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....

[stephenjohnbanker]

” ... Think about the media’s and two Parties choices for president in the last twenty years: GH Bush against Clinton: Clinton against Dole; GW Bush against Al Gore; GW Bush against Kerry; Obama against John McCain. And name me a single one of those choices who is a small government Conservative. Waiting.....

The only way that we are going to have any real choices is to force the Parties and media to open up the field. Otherwise we are going to be forced to choose between worse and worse. That’s the way the GOP likes it; that’s the way the Dems like it; so they can feed you any crap candidate that they want to. ...”

I blame mostly the GOP, not the DNC. Why do you ask? I’ll TELL you why....The “ bought and paid for whores “ in the RNC are KNOWINGLY selling out their country, and they are in it for themselves only !

[giotto]

The surrender monkey has a conservative voting record. So what?

First of all, using crude ad hominem only weakens your argument.

You say, so what if he has a conservative voting record...Uh, isn't that what it's about when we elect someone to congress--voting along the same ideological and political lines as the voters who put him there? For a congressman, voting IS action. That's the ONLY action that matters when we elect them.

As for the earmarks, they were appropriate and reasonable for the industries and problems of his district. The people of his district (and all of Texas) pay far more taxes than they get back from the federal government. There is nothing wrong with a congressman trying to see that the people of his district get at least a portion of their fair share of the money they paid in.

[dcwusmc]

What else besides a voting record does a LEGISLATOR have to offer, besides the bills he introduces? And Dr. Paul routinely introduces a “Sanctity of Life” bill which is all a pro lifer could want, yet it fails to attract even ONE GOP co-sponsor. Why is THAT, I wonder? Dr. Paul’s bill defines the beginning of life as AT CONCEPTION and takes away federal judiciary authority to review it. It’s a great end run around Roe v Wade, yet y’all keep slamming him as pro choice. Your inconsistency would be funny if the consequences weren’t so dire!

[traviskicks]

That is an interesting video, Paul from the 90s being as consistent as he is today. An interesting historical perspctive as well on Yugoslavia, excpet the republicans at the time probably agreed with Paul.

[KevinDavis]

He also likes to back stab people in the back like Reagan..

[big'ol_freeper]

Some of Ron Paul’s policy statements are refreshingly honest. But, Ron Paul is mentally unstable, and as such his view of the world is completely devoid of reality and dangerous to our survival.

He needs to go away.

[Bokababe]

I blame mostly the GOP, not the DNC. Why do you ask? I’ll TELL you why....The “ bought and paid for whores “ in the RNC are KNOWINGLY selling out their country, and they are in it for themselves only !

I agree.

I've talked about this before, but what we call "a Conservative" today wouldn't have ever been recognized as "a Conservative" thirty years ago. It would have been called "a Rockefeller Republican". Internationalist, big business, big government, socially liberal Rockefeller Republicans were the enemies of Goldwater Conservatives because Goldwater Conservatives were closer to libertarians on policy and they were American nationalists, not internationalists or globalists.

A direct quote from David Rockefeller's own autobiography says it all about the philosophy of Rockefeller Republicans:

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

These globalists are not out to run America for the best interests of Americans. They are out to rule the world, at our expense.

David Rockefeller, heir to the Standard Oil fortune, former Chairman of Chase Bank, Class A Director of the Federal Reserve, founded the Council on Foreign relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers and host of well-respected internationalist and globalist is organizations. He and a handful of other globalists have been US "king makers" for decades.

So who of the current crop of presidential candidates are their potential "kings"?

Well Mitt Romney is second generation Rockefeller Republican. His dad was one for sure and his dad, George Romney, also ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 1968 but lost to Nixon because the Rockefeller Republicans had not yet learned how to quickly brief their candidates in foreign policy presentation to the public. The Council on Foreign Relations eventually changed all of that.

Rick Perry is the other one that seems likely. I can't imagine why else the then Governor of Texas would be invited to address a group of the most important and wealthiest 100 people in the world back in 2007 at the Bilderberg Conference in Istanbul if he wasn't being groomed for something greater than just "governor".

But who in the heck knows? It's not like these guys wear badges -- sometimes with the ones who don't inherit it, you can only tell from their actions and sometimes by then it's too late.

[Bokababe]

That is an interesting video, Paul from the 90s being as consistent as he is today. An interesting historical perspective as well on Yugoslavia, except the republicans at the time probably agreed with Paul.

