A Tea Party Conservative's Defense of Ron Paul...and His Supporters

American Thinker ^ | 9/24/11 | Russ Paladino

[Bokababe]

I want to state at the outset that this essay is not intended to be an endorsement of Ron Paul. While I respect and admire many of his positions and his fidelity to the Constitution, I have strong misgivings about some of his stances on national security. If you could hear the debates between myself and my 20-year-old son, a passionate Ron Paul supporter, you would readily accept the sincerity of my disclaimer.

That said, as the political season has heated up, I've been surprised at the tone of the discourse as it relates to Ron Paul. In fact, I can hardly believe what I'm seeing and hearing from my fellow Tea Partiers and conservatives. My assumption that conservatives are more thoughtful and logical than my emotion-driven liberal friends has taken a bit of a hit....

[Smokin' Joe]

The libertarian approach to personhood was tried once before and our Republic was nearly destroyed as a result.

So how's this setup working out? Has it saved any babies from being burned to death, shredded, or having their brains sucked out at the threshhold of life?

Roe was a Federal decision, not a State level sanction of murder.

Many states would shut down abortuaries today if they could, it is the Federal intervention which has opened them.

[little jeremiah]

What has Ron Paul done in Congress to advance the conservative cause besides talking about it??

From what I've read he adds pork to bills and then votes "No". Other than his symbolic and meaningless "No" votes; nothing.

[LibertarianInExile]

“[Paul] endorsed McKinney, Baldwin and Nader. All at once.”

You aren’t being so sneaky about Paul “endorsing McKinney” now because you’re so clearly caught not telling the whole truth. Hastily reversing yourself, now you say Paul ‘endorsed’ all three at once, instead of your prior insinuation that he individually endorsed the nauseating McKinney. Paul was actally endorsing not the candidates, hence Barr’s antagonism, but a liberty agenda. That is somehow an endorsement of specific third party platforms? Not hardly. Again, you’re just smearing the man and got caught redhanded doing it, so you’re just trying to see what you can get to stick. Your post reeks of desperation.

Incidentally, speaking to those platforms, while I think Barr, Nader and certainly McKinney have repeatedly evidenced their disinterest in our current “national defense” structure, I must have missed how Chuck Baldwin was going to “destroy our ability to defend ourselves.” That’s a new criticism I hadn’t heard. Is Baldwin’s platform somehow indicative of “destroying our ability to defend ourselves,” and I missed it? It’s right here: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Defense

[LibertarianInExile]

“What has Ron Paul done in Congress to advance the conservative cause besides talking about it??”

LOL. At least he does that, talks the talk. That isn’t true of any other representative in the House or Senate. I don’t know that I approve of all his actions, but the man doesn’t say one thing and do another like so many RINOs. And he tells you where he stands on all the issues, unlike the silent candidates who inevitably turn left where they’ve remained silent.

But as far as what he’s done? Paul has voted conservatively, consistently, after talking the talk, and voted to shrink government when given the opportunity. That’s as much walking the walk as one can reasonably expect from the lone wolf for the Constitution in the entire legislative body.

[Bokababe]

"While I do not hate the man, as I have never met him, I do hate his ideals. My father served during WWII, I served during Viet Nam, my son served in Iraq, and an IED almost killed him. I do not like anybody who blames every problem in the world on America."

Ron Paul has NEVER "blamed America". He has blamed American foreign policy mistakes -- policies which you don't set and neither do I. The CIA itself coined the term "blowback" for these unintended policy consequences -- consequences like arming Osama bin Laden's mujahedin against the Soviets in the 1980's only to have them boomerang and turn into the al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11. That same conclusion in the 9/11 Report and it is nothing controversial -- the problem is that Ron Paul is the only candidate who talks about it. The rest of the candidates seem to keep following the "they hate us for our freedom" nonsense which is REALLY "blaming America" -- blaming our very existence for being the motivation for the attack -- attributing 9/11 to al Qaeda "just being jealous of us". How stupid is that, if you think about it?

My father was also a WWII vet (who as a 7yr old during WWI took a German bullet in the leg), husband is a decorated AF Vietnam Vet, brother-in-law is a retired Army Colonel and nephew is an Army Captain who served in Iraq. I am not "anti-military", quite the opposite, I am very pro military which is why I don't want to see one drop of our heroes blood wasted on unwinnable wars that have absolutely nothing to do with "protecting America", but have everything to do with protecting globalist business interests and some State Department hack's pipe-dream. And when you call them on it, they throw the "you are blaming America" shield up to hide behind. Well it's about time that Americans quit protecting these interests that are using us as human shields for their policy screw-ups!

I am sick of US foreign policy being outsourced to NATO, the UN, the Arab League and everywhere except where the decisions belong -- with Congress. I am sick of American politicians trying to "run the world", when they can't even manage the US & her interests properly. And, so is Ron Paul.

Even King Obama knew it was good for us to get rid of OBL, Cut and Run disagreed.

