It’s too bad Ron Paul doesn’t have the rudiments of an understanding of Islam required to initiate a plausible debate on the threat we face, its causes, and the methods required for our defense. One tires of libertarian dogma adjusted with incidental facts cherry-picked to give the façade of empirical support. After reading Ivan Eland, Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, Sheldon Richmon, and others, it all starts to sound like they are circulating the same sound bites. One longs for an original thought, a crumb of a contribution, a flicker of an active mind. It’s possible, you know. For example, I enjoy reading Sciabarra; his approach actually deals with the subject matter while drawing on the broadest of concepts. There’s no dichotomy between philosophy and empiricism. Now, whether I agree with him is another matter, but one at least feels the need to come to grips with his arguments.