Many Republicans did agree with Ron Paul on the issue -- Dan Burton and Tom Tancredo being two of the most memorable of the time. But John McCain led the "Bomb the Serbs" bandwagon on the Republican side and even wanted us to send ground troops into Yugoslavia. McCain's good buddy, ex Congressman Joe DioGuardi from NY was the chief lobbyist for the Kosovo Albanians and the KLA. All that Albanian Mafia money being stuffed into campaign coffers proved irresistible for many Congressmen on both sides of the aisle -- US policy be damned.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” I’ve talked about this before, but what we call “a Conservative” today wouldn’t have ever been recognized as “a Conservative” thirty years ago. ....”

HELL, even 20 years ago. I am so damned depressed and frustrated at these RINO media lackeys, I don’t even know what too !

[LibertarianInExile]

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

Sure, being a pothead is your personal experience, but you brought it up, not me.

“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.”

I’ve seen your M.O. Pretensions to a thin skin from one so eager to swipe the rapier are not particularly compelling.

[Just mythoughts]

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.

I have no way to predict where exactly that line in the proverbial 'sand' exists in this nation. But there is no doubt the liberal minded rulers most certainly have attempted to provoke a dust UP among we Americans. The left with its well planted decoys in the Republican Party never stop their well greased march toward globalism.

Our founding fathers understood the WHO it is that has ultimate authority over the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.... and down through the years of this nation we have had peoples whose purpose has been to wall US away from that Declaration. It is Written:

Hebrews 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for HE hath said, "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."

6 So that we may boldly say, "The LORD is my Helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me."

God has blessed US and protected US since our beginning, yet, the majority of US hired a covetousness bunch to rule over US. So maybe the majority will wake up and learn that redistribution of their wealth is against GOD's own instruction book. It might surprised people to find out the worst offender against GOD in teaching/preaching 'covetousness' come right out of most pulpits.

[LibertarianInExile]

“Your love of America’s enemies is what is nauseating.”

Puh-leeze. As if somehow calling you out for what you is could be remotely treasonous. Could you be more of a drama queen, princess? It’s not burning the flag or dancing on the Constitution to point out you’re a smear merchant who’s just tossing out innuendo. What desperate straits you and your pals must be in, that you’ve finally gotten around to pulling out the traitor card again. Being caught in your boldfaced lie about Paul ‘endorsing McKinney,” that must have really hurt to have you bring out the long knives so early.

[little jeremiah]

Anyone who makes excuses for Paul endorsing McKinney is a Koolaid drinking cult follower.

[LibertarianInExile]

“[Ron Paul] also likes to back stab people in the back like Reagan.”

I’m pretty sure Reagan didn’t stab people in the back much. Although I bet he wanted to stab Tip O’Neill and David Stockman in the front.

I used to think Reagan really solidly accomplished one thing: making conservatism acceptable and being a liberal overtly unelectable. But then, Obama’s in the White House after running as New Soviet Man, so it obviously didn’t take.

But to address your point, Paul said what others have said about Reagan’s 8 years in the White House. It was a great time to be a conservative, but Reagan did less for the conservative movement and the Constitution than his mandate would have allowed, especially after the debacles of tax hikes and amnesty are included in his record. He didn’t shrink government. The man wasn’t perfect. But he was still great because he made being conservative the right thing to do. And he was still way better than his VP, who Paul ran against. I believe it was because Paul recognized Reagan had failed to deliver for conservatives, and was going to fall away from conservatism further, in allowing Bush to claim conservative votes for RINO governance with only the barest of commitments to conservative principles.

[Bokababe]

I believe it was because Paul recognized Reagan had failed to deliver for conservatives, and was going to fall away from conservatism further, in allowing Bush to claim conservative votes for RINO governance with only the barest of commitments to conservative principles.

Precisely. If even Ronald Reagan and the Republicans in Congress wouldn't/couldn't deliver on Conservative principles, who ever would?

But taking George H Bush as VP was Reagan's first compromise with the Rockefeller Republicans. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be his last. Yet I'd still like to believe that he did the best he could -- they were and still are just too powerful.

[Bokababe]

I went to a concert that featured Ronny Milsap last night. He sang America the Beautiful. Not a dry eye in the house.

I'm starting to to think that some Americans have begun to realize that God's Grace shed on America is not simply a gift to be arrogantly taken for granted, but rather something to be humbled by. I just don't know if it is sinking in quickly enough. I hope.