Again, you are just making that one up. Ron Paul was the first Congressman to specifically target the extraction bin Laden ten years ago as a priority less than a month after 9/11. He also supported rapid and succinct action against Afghanistan. Instead we let bin Laden go for ten years, got ourselves mired in Iraq, and ignored Afghanistan until the problems eventually bled into Pakistan.

So here we are today, with three thousand casualties from 9/11, ten thousand of our soldiers dead, and what have we won? Name me one thing that we have won from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya? How are we better off? Sorry, but I'm with George Patton on this one: "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Afghanistan & the Taliban could have been brought to their knees & punished with an air war that napalmed every poppy field in the country, without every setting one US boot on the ground. The poppy fields are their sole means of livelihood. The Afghans would probably have taken out bin Laden & the Taliban for us, for having brought such a calamity down on them.

But then again, the globalists wouldn't have made $Billions off of contractors, supplies and the rest of the war machine -- and that would have been "bad for their economy"./S

[LibertarianInExile]

“Other than his symbolic and meaningless “No” votes; nothing.”

Yeah, other than those Congressional votes that pass budgets and legislation and make laws for the entire country, he doesn’t stand up for the Constitution and advance the conservative cause at all! Darn lazy of him, being a Congressman and all, only voting and not doing anything else, like running for President or speaking every chance he gets to spread the notion that Constitutionally limited government is actually a possible option. He doesn’t even influence the agenda, being so worthless, because I know that the Federal Reserve and TARP and all the other big business lootings of the taxpayer were first thing up on the agenda for all the other ‘conservatives’ running, probably after the debates and election were over and they had settled the issues of flag burning and whether it’s nice to call someone an “illegal alien.” /sarc

First y’all say he’s a retarded loon, then you say he’s got a grand plan to do everything he can to ruin our national defense, and now you say he does nothing at all but stick on earmarks and vote. I’m wondering if you can spot the inconsistency in those arguments. I know you’re RINOs, so inconsistency doesn’t really register with you, but I’m curious to see if you can overcome your natural tendencies.

[Just mythoughts]

WHAT exactly do you personally expect to gain from a RonPaul presidency?

[little jeremiah]

Put down the bong; it really harms cognitive thinking, short term memory, the liver, lungs and there is a lot of evidence it lowers testoterone with long time usage.

[LibertarianInExile]

“Put down the bong; it really harms cognitive thinking, short term memory, the liver, lungs and there is a lot of evidence it lowers testoterone with long time usage.”

You would certainly know all about low testosterone, and obviously, about the impact of bong usage. I don’t have any idea why you’d infer that I do, or that I have any interest in health advice from you.

[little jeremiah]

I gave up drugs in 1970 after a very few years of using, plus I’m a she, plus I’ve hung around drug users and read enough to know the facts.

If you don’t smoke weed, you do a very good imitation of someone who does. Or drunk Koolaid, same difference.

Accusing me of being a RINO shows exactly what you’re made of.

;-)

[Bokababe]

I find it funny reading your passionate defense of Neo Isolationist Ron Paul in light of your tag line. Paul would say to you "screw the Christan in Kosovo, they aren't our problem. It their own fault for living in the Muslim's land."

Your statement only betrays yours lack of knowledge on the issue.

It was US/NATO bombing against the Serbs in 1999 for 70 straight days including Easter in order to build a NATO base in Kosovo, giving Kosovo to the Muslim Albanians, that made this an issue in the first place. And the most outspoken critic of the 1999 NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia was Ron Paul. Classic Ron Paul: "We are once again supporting Osama bin Laden and his friends in the KLA" He sued Clinton for it.

And what did the US get out of supporting the KLA (Albanian Muslim drug runners, sex slavers and murdering organ sellers)? Most notably, The Fort Dix Six and the Kosovo Albanian who gunned down & killed US soldiers in Germany, among others. Ron Paul saw the problem in 1999, before 9/11, before these Kosovo Albanian actions against the US happened.

I worked hard to get George Bush elected largely because I knew that Clinton's actions re Kosovo were evil and stupid. So what did GWB do? In 2008, he handed Kosovo to the Muslim Albanians by granting them "independence"! Since that time, both the GWB and Obama Administration has been twisting the arms of every country on the planet to recognize this supposed "independence" of the Albanian Kosovo gangster state whose only economy is from drugs, sex slaving and international (US) aid. GWB should have recognized Kosovo "dependence", not independence, because that's what they are -- a violent and crazy leach on Europe and the US.

The Serbs in Kosovo and Serbia don't need us to defend them. They need the US to get the hell out of the way and let them reclaim what is and will always be their land!

[LibertarianInExile]

“I gave up drugs in 1970 after a very few years of using, plus I’m a she, plus I’ve hung around drug users and read enough to know the facts...If you don’t smoke weed, you do a very good imitation of someone who does. Or drunk Koolaid, same difference...Accusing me of being a RINO shows exactly what you’re made of. ;-)”

You’re still making the mistaken assumption that I care about your personal experiences with pot or your advice regarding my health. It’s obvious you’re really into projecting your flashbacks and drug experiences onto others you disagree with politically. And RINO, I was 100% right about you having zero experience with testosterone. But I was wrong about one thing: I didn’t even think that there might be on FR a sad old woman who so needs someone to talk to she’ll attack people personally just to provoke a response.

