Ron Paul: 'When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross'. (Drudge's Title)

(YouTube Via Drudge) ^

[mnehring]

YouTube video via Drudge- Ron Paul quote this morning on Fox and Friends- "When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. "

[editor-surveyor]

"In the past, it has wrapped itself in a rebellion or 'revolution' against the existing powers."

Really? Or was it a perception of reinforcement of existing powers under a false assertion of attack? Like Italy, and Germany? One rightist, and the other leftist, but both using the same control (fasces) techniques.

[editor-surveyor]

"It seems to me that the fascism that is rising is a globalist and athiestic/materialist idealism . . . not one race but one elite that will ultimately have absolute power."

Yet its leader will cast himself as Christ.

"Patriotism and Christianity will be forces opposing this, not helping it."

To the extent that they will still exist.

[editor-surveyor]

Whatever you’re drinking, you need to call it quits. There is no victory to be had in looking like a fool.

[editor-surveyor]

We’re living under fascism right now, and there is no revolution; just a steady creeping away from freedom toward a world wide totalitarian oligarchy.

[fortheDeclaration]

Walter and Victor Reuther led the UAW but also had volunteered to work in soviet auto plants in the 1930s. They signed off on their letters home: "Yours for a soviet America, Walter and Vic Reuther." The UAW itself was expelled from the AFL-CIO when Walter Reuther was running the union. That is a curious chronology of labor that you linked. It seems to ignore that little matter of the merger between the AFL and the CIO. Not that the paleos make distinctions in labor history that would notice little things like that.

What is so curious about it?

The Communists were heavily involved in the Unions from the 30's through the 40's.

[fortheDeclaration]

Now to deal with #694. The likeminded Democrats who voted for Ronaldus Maximus agreed with HIM on most issues. When you suggest that they disagreed with "us", that begs the question of just who "us" might be. Since you typed that word "us," you apparently suggest that "paleowhatevers" are part of "us." They are not. They never were. They never will be. Although I became a conservative Republican as a teenager from a labor Democrat family because of a very misplaced regard for Barry M. Goldwater (who turned out to be an enthusiast for abortion and for legalization and tolerance of homosexual perversions and had been the husband of a first wife who spent thirty five years of her life as a Planned Barrenhood National Director, ending only with her death), I soon turned to Reagan and so did millions of those from Democrat backgrounds who fled the Demonrats when McGovern's reds took over or even earlier. Many of any us that includes me and others from such backgrounds differ very much from the "devil may care" social anarchists and peace creeps who think themselves paleo"conservative", a term unknown until about 1986 when the paleowhatevers finally figured out that they were NOT ready for prime time among adults and were NOT going to be credentialed under Ronaldus Maximus.

And most of those Democrats who voted for Reagan remained Democrats, so they couldn't have agreed with most of what the GOP stood for.

What the Reagan vote and the 1994 vote showed was a rejection of the elites and a desire of Americans to regain control of the nation.

So, both elections were populist in nature as is the 'Paleo' movement to return the nation to its Constitutional roots.

Nixon beat McGovern because Americans traditionally despise communists and peacecreeps. The Wallace voters were not available to McGoo because they particularly despised his elitist red supporters and the urban rioting of spoiled minority Mcgoo supporters and alternative lifestyle pervert supporters of McGoo and the contempt for returning veterans by McGoo's antiwar despicables and a wide variety of other antiAmerican antisocial cretins who were associated then with McGoo and more recently with paleoPaulie and the "paleos" as well. Nixon was the last gasp of spineless Ike's "Modern Republicanism" and he wasn't much like Ike was not much but, at least, he was no McGoo. Actually Ford was the last gasp but he was never elected outside of Grand Rapids.

So?

Americans wanted to end the Vietnam war which the elites refused to win.

Nixon kept us in it 4 years longer then necessarily, when we could have gotten out with the same terms 4 years earlier.

All Nixon was worried about was his own ego and he got alot of good men killed for nothing.

Ike did run as the "cut and run" candidate in 1952, not that there was much of a choice since Adlai Stevenson was not exactly George Patton or Curt LeMay. Ike's wimpiness is one more reason why he was a poor excuse for a president, a poor excuse for a general and a poor excuse for a Republican. He opposed Joe McCarthy, defended Marshall, was eswentially a New Deal Demonrat by persuasion and, if you make pretenses of "paleoconservatism," you ought to be a bit bashful about praising Ike. Organized cheapskatism and other obsessive forms of materialism do not equate to conservatism. One of the few legitimate functions of government is national defense (warmaking as necessary and desirable). Military budgets are necessary. Conservatives (the actual kind) are more skeptical and should be as to welfare state spending and the expansion thereof.

