NYT: Ron Paul for President... of the 'Wackos'? [Birchers, Israel-Haters, etc.]

Editor and Publisher.com ^ | 07/20/07 | E&P Staff

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

NEW YORK A feature piece in this coming Sunday's New York Times Magazine on Republican candidate for president, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, portrays his followers as including a wild mix of "wackos" on both ends of the political spectrum. Paul, a libertarian, has been gaining media and public attention of late.

The cover line reads: "A Genuine Radical for President." The headline inside: "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul."

The article closes with the author, Christopher Caldwell, attending a Ron Paul Meetup in Pasadena. The co-host, Connie Ruffley of United Republicans of California, admits she once was a member of the radical right John Birch Society and when she asks for a show of hands "quite a few" attendees reveal that they were or are members, too. She refers to Sen. Dianne Feinstein as "Fine-Swine" and attacks Israel, pleasing some while others "walked out."

Caldwell notes that the head of the Pasadena Meetup Group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters: "We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country....We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next 'Star Trek' convention or whatever."

Asked about the John Birch Society Society by the author, Paul responds, "Is that BAD? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They're generally well-educated and they understand the Constitution. I don't know how many positions they would have that I don't agree with."

The writer concludes that the "antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left" may have "irreconciable" differences. But "their numbers -- and anger -- are of considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together."

Among many other things, we learn from the article that Paul had never heard of "The Daily Show" until he was a guest and referred to the magazine GQ as "GTU." It also notes that he was the only congress member to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act and a medal to honor Rosa Parks, among many others tallies, based on principle, not politics. He also is praised by liberal Rep. Barney Frank as "one of the easiest" members to work with because "he bases his positions on the merits of issues."

[Eric Blair 2084]

Your words are full of significance. If these islamofascists weren't so nutty, I wouldn't be here talking to you today. Having said that, I'm sure that somewhere in the Middle East on some website called FreeIslamicRepublic.com somebody has posted the same exact thing as you did. The names are different, but the principle is the same.

Bush Osama bin Laden isn't Allah. But Allah did send the President Mullah Muhammed _________ (fill in the blank) to this nation miserable sinkhole with a mission: a mission for "Such a time as this". It was Allah who called President Bush al Zawahiri to office stupidity, and made him our CinC retarded islamofascist leader during this struggle for our very survival. Got a problem with that? Take it up with Allah.

PS: We should take the fight to the enemy. That's just my opinion. We'll find out in 25 years if this Iraq invasion was a good idea or not.

[LightBeam]

I call BS to your entire post.

Thats a nice little image you have there. It manages to mock both God and our President at the same time. Kudos.

[Rodney King]

Works are filthy rags, but "faith without works is dead".

I agree.

We've seen President Bush's works: a commitment to lead our nation back to its Christian roots,

By expanding the department of education so that the liberals can get their hands on our kids?

a righteous war against enemies of Christ

By giving $196 million to Fatah and making his female aids where hajibs while speaking to muslim groups tied to terrorism,?

a strong stand against perverts and God-haters here at home.

Not sure about that... the perverts and God haters feed off the government, which he has expanded faster than any Dem ever has.

I would suggest that holding up W as sent by God is a massive insult to either God's beliefs or his competency in selecting presidential candidates to fulfill his beliefs.

[LightBeam]

Fine. I was taking issue with you, as a Christian, accusing a teetotaler of being a druggie, while simultaneously demanding that an ex-druggie not be called a druggie. You can disagree with Paul without slandering him.

I was just pointing out that I've never actually met someone who wanted to legalize dope who also wasn't a doper. Ron Paul may be that one guy, but somehow I seriously doubt it.

[Rodney King]

There is already a forum for people who think dope should be legalized

There has been a sizeable contingent of FReepers who believe that drugs should be legalized since its founding. If you don't want a forum where people hold that view, then you have come to the wrong place.

when you go to a cocktail party at someones house, do you tell the host to throw out the guests who have already arrived there if you don't like them?

