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. "

[fortheDeclaration]

[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.

No, it is unlikely that either Hunter or Thompson is going to get the nod (unless Thompson's campaign begins catching fire).

I think Ron Paul has far more in common with Hunter then do any of the other candidates.

[BlackElk]

In SOME small number of CIO unions until the merger in which the AFL leaders successfully required the forced purge of the reds whose activity was generally CIO. The unions themselves prevented communist influence here and, on their worst day, understood the reds and how to crush them better than any paleobimbo ever did or ever would. Reagan was president of the Screen Actors' Guild in the 1940s. SAG is and was a labor union (lions and tigers and bears, oh my!!!) Was Reagan a communist???? This notion of unions as forces for communism is the delusion of the cheapskate counting house wing of the old GOP dedicated to mere materialism. In that way they (aka paleowhatevers/money obsessives) have something in common with dialectical materialists aka Marxist-Leninists aka communists. They are all materialists. They just differ on who gets the gummint on their respective sides to determine the redistribution or retention of the goodies.

What's so curious is IIRC that you were linking an alleged purge of communists by Walter Reuther who was one and who was purged from the AFL-CIO along with his UAW by George Meany.

Any chronology of American labor history that omits a little thing like the merger of the AFL and the CIO and the attendant purge of CIO's minority of communist leaders is a bit defective. No? Likewise, the election of John Sweeney to replace Lane Kirkland and his almost immediate amendment of the AFL-CIO Charter to allow communists back into leadership is another glaring omission consistent only with those who believe that all unions are communist or that it does not matter or that they ought to be communist. Most Americans know better.

[BlackElk]

Thanks for your kind post.

[fortheDeclaration]

In SOME small number of CIO unions until the merger in which the AFL leaders successfully required the forced purge of the reds whose activity was generally CIO. The unions themselves prevented communist influence here and, on their worst day, understood the reds and how to crush them better than any paleobimbo ever did or ever would. Reagan was president of the Screen Actors' Guild in the 1940s. SAG is and was a labor union (lions and tigers and bears, oh my!!!) Was Reagan a communist???? This notion of unions as forces for communism is the delusion of the cheapskate counting house wing of the old GOP dedicated to mere materialism. In that way they (aka paleowhatevers/money obsessives) have something in common with dialectical materialists aka Marxist-Leninists aka communists. They are all materialists. They just differ on who gets the gummint on their respective sides to determine the redistribution or retention of the goodies.

The Communists were involved in the Union movement throughout the 30's and 40's.

I didn't say everyone involved in the Unions was a Communist.

For a good rid on the influence on the Communists on Hollywood, read Hollywood Party, How Communism Seduced The American Film Industry In The 1930s and 1940s by Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley.

So, Communism was a real issue between the 30's and 40's in the Unions and had to be rooted out.

What's so curious is IIRC that you were linking an alleged purge of communists by Walter Reuther who was one and who was purged from the AFL-CIO along with his UAW by George Meany. Any chronology of American labor history that omits a little thing like the merger of the AFL and the CIO and the attendant purge of CIO's minority of communist leaders is a bit defective. No? Likewise, the election of John Sweeney to replace Lane Kirkland and his almost immediate amendment of the AFL-CIO Charter to allow communists back into leadership is another glaring omission consistent only with those who believe that all unions are communist or that it does not matter or that they ought to be communist. Most Americans know better.

I am not discussing how the Unions got rid of the Communists within their ranks, only that they were there.

So, the fact that the AFl-CIO had to be 'purged' of Communists shows just how powerful they were throughout the 30's and 40's in the Unions.

It took some Unions longer to get rid of them.

This was not a discussion on the AFL-CIO in particular, but on the Communist influence in the Unions in general.

So, stop blowing smoke-the Communists were a real factor in this nation from 1930's through the 1950's, both in Unions and in Government.

[editor-surveyor]

No, it is you that are wrong, as usual, for the usual reasons. You don’t have the slightest idea what this country is all about.

