Posted on 12/18/2007 7:41:42 AM PST by 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. "
FTD: Are Paulie's pals in those linked photos of Alouette's from Little Green Footballs: a) PaleoPaulie's fellow "peace activists",
b) his fellow "constitutionalists" (any particular constitution like Weimar or its successors?),
c) George Wahington, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson alive again!
d) Billy Sherman, Ben Butler and Thaddeus Stevens, or
e) contemporary neo-nazis that, of course, paleoPaulie has absolutely nothing to do with despite that s*** eating grin on his mug?
America wants to know!
“A few weeks ago, “Ron Paul 2008” home made signs appeared on utility poles in my neighborhood about 20 feet up. They lasted about a day.”
I’d call the utility company and report it.
If the company is a big enough dick, they will charge the campaign, company, or whatever for the damage to the pole.
“Releasing an ad that features a floating cross in the background, as if he had the divine right of kings to rule over us?”
It wasn’t a “floating cross” or any other cross.
It was a bookcase.
NOT if those signs violate the law.
In some states it’s illegal to post campaign (or other) signs in the right of way of a road (this also includes banners on overpasses).
And if those signs are posted on a utility pole, that is considered damaging private property.
“Things may have changed, but I know in the past, active duty officers (and I believe enlisted) were generally prohibited from having political stickers on their cars on a military installation.”
That applied to officers since they were supposed to be apolitical
Oh I’ve seen paultards preach patriotism ad nauseam.
There is one I’ve dealt with before that even tried to equate his support of ron paul as being the same thing as serving in the military.
“Obviously, Paulistinians don’t care what this loon says.”
Or what he does for that matter.
Hmmm.
3 counts of child abuse.
Is there some purpose to this inane post?
That claim has already been debunked especially since on his donation page you can fill in any employer or occupation that you want it to say.
And it’s already been proven that the paul campaign will not cross check it’s donations to ensure that the people donating are truthful in their claims
“And as it’s been said, Paul is okay with losing, but he wants people to wake up and realize that dire changes need to be made.”
Then why is he wasting time running his foolish gimmick based campaign when his butt needs to be in congress introducing legislation to make those “dire changes”?
His loyalty was to the State of Virginia, but in his letter to his son he made it very clear that he didn't think secession was legitimate.
Look it up.
Jackson certainly opposed secession. On his last night in the White House, he was knocking back Old #7 with his youngest protege Sam Houston as his house guest. (This story is from a history of Texas called Lone Star) Jackson told Houston that he (Jackson) would not live to see the day when hotheads would demand civil war over slavery. He enjoined Houston, in the event that Houston were still alive at such a time, to run for POTUS and, if elected, declare war on the entire world as necessary to avoid civil war. Jackson confidently predicted that the nation would rally around the flag. He warned that the wounds of a civil war would never heal even in a century. Interestingly, Lincoln's Secretary of State Seward (the best man by far in that administration) advised Lincoln likewise without any knowledge of what Jackson told Houston). Lincoln ignored the advice.
Yes, and Sam Houston also rejected secession and had Texas listened to him they would have been far better off
Paleos who favor the Union's lawless invasion of the Confederacy and its horrendous gore limited to American victims only are in a poor position to pose for peacecreep holy pictures when they seem to favor only those wars which kill only Americans.
Actually it is you who are holding to the 'Paelo' position in regards to the Civil War, since they are usually anti-Lincoln and hold the view that the states did have a right to secede.
So, how does it feel to be a Paleo?
The plain terms of the Tenth Amendment restrain the federal government only and deny to it any non-enumerated powers, leaving those to the states and the people respectively. Unless the constitution itself empowers the federales, they have no power to act. There is no enumerated federal power to force unwilling states to remain under the knout of the "Union."
The Federal government has the power to enforce its laws, which the states were in violation of.
The property that the Southern states were taking was not theirs to take, it was Federal property, which means it was paid for by all of the states.
Finally, firing on the flag (which you claim to love) is an act of war and rebellion.
BTW, considering the source and your overall eccentric views, your insults are received as compliments. Keep 'em rolling.
Considering the content of your posts, that will not be difficult.
The Federalists called the Hartford Convention because they were already finished as a political force (by 1815, the Federalists were as much of a laughing stock in executive and legislative branches as is paleoPaulie now), having only Chief Justice John Marshall as the dead hand of the past on SCOTUS to try to thwart the popular will. Hamilton was already dispatched by then as well. David McCullough, in his brilliant biography of John Adams, seems to suggest that Hamilton's radical authoritarianism as expressed in the hysteria of the Alien and Sedition Acts not only defeated Adams but also destroyed the Federalists.
