Clueless?Posted on 08/27/2011 9:38:01 PM PDT by mnehring
You saw it here first, folks!
Clueless?
Over at the American Spectator, the great Jeffrey Lord writes that “almost to a person … prominent pre-Ron Paul non-interventionist “Paulist” politicians of the 20th century were overwhelmingly not conservatives at all. They were men of the left. The far left.”
From three-time Democratic presidential nominee and Woodrow Wilson Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to powerful Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler to FDR’s ex-vice presidential nominee Henry Wallace to the 1968 anti-war presidential candidacy of Minnesota Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democratic presidential nominee (and Henry Wallace delegate in 1948) George McGovern, non-interventionists have held prominent positions in the American Left that was and is the Democratic Party.(emphasis added)
What was unique about Wallace’s 1948 Progressive Party campaign was how it was completely controlled by the secret Communist Party agents that surrounded Wallace, despite the fact that he was not a Communist. Lillian Hellman, who despite her denials was indeed a secret member of the Communist Party, admitted as much in her 1976 book Scoundrel Time:
During the early autumn of 1948, four or five of us [leaders of the Progressive Party campaign] were eating lunch together on the day of a large evening rally. When lunch was finished Wallace suggested that he and I take a walk. … When we had walked for a while, he asked me if it was true that many of the people, the important people, in the Progressive Party were Communists. It was such a surprising question that I laughed and said most certainly it was true.
He said, “Then it is true, what they’re saying?”
“Yes,” I said. “I thought you must have known that. The hard, dirty work in the office is done by them and a good deal of the bad advice you’re getting is given by the higher-ups. I don’t think they mean any harm; they’re stubborn men.”
“I see,” he said, and that was that.
What is clear is that the Communists – who, of course, did mean harm – were able to drive the campaign of a non-Communist due to their influence. And Wallace knew it, despite his public denials. As Arthur Herman pointed out in National Review “when Hubert Humphrey complained about the prominent role Communists were playing in the election, Wallace blithely told him to go talk to the Russian embassy — it had more influence over his campaign officials than he did.”
So if it can happen to Henry Wallace, why can’t it happen to his Republican mirror, Ron Paul? On Thursday, Mark Levin had Jeffrey Lord on his show to talk about his article (listen to it here, here and here), where they discussed all the crackpots and “neo-confederates” that surround Ron Paul in his inner circle. What would a group like think of, say, Israel?
Well, on his own website, we find that: “On January 9, [2009] Ron Paul addressed Congress to voice his opposition to a House resolution expressing strong support for Israel in its invasion of Gaza, and branding Hamas as a terrorist organization.” It goes on to proudly highlight that he went on Press TV (the Iranian state propaganda channel) and Russia Today (KGB-TV basically, with it’s paid agents promoting and even doing fund-raising for Ron Paul).
Anyone who has spent time around his supporters know what they think of Israel, and likely had to hear the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that are so widespread in his little cult. What is their influence? Why doesn’t he denounce them? Also, such a denunciation would have a devastating impact both the national and international crackpot communities that sustain anti-Americanism, as the great Cold War era defector and former KGB General turned American Patriot Ion Mihai Pacepa explained. Wouldn’t that be in our national interest, Dr. Paul?
Talking with a Ron Paul supporter 2
FWIW, I like Austrian economics. I just don’t see how they are sustainable in a society that doesn’t understand natural law. Am I unusual for wanting the two together?
I guess so. :p
According to what I’ve seen depicted from his old newsletters from the 80s and 90s, he’s probably a racist idiot. http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/
I guess that is true, Paul is useful for our sworn enemies.
Can you ping me when you do Ron Paul stuff ?
I think that tin foil hat you are wearing is about to explode.
He’s not particularly useful. The idiot part is a given.
Many Libertarians, like yours truly, think RuPaul’s an idiot all around.
Let’s just hope the arrogant and lazy media doesn’t tie RuPaul to everyone in the Tea Party.
Ru’s not gonna win the Republican nomination, but the media will still point to people like Lew Rockwell and say: “The Tea Party is just like them!”
Me too, Me too!
:)
Ron Paul is a Libertarian who only is in the Republican Party because after the fundraising scandal, the party won't have him back.
Ron Paul is probably an agree with only 33% of the time, not 80%. That makes him a stone cold RINO we should oppose.
Read the rest of the interview you pulled that quote from. Reagan goes on to say: Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood.
And while we are discussing Reagan, maybe we should pull what Paul said about Reagan, such as how Reagan was a 'miserable failure' or he 'made Carter look Conservative'. You've inspired me. I had pulled all these before, but Paul had some very nasty things to say about Reagan in the 80s. That may be a good, next article.
Oh, and about your economists, David Duke (who pimps for Paul on his radio program) admired them too. It doesn't mean Duke isn't an anti-Semite. I usually don't go down the road this far, but Paul actually had long time staffers quit because of some of the things Paul and his pal Lew Rockwell say behind closed doors.
He sure does. I forget, does he think Bush caused 911, or merely let it happen?
I wonder how long before he walks back from his insane Iranian TV appearance.
I hope Santorum beats him over the head with this in the next debate.
Santorum got a nice bump from taking Paul on last time. I expect he’ll do it again.
He needs more than a bump though, he needs a major shove.
Alright he’s pretty batty for that. But he’s consistantly batty. Meaning that he has grabbed onto a belief and that he’s followed it through in a manner that’s consistent with the conclusions that would be drawn if you subscribed to such nonesense and apparently he does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.