Gee, so ending a conflict now, is considered 'cutting and running'?

All Americans were doing in Korea were dying for nothing.

More were killed during the peace negoiations then before they started.

Another no win 'conflict' that had U.S. troops dying for UN goals and not allowed to win against the Communists.

Somehow I don't see paleoPaulie and the limp-wristed Kunbaya set threatening nukes credibly to end the Islamofascist use of terror. Why would anyone have thought Ike trustworthy to do so? He just wanted Kumbaya and whatnot with the Russkis during and after WWII and as president. He telegraphed Tito that we did not favor the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Andropov soon arrived as soviet "ambassador" to personally execute the leaders of the revolution. Peace! Peace! Peace! West Point was wasted on Ike. The story of the second half of the 20th Century in the GOP is the absolute rejection of Kumbaya and the assertion of manhood in foreign policy. Not yet perfect but ever more so.

Ike understood the limits of US power.

He didn't get us involved in no win conflicts.

Ronaldus Maximus finished the soviets and finished the job that Ike refused to begin.

Reagan failed in the mideast when those marines were killed and 'cut and ran' as fast as he and Baker could.

The Soviet Union collapsed because their economy finally fell under the weight of massive defense spending, just as ours will.

If Ike was a decent president, it must have been as president of Columbia when Truman begged him to run as a Democrat for POTUS. It certainly wasn't as POTUS. It is understandable that JFK campaigned on the missile gap since Ike was untrustworthy in foreign and military policy. It was after JFK that the elitists in his party turned red.

There was no 'missile gap' and Kennedy knew it.

The Democrats were always 'red', who are you kidding.

Read Ann Coulters book on 'None Dare Call It Treason' on the Democratic Party and their love affair with Communism.

If you close or starve the two nuclear sub makers (New London and Norfolk) to satisfy the beady-eyed Main Street bank poobahs of the limited imagination, green-eye shade, sleeve garter and counting house variety that you are refusing what you imagine to be waste in military spending, you send about 60,000 very skilled workers who make the best boomers and attack subs into unemploment and then to be dispersed in the economy as a whole. Then WHEN (not if) you need a new generation of subs both as nuke platforms and as enemy navy killers, they aren't coming back to the sub plants and you cannot just advertise for new help to replace all of them, especially after a several year hiatus. Likewise, helicopters, tanks and a LOT of other hardware.

I wasn't aware we were short of nuke subs!

How many do you think we need.

Ike gets credit from me for the Interstate (National Defense) Highway System only. We are a great nation and we ought to act like one.

Which means minding our own business and defending US interests, not that of the UN.

I take it that the return of Democrat control of House and Senate in 1948 signaled a desire for socialism here if that's what Winston Chu5chill's defeat in England meant???

No, because the House went back and forth until 1954.

The GOP was not standing for Conservatism, hence the Dewy campaign and the reelection of Truman.

Even Taft made constant compromises.

Any comparison of the paleocoward of Galveston with Ronaldus Maximus flies in the face of history. Paul has zero, zip, nada in credibility as a military leader. Reagan finished the USSR. It is the poloplaying elitist set who just wonder WHY we have to son Rutherford's homosexual compulsions and daughter Muffie's need for that fourth abortion and wonder WHY we would want Chatsworth to take up a rifle and fight for his country when he prefers tiddlywinks at the club.

I don't know if you think your writing style is witty but I find it goofy.

Reagan came to office advocating a strong national defense.

He built up the military and did pressure the Soviets, but he also botched the mid-east badly and got over 200 Marines killed for nothing.

PaleoPaulie is an antiAmerican, antiwar, social anarchist and therefore a despicable twerp. He is no Reagan. I was a state chairman for Reagan's challenge to feckless Ford. I cannot really say that Reagan was a friend of mine but I certainly did everything I could for him and would do it again. That's why I will do everything I can AGAINST paleoPaulie. If you won't recognize the ideological gulf that separates Ronaldus Maximus from paleoPaulie, I do.

Well, RR had not problem 'cutting and running' after over 200 Marines were blown up without even an attempt to wipe out those who did it.

Also, the soviets enthusiastically greeted Ike's discovery of a "military-industrial complex" and his perverted resistance to national defense. Wonder why?

Ike was correct about the 'military-industrial complex, that if not kept under control, it would destroy the US economy.

Our defenses were never in doubt under Ike.