You run off at the mouth about a candidate that has no chance at being elected to any national office as an opportunity to decry all that is dear to Americans. Paleo-conservatives are the only conservatives. Neos and all other wierd flavors are just average liberal democrats that find their party a bit crowded, so they cut into line so to speak, by calling themselves republicans.

You’re not unique in any way; you’re just one of the thousands of sores on the leprous carcass of what’s left of the republican party.

Not to worry though; we’re on our way to a spiritual healing.

[SoldierDad]

Not sure why you decided to ping me as I’ve not enjoined in this discussion with you, or anyone else for that matter. However, since you did, I’d like to just add my two cents. Soon, very soon, you will awake from this dream of yours and reality will hit you like a ton of bricks. Run Paul will not win the primary, and the only other way he will be in the race for 2008 will be as a turd party candidate on a Libertarian platform. After he loses the primary we’ll see who is correct on this score. Until then, all you have to add to this discussion is nothing more than blather.

[BlackElk]

The Republican base will support a Republican, a patriot, an American and someone willing to wield US military power wherever we see fit for OUR purposes whether the UN likes it or not.

BTW: Isolationism=Organized surrendermonkeyism and cowardice.

Globalism=League of Nations/United Nations multilateralism usually for the advancement of various evils including socialism and world-wide Kumbayaism and rejection of morality.

INTERVENTIONISM= Wage war where, when and as we (the US) pleases for US purposes whether the UN or other nations like it or not. It honors and recognizes traditional American exceptionalism and understands that we trust ourselves and very few who are not among us.

You praise the feckless wimp Eisenhower who was as much a multilateralist as our nation has ever tolerated in a POTUS much less in a general. His despicable kowtowing to the soviets as a general and as a POTUS was consistent with his (and your) nervous breakdown over the fact that the USA has an ongoing interest and need to be so very well-armed as to deter ALL opposition. You delude yourself into believing that Ike's campaign promise suggesting that he would end the Korean War was responsible for his election. Or that Nixon got elected in 1968 somehow as an antiwar candidate. Ask Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin but since both are dead, ask Jane Fonda or ask McGovern or ask Ted the Swimmer. It is true that Nixon dirtied his skirts by engaging in endless and generally useless diployak with the soviet bosses and, even worse, with chairman Mao and Chou-En Lai (who at least agreed not to have a conniption over US interdiction of rail lines through China by which the soviets were arming Ho Chi Minh).

The simple principle is that when we choose to fight we are obligated to do whatever is necessary to win. Our presidents often fall short of that dedication to say nothing of the average Congressional quisling. Somalia and Lebanon are no more necessary to US interests than was Kosovo (another example of a POTUS Slick Willie on autosmooch as to Islamofascist patoot). We Americans drive automobiles. Oil is (until replaced technologically at reasonable cost) a vital interest of the US. Iraq has plenty of oil. If the locals in Iraq or Iran or Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or similar countries cannot get their act together and guarantee a flow of oil, we have to do what we have to do even if it costs a bit of money for the guys in the back room at the Hometown Bank on Main Street.

We can do a more efficient job. We can smash the Islamofascist enemies better than we have. There is absolutely no reason to believe that paleo-ostriches and neo-Neville Chamberlains will do anything whatsoever much less more effectively or more efficiently. They are addicted to coma as usual.

All paleowhatevers do is blubber incoherently, claim they would fight whatever war we are not presently fighting, oppose any war that we do fight, obsess about their taxes, and ignore the fact that we have lost fewer soldiers killed in this war of more than four and one half years' duration than there were people killed on our highways in any MONTH of the 1960s when we were used to domestic highway casualties of 50,000 per year or 12K+ per month.