The Federalists ceased to be a viable party after they brought up secession.
It never recovered from that blunder.
The Alien-Sedition acts were another issue that cost them.
Where, in the constitution, are the federales authorized to impose "reconstruction" as a consequence of their victory in a war they launched and fought illegally. Cite constitutional article and section not what you think someone may have thought.
The Southern representives were allowed to return as long as those who did so were not actively engaged in the Rebellion, and pledged allegiance to the United States.
The Southern states had to end slavery as well.
A reasonable requirement considering the damage done to the nation to defend the cause of slavery.
All of this was upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court.
No, there was an Army in 1789 and the air force started as the Army air corp, a branch of the Army.
Just like the Navy has its own planes as well.
As a Member of Congress, paleosurrenderman DID vote for a resolution authorizing force in Afghanistan WITHOUT declaring war. Haven't declarations of war been outlawed by the UN Charter? The supremacy clause in Article VI of the constitution makes treaties the supreme law of the land on a par with the constitution itself accordfing to a 1930s SCOTUS decvision upholding a Migratory Bird Treaty over the 2nd Amendment RTKBA since the treaty was the later enactment. I did not see the constitutional rationalization for PaleoPaulie's vote for authorizing force but not war in Afghanistan. You must not have one. I don't think he needed one but he claims otherwise. Otherwise, those must be good drugs you are using.
Well, since trying to unravel your posts is becoming more difficult, I can only surmise your meds are wearing off.
According to the War Powers Act of 1973, such resolutions are Constitutional.
When Marxism comes it will be claiming to only want to “save the children,” or “protect the environment,” or “hold big tobacco accountable,” or....
A neocon is someone who was once a liberal and now claims to be a Conservative.
As a term, neoconservative first was used derisively by democratic socialist Michael Harrington to identify a group of people (who described themselves as liberals) as newly stimulated conservative ex-liberals. The idea that liberalism "no longer knew what it was talking about" is neoconservatism's central theme.[4] The development of this conservatism is based on the work and thought of Irving Kristol, co-founder of Encounter magazine, and of its editor (1953–58),[5] Norman Podhoretz,[6] and others who described themselves as "neoconservatives" during the Cold War. Prominent neoconservatives are associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard, and with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Neoconservatives are often dubbed neocons by critics. [7][8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
I was active in the New Right and I bet you were not. We did not wallow in the works of Garrett Garrett or other superannuated eccentrics. We were committed to von Mises and von Hayek, to James Burnham and Frank Meyer, to John Chamberlain not Neville Chamberlain, to Bill Buckley. We understood that the Young People's Socialist League was wrong to be socialist but they were dependable allies in opposition to communism. The paleoeccentrics thought communism was someone else's problem and no big deal (unless maybe what they viewed as "communist" labor unions might cut the profits of their trust funds by forcing wage increases, benefits fair labor practices) compared to the ready and convenient availability of a case of port wine and some whiny post-World War I poetry (often by the lavender set ohhhh soooo heart-broken by what THEY saw as the lost social opportuniteies lying dead on Flanders Field and other battlegrounds) readings (sniffle, sniffle). It just wasn't FAIR the way those foreigners and papists and Hebrews and wogs were using collective bargaining and, not only that but the government was siding with THEM!!!!
?????
I could go on, but Reagan was the worst nightmare of the paleos. His administration was the ultimate slap in their face. He refused to credential most of them. They were blockheaded enough to imagine otherwise until very late in his administration. They exploded in rage at some 1986 conference (Mont Pelerin Society? Philadelphia Society?) when they finally admitted to themselves that they were nobodies and that politically they were nowhere. I am no devotee of David Frum but he did a very nice article on this in National Review in April of about 2004 and he pinned the tail on the Tasmanian Devils of the so-called paleos.
Paleoconservative is a term that describes a academic or scholarly conservative who emphasizes religious heritage, national identity and sovereignty, opposition to illegal immigration, criticism of entitlement programs, the importance of demographics, and an anti-interventionist policy of Robert Taft. http://www.conservapedia.com/Paleoconservative
Hey, that sounds like some of the views of the Free Republic!
