Skip to comments.A Tea Party Conservative's Defense of Ron Paul...and His Supporters
Posted on 09/24/2011 11:42:06 AM PDT by Bokababe
click here to read article
I have no way to predict where exactly that line in the proverbial 'sand' exists in this nation. But there is no doubt the liberal minded rulers most certainly have attempted to provoke a dust UP among we Americans. The left with its well planted decoys in the Republican Party never stop their well greased march toward globalism.
Our founding fathers understood the WHO it is that has ultimate authority over the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.... and down through the years of this nation we have had peoples whose purpose has been to wall US away from that Declaration. It is Written:
Hebrews 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for HE hath said, "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."
6 So that we may boldly say, "The LORD is my Helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me."
God has blessed US and protected US since our beginning, yet, the majority of US hired a covetousness bunch to rule over US. So maybe the majority will wake up and learn that redistribution of their wealth is against GOD's own instruction book. It might surprised people to find out the worst offender against GOD in teaching/preaching 'covetousness' come right out of most pulpits.
“Your love of America’s enemies is what is nauseating.”
Puh-leeze. As if somehow calling you out for what you is could be remotely treasonous. Could you be more of a drama queen, princess? It’s not burning the flag or dancing on the Constitution to point out you’re a smear merchant who’s just tossing out innuendo. What desperate straits you and your pals must be in, that you’ve finally gotten around to pulling out the traitor card again. Being caught in your boldfaced lie about Paul ‘endorsing McKinney,” that must have really hurt to have you bring out the long knives so early.
Anyone who makes excuses for Paul endorsing McKinney is a Koolaid drinking cult follower.
“[Ron Paul] also likes to back stab people in the back like Reagan.”
I’m pretty sure Reagan didn’t stab people in the back much. Although I bet he wanted to stab Tip O’Neill and David Stockman in the front.
I used to think Reagan really solidly accomplished one thing: making conservatism acceptable and being a liberal overtly unelectable. But then, Obama’s in the White House after running as New Soviet Man, so it obviously didn’t take.
But to address your point, Paul said what others have said about Reagan’s 8 years in the White House. It was a great time to be a conservative, but Reagan did less for the conservative movement and the Constitution than his mandate would have allowed, especially after the debacles of tax hikes and amnesty are included in his record. He didn’t shrink government. The man wasn’t perfect. But he was still great because he made being conservative the right thing to do. And he was still way better than his VP, who Paul ran against. I believe it was because Paul recognized Reagan had failed to deliver for conservatives, and was going to fall away from conservatism further, in allowing Bush to claim conservative votes for RINO governance with only the barest of commitments to conservative principles.
Precisely. If even Ronald Reagan and the Republicans in Congress wouldn't/couldn't deliver on Conservative principles, who ever would?
But taking George H Bush as VP was Reagan's first compromise with the Rockefeller Republicans. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be his last. Yet I'd still like to believe that he did the best he could -- they were and still are just too powerful.
I'm starting to to think that some Americans have begun to realize that God's Grace shed on America is not simply a gift to be arrogantly taken for granted, but rather something to be humbled by. I just don't know if it is sinking in quickly enough. I hope.
Remember Abraham asking God how many 'righteous' there had to be in Sodom and Gomorrah for it to be 'saved'... Well, 10 was the number needed... Now sure what number is required for modern Sodom and Gomorrah.
I was responding to your usual antiwar nonsense and many here find attacks on the Paulistinian peace at any price crowd which has the nerve to pose as "conservative." I don't really care whether you are aghast or amused or imagine that this or that is pathetic. You don't really expect to have actual conservatives agree with the paleo Kumbaya grovelfest of the Galveston fraud and treasonweasel, do you? If you can't stand the heat bound to be generated by Ron Paul/Neville Chamberlain/George McGovern foreign policy efforts, then don't get involved in the controversy on their side.
Not an intellectual "bowel movement" but one more actually conservative correction of national cowardice and McGovernism posturing as "conservative" foreign policy.
Of course, that high level of "intellect" you are showing means that you are not going to defend dead Comrade Slobbo from his just removal and just demise at the hands of American ARMED forces. Instead, it is, well, see conservatism is what Neville Chamberlain offered to Great Britain in 1939, what the hideously misnamed "America Firsters" offered America leading up to Pearl Harbor and what the usual gang of peace creeps and Kumbaya meisters have to offer in response to 9/11. Are you a Troofer like paleoPaulie and his buddy Alex Jones??? Or is that too far even for you?
Again, if you want to be "left out of it" then avoid posting things more controversial than Mary Had a Little Lamb. You get to make arguments and others get to respond. They get to make arguments and you get to respond. You should try actually arguing some time instead of complaining about how terribly UNFAIR it is that people disagree with you.
Here's some actual logic for you. What you seem to suggest as logic is not logic but rather agreement with you. I DON'T agree with you. I give reasons for my characterizations of the old fool from Galveston whose district is thankfully being abolished to prevent more unnecessary prolonging of his embarrassing political tenure. The least common denominator would be common to all participants (that would include YOU and numerous others who disagree with me regularly on matters political or religious). I don't think you really want to concede agreeing with me so you might want to avoid that description of my arguments. See: Stated proposition, then evidence for same, then argument. It is not that hard unless the evidence and argument are absent and the stated proposition stands there alone by its nekkid self.