[Just mythoughts]

I went to a concert that featured Ronny Milsap last night. He sang America the Beautiful. Not a dry eye in the house. I'm starting to to think that some Americans have begun to realize that God's Grace shed on America is not simply a gift to be arrogantly taken for granted, but rather something to be humbled by. I just don't know if it is sinking in quickly enough. I hope.

Remember Abraham asking God how many 'righteous' there had to be in Sodom and Gomorrah for it to be 'saved'... Well, 10 was the number needed... Now sure what number is required for modern Sodom and Gomorrah.

[BlackElk]

Bokababe:

I was responding to your usual antiwar nonsense and many here find attacks on the Paulistinian peace at any price crowd which has the nerve to pose as "conservative." I don't really care whether you are aghast or amused or imagine that this or that is pathetic. You don't really expect to have actual conservatives agree with the paleo Kumbaya grovelfest of the Galveston fraud and treasonweasel, do you? If you can't stand the heat bound to be generated by Ron Paul/Neville Chamberlain/George McGovern foreign policy efforts, then don't get involved in the controversy on their side.

Not an intellectual "bowel movement" but one more actually conservative correction of national cowardice and McGovernism posturing as "conservative" foreign policy.

Of course, that high level of "intellect" you are showing means that you are not going to defend dead Comrade Slobbo from his just removal and just demise at the hands of American ARMED forces. Instead, it is, well, see conservatism is what Neville Chamberlain offered to Great Britain in 1939, what the hideously misnamed "America Firsters" offered America leading up to Pearl Harbor and what the usual gang of peace creeps and Kumbaya meisters have to offer in response to 9/11. Are you a Troofer like paleoPaulie and his buddy Alex Jones??? Or is that too far even for you?

Again, if you want to be "left out of it" then avoid posting things more controversial than Mary Had a Little Lamb. You get to make arguments and others get to respond. They get to make arguments and you get to respond. You should try actually arguing some time instead of complaining about how terribly UNFAIR it is that people disagree with you.

Here's some actual logic for you. What you seem to suggest as logic is not logic but rather agreement with you. I DON'T agree with you. I give reasons for my characterizations of the old fool from Galveston whose district is thankfully being abolished to prevent more unnecessary prolonging of his embarrassing political tenure. The least common denominator would be common to all participants (that would include YOU and numerous others who disagree with me regularly on matters political or religious). I don't think you really want to concede agreeing with me so you might want to avoid that description of my arguments. See: Stated proposition, then evidence for same, then argument. It is not that hard unless the evidence and argument are absent and the stated proposition stands there alone by its nekkid self.

No matter how often we have our antiwar, pro-abort, anti-marriage, college leftist legions stuff straw poll ballot boxes, we STILL don't get no respect in the GOP for the (all genuflect here) paleosurrenderman and multipurpose crackpot!!! It is just UNFAIR!!!! Stated proposition only, no evidence, no argument, therefore no logic!!!

I think it is pathetic that anyone would support paleoPaulie. So what??? It is still the USA and still a free country whatever the Paulistinian crackpots may imagine. I have my opinion and you have yours. Since you do not advance facts or logic or actual argument, one may be forgiven for suspecting that you see yourself as losing the argument. On that sole point, you are probably correct!

[csense]

He appears impatient and unwilling to suffer fools who do not share his level of understanding of the Constitution and the Founders' intent

I stopped reading right there, and I've never done that with an article from American Thinker. This notion that Ron Paul is a strict constuctionist is BS. His understanding of the Constitution and the intent of the founders is no more or less profound than anyone else in the race, or in Congress for that matter.

[BlackElk]

Whoops! I was wrong. You ARE STILL defending Comrade Slobbo years after the commie satrap was removed from power. As George Will once wrote, the Balkans have created a lot more history than could ever be consumed locally. He was NOT complimenting the Balkans. Tito faded away. Slobbo rose. Same old, same old. Alois Cardinal Stepinac, pray for them that they may settle down into a well-deserved obscurity.

Is there something that the Serbs of Kosovo or Serbia have ever done to deserve American intervention on their behalf???

BTW, in the next few weeks, a prominent Serbian American, Rod Blagojevich will become the fourth Illinois governor (three of the four are/were Demonrats and the fourth a lying weasel RINO named George Ryan) of the last six sent to the federal hoosegow. Lest you be tempted to defend him, he is being sent to the hoosegow, like his predecessors (and hopefully to be followed by Pat Quinn) as a crook and not at all because of his Serbian ancestry. His equally Serbian brother from Tennessee was acquitted by the original jury.