As to Iran, when you start giving reflexive support to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, you may become a distant presence in the room. Where we want, and why we want and "we" does not include peacecreeps "paleo" or otherwise. If you want to support treasonous weasels like paleoPaulie in time of war, then you forfeit any place you might have had at the table. Ask UpChuck Hagel.
When you start to wage a serious war then you will have right to defend what you are doing.
Conservatives are NOT people who whimper about the supposed impropriety of revealing their religious commitments in public. If Ben Franklin was not bashful about such things (and he was not exactly religious Right), why should we be bashful? Certainly not because the academy is overrepresented in paleo circles and the paleos don't want to upset their faculty colleagues! You don't have to be bashful on religion to be a paleo. If Tom Fleming and the Rockford Institute folks can be quite publicly religious (generally Catholic) so can you.
And a politician shouldn't pander to voters with it either.
No one cares what you or any other "paleo" calls Dubya any more than we care what members of obscure cults on the left may call him. He means well, does reasonably well, could certainly improve but he needs make no apologies to Al Qaeda cheerleaders and anti-military antiAmerican nincompoops like paleoPaulie.
And your support of the neocons emphasis on nation building instead of defeating Islamic terrorism is an act of moral cowardice on your part.
Those who do not whine, moan and groan like regular John Kerrys against Dubya, I would call "American patriots" those who understand that there is one POTUS at a time and, when he is a conservative POTUS, we back him and his policies. Dubya is a conservative POTUS.
Well, Bush said he would wage a war against terrorism yet Iran remains untouched.
Moreover, this is no longer about Bush, since he is a lame-duck, but about the next President and his policies.
The "peace at any price" crowd have no voice in any discussion of the war dead whom they undermined in life. Each dead soldier is an individual tragedy and a loss to friends, family and comrades at arms and to our nation as well. Each is one in a long grey, blue and khaki line of honor, an honor that "paleos" will never begin to appreciate or understand. Fewer than 4,000 deaths from all causes in a war lasting nearly five years and counting is an accomplishment whether you think so or not. All those IEDs and still fewer than 4,000 dead.
I am sure the families of the 4,000 dead take great solace in the fact that 'only' 4,000 of them have died.
Isolationist is what the paleos are whether they like the name or not. As a respectable political cause (if it ever was) isolationism died on 12/7/41 and again on 9/11/01. It will not be allowed to rise again. The old diployak world died on the eve of WWI as the pampered privileged Eurodiployakkers sniffled in their perfumed beards in the full realization that their world was at an end.
Well, since the United States was never 'isolationist' anyway, it is a mute point.
Ofcourse, U.S. sovereignty will soon be gone too but it is the noble cause of the NWO!
Globalism, the natural born partner of the pacifist crowd made an effort at arms limitations in the 1920's and we saw how very practical THAT was along with that knee-slapping League of Nations and after WWII was over FDR took Alger Hiss in tow for another go at "peace in our time" this time in faux alliance with the soviets with whom Ike always sided lest there be, well, violence!!!!
Well, globalism is what the neocons are giving the U.S., so get used to it.
So we find ourselves in our time mired in the UN. Dubya is not perfect but he certainly is a major improvement over his old man by calling our corrupt pacifist and unprincipled former European partners what they are: Old Europe and by letting the UN know that we are not putting our national manhood in trust to the socialist, communist, Islamofascist or generally barbarian UN diplodopes and would be world masters. He doesn't much care for their global warming treaty either. Well, there is progress and the future will give more progress toward nationalism and freedom until we dispose of the United Nations and abrogate the treaties it has spawned. "Paleos" won't be part of that because they are nobodies and no one cares what they think or want. Interventionism is the only solution to globaloney and to isolationism as well.
Well, Bush has pushed for the amnesty bill of Ted Kennedy.
He seems to have a blind spot when it comes to the illegal immigration issue.
BTW, since you apparently think that we should "mind our own business," was Auschwitz our business? Treblinka? Bergen-Belsen? Wrangell Island? The Hanoi Hilton? The Iron Curtain? The Berlin Wall? Is genocide OK so long as it does not take place in Centralia, Kansas? If Ahmanutjob wants to nuke Israel, is that any of our business? When Islamolunatics blow up busloads of innocent Orthodox Jewish grammar school children, do we pose for holy pictures and say "tut, tut, bad Arab!", or just shut up or DO something about it?
I think America should handle threats to her own security first and foremost
As for Iran, why is Bush allowing it to arm and why hasn't he struck it for killing U.S. troops in Iraq?