Perhaps most hilariously of all, you want to describe the paleowhatevers as noble populists fighting the elitist regulars. James Baker is no paleo but he is no warrior. He is the very essence of elitist. So few people of any social description would be caught dead accepting the idjit paleodelusions that the paleowhatevers will have a hard time selling themselves as "populists." Interventionists = populists. Globaloneyists or INTERNATIONALISTS = Elitists. Paleowhatevers = a small slice of mental patients dedicated to national extinction through paleopeacecreepism and general inaction. The rest of the peacecreeps = frank leftists bright enough to have a clue as to the nature of their foreign policy and their hatred of the USA.

Reagan Democrats vote as they please without regard to party. When the GOP has the spine to nominate a nominee with manhood who will reject the elitism of the country club, the polo club, the yacht club, the board room, the obsessive materialism and who will fight our nation's enemies to their death whenever US interests are at stake and will thumb his nose at the UN. They think of the GOP as the party of their boss but will support it when it is aggressive in cracking down on crime, terror, babykilling and social perversions. When the GOP is despised by members of the general public, it is over economic issues and fiscal elitism. Under Slick Willie, the Demonrats wanted to get a piece of the "fiscal conservatives" while insisting that they were helping the poor.

American troops should NEVER be deployed under the UN commanders or as part of a UN force. The US should get out of the UN and kick it out of the US. (Even the Birchers are right twice a day).

Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were Democrats. I had not realized that they were reds as you claim in saying that the Democrats always were reds. I doubt that Ann Coulter believes that either. In fact, I warrant that the Democrats were the conservative party in American politics until FDR although there were many good Republicans as well.

If you don't like my writing style, you are not the first and won't be the last. Ask me if I care. I am not writing to curry favor with you. You write your way and I shall write my way. At least I don't shame myself by adopting paleowhateverism in whatever writing style.

Cutting and running (or fleeing in terror in the face of the enemy) are descriptions of "ending a conflict" without the unconditional surrender of our enemies.

You say that Nixon kept us in VietNam 4 years longer than necessary and he could have gotten the same "terms" (American surrender at the expense of our Vietnamese allies) when he first took office. Surrender is always reasonably easy compared to victory but victory was what is always necessary. Of course, you believe that there are "limits to American power." Logically, that would seem to be true but those "limits" are and were a LOT further from us than you imagine then and now. General Giap, in his memoirs, conceded that we had beaten him and the NVA by the time of the Tet Offensive but that the reds wondered in amazement at the gullible American public swallowing the propaganda of the leftist MSM. Ronaldus Maximus observed in 1968 that it would take six months and no more to not only defeat North Vietnam but to turn it into the world's largest parking lot with stripes. He also turned out to be an infinitely better president than the likes of Eisenhower or Nixon, much less Ford. It is regrettable but true (and necessary) that soldiers are killed in wars. Each is precious as is such sacrifice but surrender to the evil being fought is an ultimate evil and an absolute dishonor to each dead and wounded American soldier. Something that paleos and other peacecreeps never quite grasp.

We need and we shall have as many nuclear boomers and attack subs as we need or might ever employ in worst case scenarios. If Teheran misbehaves significantly, we might want to consider a practical demonstration of what one boomer could do to eliminate the problem of Islamofascism. If Saudi Arabia ever became a very severe problem, the names of Mecca and Medina come to mind.

"Minding our own business" is paleoweaselspeak for downsizing our nation, turning it into an amoral five and dime, ignoring the rise of our enemies while they fatten themselves on lesser prey until they can challenge us and rendering it unwilling to act when action is morally called for. Sean Penn, Nancy Facelift, Dingy Harry, Ted the Swimmer, UpChuck Hagel, Weepy Walter Jones and the paleopipsqueak are NOT conservatives. They advocate cowardice as national policy as did John Sherman Cooper, Charles Mathias, Pete McCloskey and a handful of other treasonous weasels in the GOP during the Vietnam War.

I got a bellyful of peacecreeps and other traitors during the Vietnam War and I am not about to make believe that today's paleopeacecreeps have anything to do with patriotism much less with conservatism when they seek (like paleoPaulie) to ally themselves with America's enemies in times of shooting war.

