My apologies. I found this blog a couple of days ago and, while reading through this thread, noticed some statements of support or potential support for Rudy Giuliani. I was a bit alarmed to hear objectivist expressing support for a man who's political philosophy is based partially on the rule of authority, so I posted the link in this thread (not knowing there was a Giuliani thread).
I have not been able to find any further backing, or disavowing of Giuliani's statement on authority. I do vaguely recollect him saying something similar during his speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention, but I haven't had time to go through the transcript and double check. His actions while being Mayor of New York City, however, do show that he aggressively supports his own statement. Among other things, Giuliani sued several companies that advertised against visiting, or doing business in New York City (as well as criticizing the current Mayor).
As for Ron Paul and foreign policy, he is not a pacifist. His position on the issue of war is similar to America's Founding Fathers: only Congress can legally declare war and wars should only be declared when America is unjustifiably attacked.
Concerning the current situation between the West-Muslims-Jews, all parties have been at guilt for abusing human rights in the middle east. Both the Arab states and Israel are either authoritatively socialist as worst (Iran), or democratic mixed-economies with a strong socialist leaning (Israel). Both the Arabs and the Israelis have supported terrorist type of attacks against each other. America have bulstered some dictatorial regimes when it suited any of the administrations purposes (such as the Shah in Iran, then the Baathists during the 1980s and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan) by giving largesse of weapons, money, etc. and then deposed of such governments when it no longer served a purpose.
It is partially for America's support of dictators in the Middle East that the general populace hate America. What Ron Paul's wishes are is to take America's role out of the Middle East and away from supporting dictatorships, monarchies, or socialistic democracies and focus on protecting America from future, unprovoked attacks. Once America is no longer perceived as being a moral crusader for the Arabs or Jews welfare, the terrorists will no longer have a scapegoat to blame and the wind will be taken out of their sails. They'll have to find some other excuse for violence, because people aren't going to back them in evicting an invader that does not exist.
Paul is no adherent to objectivism, despite claiming to be an admirer of Ayn Rand's works. However, you won't find any objectivists in any of the major or minor parties. I find it very appalling that objectivists complain about their freedoms being taken away, yet none of them come forward as candidates in order to protect their freedom. Instead, they vote it away by voting for the lesser of two evils, which is actually a declaration of support for that evil's policies. History shows that example, since this nation continues to slide towards socialism, despite voting for someone who is less socialistic then the other. Capitalists were encouraged to support Bush over Gore, since he talked like a fiscal conservative, but our government's budget has ballooned to almost double since Bush took office in 2001. How in the world is capitalism suppose to not only be defended but enshrined, when you consistenly vote for it's destroyers, simply on the fact that the other guy might kill it off quicker?
I am supporting Paul, because despite not being ideal, his political philosophy is similar to a few great political minds (i.e. the Founding Fathers) who were also not idealistic, but they don't apologetically denounce capitalism while using it's maxims like McCain or Romney, or vociferously attack it like Edwards and Obama.