As for Israel, it can handle its own problems with its own military.
What on earth does border immigration and "amnesty" bills have to do with the shameful paleo devotion to peacecreepism???? I must say that such obsessions certainly did lots of good for inhabitants of Central Europe in the 1930s when our domestic bunds, see no evil peacecreeps, nazis and reds as well (until Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland and the reds went pro-war, were trying to "keep us out of war."
You must be confusing us with pacifists!
If we are going to do Iran (I actually suspect that the Israelis want that one), let it be the boomers and not the pilots. Let's translate: You praise Ike for being a feckless do nothing who wasted eight years in office characterized primarily by joining the reds in undermining Joe McCarthy and other similar Senators, avoiding wars at all costs regardless of the results of same, attacking our "military industrial complex", the lifeline of the nation. Good thing Ike never had anything to do with the military part! Oh, wait....! He did play a mean golf game. My factory worker father always asked why it was that every time Ike wiped Ike's backside we had to endure news coverage of the event.
I praise Ike because he left this nation a strong and free one and didn't get alot of men killed in no win wars.
What you call "empty rhetoric" is unvarnished truth but you should not have to be told that.
Most of your posts are filled with empty and bombastic rhetoric.
Of course, Ron Paul isn't president. We still have a country which is definitive proof that the feckless little wimp is not POTUS. Ron Paul and what you mistakenly call "The Old Right" which is actually the neo-surrender movement not only oppose the deployment of US troops under the UN, but also are downright horrified at the thought of deploying US troops under the US or of the idea that there should even be US troops at all, if we just sat around the camp fire, singing Kumbaya with Muhammed el Kaboomski and selling him whatever he might want to shove Sharia "Law" down our throats, the lions would surely lie down with the lambs (in their bellies in the form of lamb stew), right? If only we could see "peace" through paleoPaulie's blinders!!!!
More idiotic double talk.
If you are going to deploy troops, deploy them to win for American interests, not the NWO.
I guess you mean that, in the context of the 20th century such Democrats as Al Smith and Cox and Davis and James Eastland and John Stennis and Spessard Holland and George Wallace and John McClellan and Edwin Hebert and Mendel Rivers and James Michael Curley and Jimmy Walker and Richard Daley the Elder and Paul Douglas and Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson and Tom Dodd and George Meany and William Green and.... must have all been communists since they were Democrats. I had never imagined that and neither, in all likelihood, had they.
No, they weren't communists, but being Democrats they weren't too concerned about Communism either.
Nice to see you defending the Democrats though.
What I "rant and rave" is conservatism, not the paleopacifist crapola that you call "the Old Right" and not the lunacy of Dr. Demento. Let the dead bury the dead. Your ideology died an inglorious and well-deserved death a verrrrrry long time ago and it has not been missed since.
What died a long time ago was the belief in the U.S. Constitution and U.S. sovereiginity.
If Nixon and even Dubya have not gone as far as they should, let us determine to ever harden the American military interventionism and do better in the future via the slaughter of our enemies and not by running home to hide 'neath Nana's skirts until the baaaaad men go away! The greatest dishonesty of your arguments lies in the suggestion that paleos EVER favor American victory when they want to hide in the basement.
My what bluster!
You do love the sound of your own words don't you!
The Paleo believes in fighting for America, not the UN or the NWO.
Gee, my feelings are hurt!
Wow, that was so clever!
I am sure Ronald Reagan or Bush never had any unsavory people cross their paths that they didn't know.
The leading publications of the paleoconservatives includes The American Conservative and Chronicles (magazine). Perhaps the most well known paleoconservative is Patrick J. Buchanan. Other paleoconservatives include Peter Brimelow, Thomas Fleming, the late Samuel Francis, Peter Hitchens, William S. Lind, Scott McConnell, Charley Reese, Paul Craig Roberts, Steve Sailer, and Clyde Wilson. The term has also been applied to the three key intellectuals in post-war conservatism: Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, and Robert Nisbet. http://www.conservapedia.com/PaleoconservativeMy goodness, what a list of pacifists!
A neoconservative (colloquially, neocon) is a former liberal who calls himself a conservative. Neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious values, and often disagree with conservatives on key social issues like abortion and homosexuality. Neoconservatives believe that democracy can and should be installed by the United States around the world, even in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. On domestic issues, neoconservatives are best known for opposing affirmative action while being silently opposed to social conservatives on moral issues.....
http://www.conservapedia.com/Neoconservative
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.