BTW, it IS the GOP base that will crush the paleosurrenderman in just a few weeks. Tick, tick, tick....

And then the GOP base will support...?

[fortheDeclaration]

["When did Paul say anything negative about conservative Christians?" ]

In the comment that provoked this thread, i.e., when fascism comes to this country, it will be bearing a cross.

And you think anyone bearing a cross is a conservative Christian?

[fortheDeclaration]

FTD: As to abortion, homosexuality, and response to attacks upon the United States and its allies by the Islamofascist enemies and the role of the central government in these issues, paleoPaulie is, in fact, an anarchist and a da**ed fool. If the "rule of law" is subject to such an interpretation, then it needs substantial revision more than it needs obedience. BTW, the Declaration of Independence was a remarkable document and a very desirable one which directly defied the Brit "rule of law" which also needed substantial revision more than it needed obedience. The Founding Fathers did what they had to do to establish liberty and a new rule of law. The Constitutional Convention produced the Constitution in defiance of the rule of law of the Articles of Confederation by ignoring the requirements of the Articles for revision and regarding less than unanimity of the states to adopt the new constitution. So much for your "rule of law."

When Bush gets serious about fighting the Islamic facists let me know.

He is more concerned with nation building.

As for the Constitution,the States agreed to it, (they could have opted out) so we are under the rule of law, if we adhere to its provisions.

[fortheDeclaration]

[No, Ron Paul will govern by the Constitution-that is enough ]

[ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .... stop it, please ] And that is funny why? Because the probability of Ron Paul winning the presidency is exactly ZERO ... get over it.

I think most of Ron Paul supporters accept that as most likely.

And the candidate you are excited about is?

[fortheDeclaration]

Ron Paul is a dangerous liar who selectively interprets the Constitution to mean whatever he wants it to mean. He is an radical isolationist and a self-centered atheist. I will never support Ron Paul. I will oppose him at every opportunity in his ignorant foreign policy that emboldens our foreign enemies. Go vote for Ron Paul, you will be loser.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist nor an atheist.

I will vote for Ron Paul because he actually stands for the Constitution and U.S. sovereignty.

It will be the nations loss if he loses, not mine for voting for him.

[bamahead]

travis, disclaimer: I gotta have this beautiful drop of Reaganesque wisdom for my FR homepage, so I’m plagarizing it :)

[tx_eggman]

And the candidate you are excited about is?

Duncan Hunter is my candidate of choice .. but it's not likely that that's going to happen either, is it?

So, since none of us is living in Perfect World® put the pragmatist in me in Fred Thompson's column.

[TSchmereL]

You are in total denial. Ron Paul is a de facto isolationist. He is an atheist supported by George Soros and Neo-Nazis all over the world. Go ahead. Vote away. You will elect the Democrat. But maybe that is your intention in the first place. Ron Paul is guaranteed to lose. There is nothing more certain. He would be ripped to shreds in a general election. Hillary Clinton would appear to be a centrist standing next to him. You and all his supporters could vote for him twice each and he would still lose. Millions of Republicans and Independents would not even vote or vote for the Democrat if Ron Paul were the candidate. But go ahead and dream away in fantasy land with imaginary futures of Ron Paul as president. It is just silly.

[traviskicks]

go for it!

[roofgoat]

PghBaldy states “I am not a Paul supporter, but... His quote makes sense. How else to bring oppression to this country but by using beloved symbols? It’s like the recurring theme that “we have to do” such and such “for the children.” Can anyone say that this country is more free today than when we were children? Laws, taxes, regulations - they multiply year after year, and all with supposedly good intentions. Part of Paul’s problem is he acts as if Fascism is right around the corner. I don’t see this as anti-Christian.”

TOCHDOWN. Why is that so many here are clueless? Yes, evil will come in many ways. And one is cloaked in a flag with a cross. If anyone does not believe this, they are wearing blinders or are agenda driven.

Satan is very clever and it appears he fools a lot of supposed Conservatives. Sad.

[BlackElk]

That's a verrrrrry slippery third paragraph. PaleoPaulie is that YOU???? The Constitution, by its own illegal terms, became effecfive before unanimity. Eleven states opted out in 1861 and were tyrannized for their courage and common sense.

As for Dubya, you won't find him smooching Islamofascist patoot. PaleoPaulie spends his life at such patoots on autosmooch. At least Benedict Arnold performed valuable service at Boston and Saratoga before going bad. The paleopipsqueak went straight to treason without bothering with service.