No matter how often we have our antiwar, pro-abort, anti-marriage, college leftist legions stuff straw poll ballot boxes, we STILL don't get no respect in the GOP for the (all genuflect here) paleosurrenderman and multipurpose crackpot!!! It is just UNFAIR!!!! Stated proposition only, no evidence, no argument, therefore no logic!!!
I think it is pathetic that anyone would support paleoPaulie. So what??? It is still the USA and still a free country whatever the Paulistinian crackpots may imagine. I have my opinion and you have yours. Since you do not advance facts or logic or actual argument, one may be forgiven for suspecting that you see yourself as losing the argument. On that sole point, you are probably correct!
I stopped reading right there, and I've never done that with an article from American Thinker. This notion that Ron Paul is a strict constuctionist is BS. His understanding of the Constitution and the intent of the founders is no more or less profound than anyone else in the race, or in Congress for that matter.
Is there something that the Serbs of Kosovo or Serbia have ever done to deserve American intervention on their behalf???
BTW, in the next few weeks, a prominent Serbian American, Rod Blagojevich will become the fourth Illinois governor (three of the four are/were Demonrats and the fourth a lying weasel RINO named George Ryan) of the last six sent to the federal hoosegow. Lest you be tempted to defend him, he is being sent to the hoosegow, like his predecessors (and hopefully to be followed by Pat Quinn) as a crook and not at all because of his Serbian ancestry. His equally Serbian brother from Tennessee was acquitted by the original jury.
If he’s that ineffective, how dies it happen that a whole HEAP of the discussions center around HIS 2008 and beyond talking points, such as auditing the Fed?
You’ve just let your irrational hatred blind you to reality. Really, check your meds!
Real conservatism isn't "a club", it's a political ideology that like it or not, contains strong elements of libertarianism at its core. And when Republicans stray too far from that and start trying to socialize the country in any direction, the libertarians will always be the group that tries to pull them back to those core values of the rights of the individual. It's the way it is and the way it's always been, which is why Ronald Reagan said that "libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism".
Almost 30 years ago in Beirut, Lebanon, the US lost 250 US soldiers to a suicide truck bomb. The response of our president was NOT to retaliate and start a war; it was to bring our troops home, later saying that "the politics of the Middle East are too complicated and irrational to get our soldiers involved in".
In today's political theater, that same president for same those actions would inevitably be vilified and called "a surrender monkey". But that very real scenario and very real president was Ronald Reagan -- you know the guy that all the current Republican candidates are currently pretending to carry the mantel of.
So please tell me what's changed? Have the politics of the Middle East gotten any less irrational? Or has what's called "conservativism" so changed that it has become just as irrational?
I was a state chairman for Reagan when he challenged Feckless Ford (an exemplar of the globalist wing of the "I don't give a sh*t about anything but my personal portfolio" club). I am appalled that the followers of the paleosurrenderman and, indeed, El Run himself, have the nerve to cite Reagan as authority. We have the Paulistinians posting campaign photos of Ronaldus Maximus with Paul such as any Republican White House offers to any GOP nominee for Congress as though it would prove a close relationship. The Paulistinians conveniently forget Paul's denunciations of Ronaldus Maximus while he was still in office and Paul was the very crackpot candidate of the very crackpot Libertarian Party. We have the oft-repeated canard about libertarianism being the heart and soul of conservatism. That is an incoherent contribution to the current controversy. The late Frank Meyer, who tended toward libertarianism personally (at a time when he was not yet a religious believer) wrote In Defense of Freedom as his explanation and defense of what he called fusionism, the non-toxic combination of reasonable libertarians and traditionalists in one movement, minimizing their hostilities and building upon their agreements. This also became the philosophy of Murray Rothbard once he became a believer and realized the errors of his prior advocacy among the Llewellyn Rockwell set.
The CONSERVATIVE movement is not at all dependent upon the obsessive "I gotta be ME!!!" nonsense of the modern organized libertarians. Much less does it depend upon joining Cain (the fratricidal murderer in Genesis) in saying: "I am not my brother's keeper." Much less does it depend upon the career of lies and dishonesty that is Ron Paul and his phony claims of being pro-life and pro-family while absolutely refusing to DO ANYTHING about either while they are under attack by the fedcourts. Much less does it depend on Ron Paul's lying claims to "fiscal conservatism" while stuffing every House appropriations bill with scads of pork for Galveston depending upon his similarly pork-craving colleagues to vote his pork into law while he poses primly for holy pictures and votes NO.
