Posted on 05/08/2009 12:39:32 AM PDT by jmc813
Here is an informative review of the book here.
If we could elect someone like Ron Paul with a conservative majorty in Congress, we could write a 2,000 page “emergency stimilus package” that no one has time to read and knock the socialists back to the stone age. We could knock the Feds back to the constitution and wreck the globalist agenda of treaties in two days.
Then there’s the fact that if you don’t think our policy of handouts to poor Blacks generation after generation are a good thing, or you don’t think affirmative action is a good thing overall, you simply have to be racist in some folks’ eyes.
I’ve seen this smear so many times, it’s just a given anymore.
Thanks for your comments sbMKE.
That’s pretty much my take on it too. I have never attended any meetings though, so it wasn’t something I could say for sure. I’ve never seen an example of their literature that backed the charge that the org was racist, so I’ve never considered them to be.
I appreciate your comments.
Thanks. That was my suspicion from the get go. I think you’re right from what others have been saying.
The problem with that points out the difference between conservatives and leftists: American constitutionalists don't riot, burn down cities, and assassinate opponents when they lose.
No, the JBS is not a "racist" organization.
The idea comes from years ago when the MSM ran a smear campaign.
Clearly, Charles Johnson doesn't know anything about the JBS.
I don't know much about the JBS, other cringing reflexively when some one brought them up as an authoritative source.
But, it would not be a long shot to guess that the JBS supported States Rights during the Civil Rights era, opposing Johnson's Great Society federal actions. That, alone, could have gotten them branded "racists".
There is some vetting of new members, and any candidate who is racist is not accepted.
Furthermore, if any member is later found to be racist, his membership is revoked.
You've got it!
But it would have to be "someone like Ron Paul, not RP himself because he's too old to run again -- and we'd need to fill Congress first so that we could get it past.
What makes me laugh is when neocons criticize the support RP gets, not just from Republicans, but from Democrats -- and Liberal ones, to boot. Don't they get that this is A GOOD THING given that he isn't compromising a single Constitutional principle to do it?
You MUST steal Democrats in order to win! And stealing active Liberal Democrats is the best, because they are the organizers that get others to vote with them! Take one high profile Lib Democrat away from the Democrats, and you've taken hundreds (if not thousands) of their votes!
Frankly I don't give a damn if Stormfront, the JBS and 9/11 Truthers support RP. I do give a damn if he supports them -- which he doesn't, and he has said so.
I am no Ron Paul fan, in fact I have barely read, and never listened, to the man. However, I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, in fact I would appreciate it if you would give me a synopsis of his Foreign policy, that his foreign policy adheres pretty much the constitution. I believe it says in the constitution we should not become involved in foreign wars. Not to say we shouldn't have beat the crap out of Afghanistan, I agree with that one, I supported Bush on Iraq, but was never sure if that was the right thing to do, or if we even had the moral authority to go in there. I know, he was working on Nukes, but we could have stopped that by simply bombing the crap out of Iraq now and then.
What I am trying to say is: If a person is against fighting except on American soil and leaving other countries to the sovereignty, as long as their plans don't include hurting us, then he is not a "kook, but a constitutionalists.
Like I said, I need to listen and read Paul much more than I already have, but if you have any input to give me on his foreign policy, I mean facts not broad statements about kookery, I would truly appreciate it.
Why would a treaty promoting genuine free trade need 900 pages (in the case of NAFTA) to say: “there shall be no barriers to trade between our countries”?
Ditto for me, LGF leans very much to the left now, haven't been on their site in years.
LGF & Charles Johnson are a joke. He is about as liberal as they come.
If you Google Ron Paul, you can find his own words about foreign policy. I'd rather you read it from him and not my interpretation.
In my opinion, though, his non-interventionalist policies just won't work in today's world and, in fact, could be quite dangerous for us. I'd rather engage the enemy on their soil and prevent wars from happening on ours if we can.
No violence. Just action. We have thought about it long enough. Time to act.
Thanks. I appreciate having my perception confirmed.
(he mentions Ron Paul as, "a Constitutionalist with impeccable credentials for loyalty to the United States and its survival as dreamed by our founding fathers") http://www.newswithviews.com/Kress/joe28.htm
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.