People Failed

Either the Constitution permitted our massive government (by means of welfare, commerce, supremecy clauses etc - I would disagree) or it has been powerless to prevent massive government.

I would argue that the law was good, but since law is powerless in enabling people to be lawful and uphold that law, it is a failure. But at the root of the matter, it is the people that failed.

"You must be frank with the world; frankness is the child of honesty and courage...Never do anything wrong to make a friend or keep one...Above all do not appear to others what you are not" - Robert E. Lee, CSA

I think Paul is right

The Constitution has failed us. One of the main charges brought by the anti-Federalist was that the Constitution would undermine liberty simply by the creation of a central government. If you go one step farther, there were many that called out the minute word changes between principles within the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. If you look at how those abuses were setup to allow our government to abuse the General Welfare, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses you will see why Paul would say it failed.

The very safeguards in the Articles of Confederation were removed and we are stuck with the natural progression of an unchecked, unchallengeable federal government.

Well...

it's true, isn't it?

Or rather, people have failed the Constitution.

A signature used to be here!

Notice the link at the end of the article

"Why start another war when you can start a Ron Paul R3VOLUTION"

By Robin Lyn, Lake Worth, Fla. It's been a long road for the candidates this election year and here in sunny Lake Worth, Fla., it seems neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney are any further ahead than the other. With the economy rising at a rate no quicker than cold molasses moving uphill and a front runner making "day one" promises with no concrete plans to back them, I have taken solace in the Ron Paul Revolution. Ron Paul means small government, non-intervention policies, lower taxes, less government spending. He has the answers I am looking for and he can back them up with concrete, sensible plans. I feel Ron Paul is exactly what this country needs to get us back on the right track. Why vote for the lesser of two evils when the option is clear?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

They're quoting him directly

Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.

This injudicious choice of words is ammunition for the other side.

Bill Clinton could have wrote that word for word. It can be read as saying the hoi polloi cannot be depended on to exercise freedom responsibly and that it was a mistake to give them such freedom.

Try this instead:
Our Constitution was intended to limit government power and abuse, but it has been subverted. The founders warned that society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects their exact concerns when men obsessed with money and power are permitted by the electorate to use the law as a tool against the people to spy on them and steal from them.

Instead of saying has been subverted, he may be saying that it indeed has failed because it was too weak to check the power of government. In this case, correct--it's spin; but that's to be expected. He might be saying the constitution failed because it didn't check the government, but Ron Paul's exact words could be mistaken by a reasonable person to say it failed because it gave people too much liberty.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

He's calling a spade a spade.

Lysander Spooner was correct.
He is not running for office any more, he does not care what they say about him. Bravo to that!

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

This was a straightforward

This was a straightforward piece. If every "news" organization made pieces like this, we would have little to complain about.

The only issue is in the second paragraph where it says, "people must return to virtue before the government allows them to be free". I don't know the intended meaning, but it's probably just sloppy editorial.

"Freedom suppressed and again regained bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered." -- Cicero

Freedom isn't the same as anarchy

Unvirtuous people are entitled to their freedom, too, as long as the law proscribes and punishes initiation of force or fraud. I agree that this part goes overboard, suggests people can't be trusted with freedom, when really they can't be trusted when they're able to buy and control the government.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

I'm not surprised!

They always do that to him. We all know too well!!

Yea, that's not spin. He said

Yea, that's not spin. He said that and meant it.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

-Lysander Spooner

Ron has used the Constitution to make the message more palatable politically (and he has explicitly said this in interviews). He doesn't have to do that anymore.

I always thought, at least

I always thought, at least hoped, the Ron was an Articles of Confederation guy. The only good thing about the Constitution was the Bill of Rights, a concession to the anti-federalists, and that is pretty much a dead letter now.

Of course he is ... he is an

Of course he is ... he is an anti-federalist ... just like Jefferson

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

no .. i just heard it in his

no .. i just heard it in his speech ... he said it failed ... and the whole speech has the theme that the constitution was not able to prevent loss of liberty

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

Debbie's picture

No, Yahoo is using that one part of his speech to make it look

bad. Ron has said many times that we can refine the Constitution given the chance but we should absolutely follow it, if we did we wouldn't be in this mess. He meant that too. Remember, Yahoo are the MSM.

Debbie

Nah....the rot first set in

Nah....the rot first set in 1787 when we abandoned our fine first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, via an illegal plot in Philadelphia. The only thing that made the pill less bitter was the Bill of Rights of 1791 and now that is gone. I think Ron understood this and has now given up on the Philadelphia experiment.

"Goverments by their very

"Goverments by their very nature compete with liberty - even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty.

The restraints placed on our government in the Constitution by the founders did not work. "

From: The Revolution, A Manifesto by Ron Paul

"In reality the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

From: End the Fed by Ron Paul