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?
[ he has done jack and squat other than giving his attention to running for office ]
Yeah.. Suspicious ain’t it... Lyndon does also say some good things as well..
Maybe its to discredit certain ideas.. (both of them).. by attaching their names to them..
Seems to work......... like here(FR) anti-Paul people never resuscitate the Federal Reserve Conspiracy..
It goes almost totally ignored..
Putin and Ahmadinejad would disagree... if they weren't fictitious creations of ZOG.
Very good point! I want to see if the gold is still in Fort Knox and I want to get rid of the Fed. But why hasn’t Ron Paul done anything about it?
More importantly, it’s turning out to be the Wall Streeter, Romney, who sold the Victory Mosque land to the Jihadists against the Bilderberg choice, Perry.
I don’t support USA goals (since 1988) to screw Serbia and put two Moslem countries in southeast Europe. I don’t support the USA’s supporting leftist parties in South America. I don’t like any part of “the Arab spring.” I prefer Ghadafi vs. the Muslim Brotherhood. I don’t want Obama sending billions of American money to Moslem countries that will try to kill us. Somebody didn’t want that French swordmaster that was ready to head the IMF or the French presidency. I don’t support the USA’s role in that frame-up. I was amused that Cynthia McKinney and I both think that NATO illegally targeted civilians and that Ghadafi offered a better life for Libyans that Obama, Sarkozy, the UN, NATO and the Muslim Brotherhood.
I really hope that Sarah Palin runs for president because I won’t vote for Romney or Perry. Those two guys are for the elite.
Sarah Palin speaking about Ron Paul: “He’s cool. He’s a good guy. He’s so independent. He’s independent of the party machine. And I’m like ‘Right On!’ So am I.”
Obviously, Sarah Palin should have no place in the Republican Party.
Ronpaul is useless and an idiot.
Paul doesn’t understand the philosophy that underlies our Constitution and legal system and the concept of “Just Law”.
Some areas he is pretty solid, but other areas he gets extremely weird. He doesn’t understand the need for a “worldview” which enshrines our Natural Rights which come from God.
The USA established a worldview of “Right Reason according to Nature”. Our legal system and Just Law comes from Natural Law Theory—which says there is a Creator—who designed man, etc., to “flourish” and that “happiness” is synonymous to Virtue. Virtue is defined clearly by the Founders and the Courts. Freedom can not exist without a virtuous people....Basic philosophy of all the Founders and Locke and Blackstone, etc. Just law can not deny virtue or telos of human beings.
Paul says states can establish homosexual marriage. It is legalizing evil acts—nihilism, degrading, immoral acts. It is unconstituional—goes against the laws of nature and enshrines immorality—by the standards of God’s law.
Telos is a fundamental part of Natural Law and Paul mocks it with his idea of homosexual marriage rights-—when social contracts are a fundamental importance to a society and the only reason for governments.
The natural family unit is the most important element of culture (all Anthropology) which enshrine our Natural Rights and a child’s to their biological parents. To deny a child their Natural Right through “law” is not possible because of inalienable rights and Natural Law Theory. To “flourish” or for the ‘General Welfare’ of a society we can not remove the Duty of people to be responsible for their offspring. Homosexual marriage creates a society which denies biology and virtue.
You have to acknowledge a God and His standards of Right and Wrong for this philosophy of Natural Law Theory to work. It is quite obvious. You never have Just Law when Objective Truths do not exist (Cicero/Locke/Aquinas).
Moral Relativism can not work anywhere but a socialist, communist country where only ‘might makes right’—there is no standard of right and wrong—just depends who has the power and what they state is right and wrong.
Moral Relativism removes The Rule of Law and replaces it with Rule of Man—(just laws which are not based in laws of nature—arbitrary which says there is no right and wrong—no reason, no logic because that comes only from observing Natural Law.
Ron Paul advocates Moral Relativism—socialism/chaos. Whose standard if not God’s???? Marx? Andrew Sullivan’s Satan’s?
The point is the USA has a standard that is absolute—Natural Rights are absolute—and Paul is saying there is no Objective Truth—no “right and wrong”. It’s stupid and arbitrary (unjust) law. He denies we have Natural Rights because he denies the God who is the originator of those rights.
The government ONLY exists to ensure our Natural Rights from God. That’s it, Paul! If government does not do this fundamental thing, it should be removed.
Not sure about the useful, but the idiot passes with flying colors.
He’s not useful.
No. He’s just an idiot.
He is the Ernest T. Bass of politics. You know, from the Andy Griffith show - the ignorant scruffy belligerent hillbilly with a penchant for troublemaking and being a pest every time he came to town. That’s is Ron Paul.
But Barney Fife describes him best: “He’s a nut!”
It’s a very strange anti-Semite who says that his political and economic philosophy was shaped by four Jewish intellectuals — Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, and Friedman — and who proclaims respect for the sovereignty of Israel and its right to run its own affairs.
Ron Paul is a consistent Rothbardian libertarian. Conservatives can disagree with Rothbard’s philosophy and economic thinking, but it’s silly and intellectually dishonest to call it it anti-Semitic.
Republicans are particularly foolish to treat libertarians with the sort of ridicule, disrespect, and sophistic misrepresentation on display in this article and the Jeffrey Lord article of which it is derivative. About 14% of the electorate tilts libertarian, and these voters have historically voted 3:1 Republican. The Republican Party can ill-afford to alienate these voters.
Three quotes from Ronald Reagan come to mind:
“Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”
“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor.”
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
>>> Is Ron Paul A Useful Idiot?
Always worth remembering who is on Ron Paul’s side. And how the RP posters here spend years doing nothing much more then trying to incite against any and all Republican candidates and office-holders to the benefit of RP and the dem party.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Cindy Sheehan endorses Ron Paul over Barack Obama
http://wigdersonlibrarypub.blogspot.com/2008/05/cindy-sheehan-endorses-ron-paul-over.html
and earlier:
Sheehan: “I don’t want to even discuss who is likely to be the Republican nominee, because besides having little foreign policy difference between any of them and Hillary, anyone of them would be a complete disaster on matters of war and peace, with the possible exception of Ron Paul (Tx).”
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1590/t/523/blog/comments.jsp?key=346&blog_entry_KEY=21045&t
I don't attribute Ron Paul's supporters to the man, himself. I care about what the candidate believes; every politician has some loose screws that "support" them.
I understand his reasoning for not supporting Israel. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
Because Israel is dear to me, I couldn't vote for him in the primaries.
I think Ron Paul is still for open borders and other crazy things.
Social Libertarians are the Pervert Party
Rothbard was a pro-abort.
You and I and sane people know that children are not equipped to make these decisions, especially when raised, brainwashed and groomed by such freak parents.
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.