[EternalVigilance]

http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/index.html 

The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution

A Resolution affirming vital existing constitutional protections for the unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from the first moment of creation until natural death.

WHEREAS, The first stated principle of the United States, in its charter, the Declaration of Independence, is the assertion of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and that they are each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life, and that the first purpose of all government is to defend that supreme right; and

WHEREAS, The first stated purposes of We the People of the United States in our Constitution are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”; and

WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, imperatively requires that all persons within the jurisdictions of all the States be afforded the equal protection of the laws; and

WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, explicitly forbids the taking of the life of any innocent person; and

WHEREAS, The practices of abortion and euthanasia violate every clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution, and its explicit provisions; and

WHEREAS, Modern science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the individual human person’s physical existence begins at the moment of biological inception or creation; and

WHEREAS, All executive, legislative and judicial Officers in America, at every level and in every branch, have sworn before God to support the United States Constitution as required by Article VI of that document, and have therefore, because the Constitution explicitly requires it, sworn to protect the life of every innocent person;

THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HEREBY RESOLVE that the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from biological inception or creation to natural death, be protected everywhere within every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America; that every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions; and that we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or decision of any court, or decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary.

[Bokababe]

WHAT exactly do you personally expect to gain from a RonPaul presidency?

To avert what I think could be a civil war in this country if the economy collapses -- which I think that it well could -- and allow us to emerge with our our sovereignty and our ability to survive and liberty, intact. To preserve what this country was founded on for future generations.

If that sounds drastic, it is. And I think that the global elite believe that collapse is coming too, which is why they have offshored so much of their wealth, their manufacturing and their mode of governing (via the UN and NATO). Those political forces that remain, on both sides of the aisle, have moved toward the center which is what they believe to to be "the high ground" of survival in order to consolidate power. Yet if you want to save something from a flood, you need to shore up, not the center, but the outer edges -- unless "We the People" are the flood that they are really worried about -- and I think that we are.

For me personally, Ron Paul getting elected would be a sacrifice, not an advantage. Like many Americans, we are planning on retiring overseas to stretch our retirement dollars. And where we are going -- Cyprus -- is a place that survives only because UN troops have been standing between normalcy and the Muslim hordes for the last forty years. If Ron Paul pushes us to withdraw from the UN, the the UN troops will likely be gone, and we will have to leave --or die. But if that's the price of saving America, there are far worse ways to go.

My Serb ancestors said it well, "Bolje grob nego rob" ("Better a grave than a slave!") and Patrick Henry did a good job of it in our own US historical vocabulary, too.

[little jeremiah]

You’re the one that brought up my personal experience.

A sad old woman?

You have no idea what you’re talking about. No more wasting my precious human life on an idiot like you.

[giotto]

According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole, Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937.

One scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science found Paul the most conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002.

I'm sure you could find many instances when Ron Paul did not vote according to the conservative rule book. It depends how you define conservative. Paul's conservatism is basically constitutionalism. If the constitution does not allow it, he will not vote for it.

If some so-called conservatives think they can do it better than the Founding Fathers, so be it.

[Bokababe]

"BOKABABE: Ron Paul continues to be a sick joke as a POTUS candidate and will continue to be a sick joke as a long as he continues as a POTUS candidate, whatever this small businessman from Long Island would like to think. To respect Ron Paul is to diminish the meaning of the concept of respect....."

BlackElk, the next time time you decide to use your keyboard to produce an intellectual bowel movement for the entertainment of those Freepers incapable of dealing with the issues, leave me out of it. I'm neither aghast nor amused. I just think that it's pathetic for someone like you who actually may be smart enough to be logical, tries too hard to appeal to the least common denominator here just to be popular.

[John D]

You aren’t being so sneaky about Paul “endorsing McKinney” now because you’re so clearly caught not telling the whole truth. Hastily reversing yourself, now you say Paul ‘endorsed’ all three at once, instead of your prior insinuation that he individually endorsed the nauseating McKinney.

I was never sneaky. I NEVER reversed myself. All I said was that he endorsed Cynthia McKinney. He did, did he not? He also endorsed several other anti-Americans who, like the surrender monkey want to see America fail. Your love of America's enemies is what is nauseating.

[John D]

According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole, Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937.

The surrender monkey has a conservative voting record. So what? Tell me one thing he has done to back it up. He talks a big talk, but does nothing to back it up, other than put as many earmarks in every bill possible. Do you really think all these earmarks are conservative?

[Bokababe]

This thread proves the article, doesn’t it.

Unfortunately, yes. Just look at the phoney keywords that were added to tag it --a real "Nobel Prize Winner" mentality there.

But you know, there's also hope. Because I can remember a time in the not-too-distant past when I wouldn't have even bothered to post it, because not one of the cooler and more level heads would have spoken up. Now they do.