I try not to be a spelling nag (we all mistype from time to time) but that must be the 47th time that you have used "facist" when you may have meant "fascist." It is bad enough to be ideologically classified with the paleopipsqueak, voluntarily no less. You don't HAVE to be an exemplar of bad spelling as well as disastrous policy in order to support Dr. Demento. Supporting suicidally disastrous policies will suffice.

[fortheDeclaration]

That's a verrrrrry slippery third paragraph. PaleoPaulie is that YOU???? The Constitution, by its own illegal terms, became effecfive before unanimity. Eleven states opted out in 1861 and were tyrannized for their courage and common sense.

The Constitution came into force when 9 states joined.

All states had their chance to opt out before they joined the Union.

Once they joined, they gave up the right be a separate people.

So, the actions in 1861 were illegal and rightfully put down.

But you will be happy to know that Ron Paul takes your side on that issue.

As for Dubya, you won't find him smooching Islamofascist patoot. PaleoPaulie spends his life at such patoots on autosmooch. At least Benedict Arnold performed valuable service at Boston and Saratoga before going bad. The paleopipsqueak went straight to treason without bothering with service.

I haven't seem him hit Iran yet, even though we know they are responsible for killing U.S. troops.

What is he waiting for-permission from the UN?

I try not to be a spelling nag (we all mistype from time to time) but that must be the 47th time that you have used "facist" when you may have meant "fascist." It is bad enough to be ideologically classified with the paleopipsqueak, voluntarily no less. You don't HAVE to be an exemplar of bad spelling as well as disastrous policy in order to support Dr. Demento. Supporting suicidally disastrous policies will suffice.

Well, your arguments are getting pretty weak when you have to start bringing up the Civil War and spelling errors.

Also, you might want to check on the spelling of 'effective' in your paragraph above.

[Tennessean4Bush]

Injun_Ear_Danny,

While Barry McCaffrey is a retired General, he has been highly critical of the US Role in Iraq and very critical of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the Iraq War. You can read, therefore, in one article, a synopsis of his findings during his visit in November 2007. This will give a current non-rose-colored-glasses view from a long term critic of the war.

If you have more philosophical questions, along the lines of "what was our original purpose there and are we achieving that?" then that is another question that I would be happy to trade opinions with you in a civil manner. However, I don't have time for mere gainsaying revolving around "no WMD, no Jeffersonian democracy, etc., therefore whatever outcome there we can't have supposed to have won." But if you are truly looking for credible sources of articles on what is being achieved there, I have plenty to supply.

[BlackElk]

Birchers are often wrong. Objectivists are almost always wrong. You may be neither (especially since you seem to be a Bible-believing Christian). This is not the first time you are wrong. This is not the first time you and I have disagreed. You are usually wrong. You will continue to be wrong, in all likelihood. If you like paleoPaulie, the Al Qaeda worshiping wonder wimp of the POTUS race (comparable only to Gravel and Cuckoocinich), we Republicans will be saving you some further self-humiliation by taking out the paleotrash in those imminent caucuses and primaries. PaleoPaulie’s 15 minutes are almost expired as is his political career. Crushing the little twerp in the GOP nomination race will be the first victory of 2008. Then he faces a Congressional primary from Chris Peden (?), a former staffer who has had enough of Dr. Demento. Tick, tick, tick....

[fortheDeclaration]

You are in total denial. Ron Paul is a de facto isolationist. He is an atheist supported by George Soros and Neo-Nazis all over the world. Go ahead. Vote away. You will elect the Democrat. But maybe that is your intention in the first place. Ron Paul is guaranteed to lose. There is nothing more certain. He would be ripped to shreds in a general election. Hillary Clinton would appear to be a centrist standing next to him. You and all his supporters could vote for him twice each and he would still lose. Millions of Republicans and Independents would not even vote or vote for the Democrat if Ron Paul were the candidate. But go ahead and dream away in fantasy land with imaginary futures of Ron Paul as president. It is just silly.

First, he is not an isolationist.

He is for U.S. sovereignty and wants us out of the UN, NAFTA, WTO etc.

He wants us to freely trade with all nations, but not have U.S. citizens under the authority of the extra-national organizations.

As for 'wasting my vote', this is a primary, Republicans ought to vote for the man who best represents their political philosophy.

Ron Paul is running on returning to the Constitution, which is exactly what we need to do.

Second, regarding his electability in the general election, if Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination (highly unlikely I admit), I would expect Republicans to vote for him.

As for Democrats and Independents, I think his message of individual freedom and responsibility would resonant with the American people on sharp contrast with Hillary.