There may be any number of reasons why Ronaldus Maximus did not retaliate for the barracks bombing, not least of which may have been growing up in the then shamefully isolationist Midwest. I tend to think his decision was to keep his eyes on the prize of destroying the communism of the soviet union by destroying the soviet union by driving them out of a financial competition they could not win in a world of growing technology such as xerographic copying, fax communication, cell phone technology, which facilitated samizdat communication and spelled the practical end of soviet internal tyranny. That no blood was shed in the endgame was a pleasant byproduct and not a primary goal, not unlike the rarity of American casualties in the war against Serbia's communist Slobodan Milosevic dictatorship. Islam is messier but communism was always a more vital target for destruction. We do not HAVE to share the earth with either of these evils but Reagan put his emphasis on "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
The world is a complicated place and issues do not exist in neat vacuums wherein we may make believe that there is no interrelation. If those interrelationships and complications are a challenge for you, well, that's just the way the world works.
Also, Syria and Lebanon hold little in the way of compelling interests for the USA. Little in the way of oil or food or ores. Nothing in the way of rational trade partners. We have little need for the colorful aspects of their local cultures or fanciful hallucinations as to the meaning of the Koran. Perpetual civil wars not unlike Somalia with few admirable forces to be identified. If the USA is limited in its ability to intervene, it must limit its interventions to situations that justify intervention in the sole determination of the USA and for what we and we alone regard as adequate reason. We intervened, inter alia, because the Balkans in general and Serbia in particular have a long history as chronic trouble zones. Does the name Gavrilo Princip ring a bell?
Ronald Reagan narrated a lengthy film documentary as to the actual history of communism in power primarily in Russia and Eastern and Central Europe. Libertarians who imagine themselves following in the footsteps of Ronaldus Maximus are no more doing so than is his son and namesake Little Ronnie Tutu of PMSNBC fame. They should view the documentary and be sure to have a supply of smelling salts and restorative drugs on hand as it forcefully removes them from their fantasies.
Wat would ANY supporter of Ron Paul know about Real conservatism?
When conservatives maintain their own very real principles and reject the excesses and fantasies of drug-loving, abortion-supporting, homosexuality cheering, isolationist treasonweasel admiring, Kumbaya towards our enemies practicing libertarians, the libertarians will always try to drag conservatives towards their libertine and pacifist "values." In response, conservatives will crush libertarian movements such as that, as El Run and his leftwing college crazies found out in 2008 and will find out while weeping over his absolute political destruction in 2012. Neither Paulie nor his crazed followers are going to redefine conservatism to fit their eccentricities.
I am not at all interested in the "politics" of the Middle East. I support Israel because it has earned American support. As to the rest, either they behave or get out of the way or I would be happy to see us render everything they value flat, black and glowing in the dark. They have wanted attention in spite of their essential irrelevancy. Well, they got it.
Reagan was no surrendermonkey. He earned his spurs in the conservative movement for many years and earned the confidence of conservatives. This certainly cannot be said of El Run Paulie.
Neither lying delusionist/isolationist Ron Paul nor globaloneyists Mittens Romney nor Jon Huntsman nor New Mexico's Marijuana Johnson are fit to mop Ronaldus Maximus's privy. SOME of the other candidates: Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, possibly Rick Perry, possibly Newt Gingrich may well rationally lay claim to Reagan's political legacy. None perfect but the last five infinitely more perfect than Paul, Romney and Huntsman and the eccentric former governor of New Mexico.
I have not checked your links but I will.
Likewise, in the Wikipedia article on the Beirut bombing, you will note that Reagan pulled the surviving Marines not to Galveston but to islands off Lebanon, sent the very substantially enhanced Battleship USS New Jersey to the waters off Lebanon and then, when New Jersey had arrived in early 1984, ordered it to bombard the terrorist training camp in the Bekaa Valley back to the Stone Age physically as well as theologically. Do you have any grasp of the affect of 300 big, rocket assisted shells??? This is not how the Paulistinians usually market the situation as Reagan emulating Cut and Run in advance. Have you heard anything out of the Bekaa Valley Islamofascist training camps since early 1984? Neither have I.
You will also note that I support unilaterally arrived at US decisions to wage war against our enemies and not cooperative efforts under NATO or the UN. Saddam Hussein is dead. Uday and Kucay are dead. The Republican Guard is a bad memory. In the absence of any new provocation and, assuming unfortunately, that we are not going to collect every last nickel of expense out of the Iraqi oil wells, there seems little reason to remain. Osama bin Laden seems dead by the salutary method of sending SEALS into Pakistan whether they like it or not and without notifying them or obtaining their approval and, golleee, look who we found even though the Pakistanis claimed no knowledge. Any more guff from Pakistan and we should beef up India verrry substantially. NATO has outlived its usefulness and the UN never had any. We don't need to contest over Libya (their oil is committed to old Europe and old Europe can fight its own battles or freeze in the dark as they see fit). I believe that the Brits are self-sufficient and only they are reliable allies of the US. It is time the rest of useless old Europe got its act together, learned how to wage its own wars again, and fought its own war in Libya without us. Europe blooded again in war might be less socialist and more manly and none too soon.
That does not mean that actual conservatives will ever join El Run and the Islamofascists roasting Smores and singing Kumbaya around the old campfires. Not now. Not ever.
Until the current administration, The United States has stood by her allies. Got it?
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.