[BlackElk]

TSL: Taking second place to none in despising paleoPaulie as I do, I agree with your post in all but one respect. I do not believe that there is any evidence whatsoever that the pipsqueak is an atheist. IIRC, he is either a Baptist or a Presbyterian. Do you have actual evidence of him being an atheist?

Meanwhile, Winnie the Pooh is more likely to be the GOP nominee than paleoPaulie and so we don't have to worry about him actually damaging our country with his lunacy. He will probably be out of Congress by 2009. I certainly hope so.

[Fester Chugabrew]

“Pakistan should not be getting an “allowance” from us and we should not be propping up military dictators that oppress people. We should mind our own business and stop the oppressive taxation of Americans that makes this meddling possible.” -RP

I take it you disagree. It is essential, if America is going to thrive and survive, that we use a military presence and alliances to insure procurement of oil and other resources from around the world. We cannot possibly survive with secure borders and free trade as a free people with the right and responsibility to bear arms in self defense. Right?

[editor-surveyor]

You’re drinking again?

I think that I was the first guy here to point out the impossibility of RP winning anything nationally.

I only pinged you because you were one of the people that “Mr wacko” Black elk pinged when he laid his rambling illogic to the breeze.

[BlackElk]

FTD: If nine states joining the illegal Constitution regime abolished the Articles of Confederation despite the clear requirement of the Articles that unanimity was NECESSARY to amend, then eleven states joining the Confederate States of America had no less authority.

I am waiting for you to explain the issuance of the Declaration of Independence as being an exercise of the rule of law as opposed to an act of revolution against the established order of British government. If the revolution was lost, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and a lot of their friends would have been hanged if they survived the loss. I am glad they won but puhleeze refrain from the manifestly ridiculous suggestion that the Declaration had anything whatsoever to do with the "rule of law."

What is your CONSTITUTIONAL reference for the fantasy that a state, having joined these United States had exhausted its ability to withdraw? If I belong to an otherwise respectable club of gentlemen and it decides subsequently that members must present their teenagers to be sexually used by the members, I am withdrawing whether the club by-laws allow me to withdraw or not.

Four Confederate states were among the original thirteen. When they joined these United States, there was no Tenth Amendment to limit exercises of central government power. Shortly after they were admitted, the Bill of Rights was enacted (insofar as anything could be enacted) and the Tenth restrained central government powers to those SPECIFICALLY granted by the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution EVER empowered the central government to wage war against those states choosing to leave simply for leaving. That was left to "the states and the people respectively." Lincoln and company were acting as federal officials and acting illegally when they invaded and conquered the Confederacy and still more so when the ratification of the Civil War amendments was achieved at gunpoint on the pretense that on the one hand the 11 states could not leave and OTOH they would not be "re-admitted" without ratification of XIII, XIV and XV. If Ron Paul agrees, that is nice to know but no reason to vote for him. If you disagree, with me and paleoPaulie on this, why should you be taken seriously on anything when the text of the constitution means nothing to you and you purport to speak for the "constitutionalist."

I conceded that we all make spelling errors here but the substitution of "facist" for "fascist" by you and several other paleoPaulie love slaves here is as much of a habit as your hero wanting to instantly surrender to our nation;'s enemies ASAP whenever possible.

[BlackElk]

BTW: Paleowhatevers are the intellectual blood brothers of America’s enemies. They genuflect toward leftist foreign policy cowardice as a prime example.

[Mr. Silverback]

I've thought that Ron Paul was a nut and a traitor for quite some time now...but my jaw still dropped when I heard this clip. There is not enough fiscal conservatism in the world to make this man anything but dog crap.

He should be deported and his followers here should be zotted.

[BlackElk]

FTD:

Duncan Hunter is a patriot. PaleoPaulie is Al Qaeda's mouthpiece in America.

Duncan Hunter is a combat veteran and has a son in Iraq. PaleoPaulie is a long time enemy of the American military.

PaleoPaulie wants to commission modern day pirates with letters of marque and reprisal (perhaps armed with blunderbusses and flintlocks and sailing in spiffy new sailing sloops: Avast, Matey!!!) while Duncan Hunter has a marked preference for the use of the US military (including the Air Force although the Air Force is concededly not mentioned in the Constitution).

Duncan Hunter beleves in DOING something to stop abortion on a federal level. PaleoPaulie does not. Dr. Demento poses for holy pictures only and then would abandon the issue to the states.

Just four major distinctions on three very major issues.

Wasn't paleoPaulie an Air Force physician? Maybe he's no constitutionalist virgin after all!

[TSchmereL]

I agree with Ron Paul that we need more limits on the government and strict construction of the constitution.

But it does not matter.

We are talking about Ron Paul, the candidate, not his opposition to the bloated federal bureaucracy and strict constitutionalism.

Ron Paul is a loser. Ron Paul is guaranteed to lose. Ron Paul will ensure that Democrats control the executive, and legislative branched of government in 2009 and beyond.

Ron Paul is toast. Stick a fork in Ron Paul. Ron Paul is going nowhere.

Ron Paul will only cause damage to your own cause.

Before the end of 2008, the name Ron Paul will be synonymous with self-defeat.

[mnehring]

Duncan Hunter has actually accomplished proposing and passing bills that forward Conservative principles, Paulie has a piss poor record at passing bills- he is basically a failure in Congress...

[BlackElk]

We shall see who knows what this country is all about when the caucuses and primaries obliterate the paleopipsqueak candidate El Run Paulie.

Strange, I was involved in leadership in Young Americans for Freedom, Young Republicans, College Republicans and chaired one state effort for Reagan when he challenged Ford. Paleos (who tend to be blood and soil types as well as peacecreeps) were never encountered in ANY of those groups. I probably met a few paleo idjits (they did not know they were paleos since the term was invented in about 1986) in the Libertarian Party when I spent a short misspent time there. Most of us just thought of them as wierdos and eccentrics or, charitably, outside the social mainstream and not ready for prime time. Most conservatives are social normalists and paleos seldom are (See Sobran, Rockwell, Raimondo, et al.).

I really look forward to that "spiritual healing" having an effect on lavender Justin(e) Raimondo of antiwar.com, the paleo foreign minister and uberpropagandist. Likewise David Duke, Willis Carto, and Stormfront. It may well be too late for the late paleo atheist Sam Francis, though.

It would appear from the rhetoric of your leprous carcass paragraph that you know how this will turn out.

I know I am not unique. There are tens of millions of us (actual not "paleo""conservatives") and we are all ten feet tall.

BTW, Republican is not an ancestral title. I know that you guys miss the good old days when in 1939 or so the GOP had 8 of the 96 Senators proving just how "paleo" it truly was.

[unspun]

"When fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross -- and keep those $500 checks coming!"

[BlackElk]

There are others who have emulated your useful term of Precious Willard.

[fortheDeclaration]

I agree with Ron Paul that we need more limits on the government and strict construction of the constitution. But it does not matter. We are talking about Ron Paul, the candidate, not his opposition to the bloated federal bureaucracy and strict constitutionalism. Ron Paul is a loser. Ron Paul is guaranteed to lose. Ron Paul will ensure that Democrats control the executive, and legislative branched of government in 2009 and beyond. Ron Paul is toast. Stick a fork in Ron Paul. Ron Paul is going nowhere. Ron Paul will only cause damage to your own cause. Before the end of 2008, the name Ron Paul will be synonymous with self-defeat.

Ron Paul's name is already synonymous with resistance to the elites who want to have their own hand picked candidates running in both parties.

Ron Paul has already won a major victory in uniting people over the of principles of the freedom in the Constitution.

Ron Paul's cause will be remembered long after the GOP nominates yet another RINO for President and we hear the pleas from the GOP that we have to support him to stop Hillary.