[Rodney King]

I was just pointing out that I've never actually met someone who wanted to legalize dope who also wasn't a doper.

You made that point. After being told numerous times that you were wrong, you continued to slander him, all the while invoking God in your posts. I guess you were following the "Thou shalt Slander men you disagree with" commandment.

[Rodney King]

should we just legalize anything illegal that might improve their lives?

What do you have against a cancer patient smoking pot? Are you worried he might get high the day before he dies?

[George W. Bush]

You have no way to know whether God has appointed Bush to lead us and protect us or to punish us and deliver us to the hands of our enemies.

Actually, we do. It's called God's Word. Read 2 Chronicles 7:14. Does the action there describe someone who actively humbles himself like President Bush? Who actively thanks and blesses the Lord like President Bush?

To accommodate you, I fired up VMware to run eSword under WinXP. The parallel passage is found in 1 Kings 9:2. Most prefer the more poetic language of the Chronicles, I think.

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. - 2Ch 7:14 KJV

Even if you had an absolute assurance that these words applied to our nation, an overwhelmingly ungodly nation lost in sins of every type known to the ancients and many more of the modern era, a country that would make Sodom and Gomorrah look saintly in comparison, you have no guarantee that they are specifically applicable to Christians in modern America. Or even that portion of our population which is Jewish because they do not maintain the ancient priestly sacrifice and sanctification protocols clearly specified in the passage to fulfill the mandate and to receive the promised blessing of God.

Your problem is plucking a single verse from its context and applying it from the ancient Jews to whom it was addressed to modern Christians universally. The passage specifically addresses Solomon as king, mentions the blood sacrifices on the altar and the week of feasting after which God appeared and gave warning to keep his commandments to turn from wickedness in order to avoid being delivered into the hands of their enemies who would chasten their ungodliness and turn their hearts back to obedience. Moreover, it specifically promises a foreign captivity for disobedience, mentioning it as punishment for forsaking God's commandments. The primary thrust of God's command here was to worship Him alone, to avoid the worship of other gods.

So, to apply this verse to modern Americans (leaving aside that it was written to Jews practicing animal sacrifice under the Old Covenant), in order for us to enjoy God's blessing from this scripture, we would have to forsake other gods. And yet, the worship of other gods has actually flourished. In particular, Islam is currently the fastest growing religion in America. And our president refers to it as the Religion Of Peace™. In doing so, he blasphemes our Savior who is Himself the one and the only Prince Of Peace, one of the legitimate and exclusive titles awarded him as his due deference in scripture.

I could continue to describe how our president, in the wake of 9/11, brought a Muslim cleric before our nation in the national cathedral, thereby legitimizing that false and antichristian pagan religion based on conquest and violence and degradation and whose origins have a cursed reference in the Old Testament and, before the American people, he praised the false god of Islam and pretended that Allah (who has no son) was in some way comparable to the Trinity and worthy of respect and worship. In other words, he honored a false god before the entire nation and placed it on an official standing equal with that of Judaism and Christianity.

I'll be brief: President Bush is no Solomon. As for his devoutness as a Christian, I challenge to find a single occasion, even one, where he has ever quoted the New Testament. I could find dozens of quotes he has used or issued officially which come from the Old Testament.

It appears from the official record that President Bush knows nothing of the Good News or, at the very least, he has no interest in speaking of it before the nation.

Our president makes a lousy Theologian-In-Chief.

And you should be glad, as I am, to be so blessed by God's generosity to live under grace and not under the ancient Law from which Christ's sacrifice freed us and enfolded the Christians of the Gentile nations, together with obedient Jews, into a New Covenant, grafted into the Old.

[It has been too long since I did any Old Testament exegesis, never my strong suit. Pardon my slowness. Of course, such writing requires more care and proofreading than mere political posts.]

[George W. Bush]

There is already a forum for people who think dope should be legalized and we should cut and run from Iraq. It's called DU and Ron Paul would be quite welcome there.

And yet, no one here is advocating legalization any more than Ron Paul does.

As for DU, I'm not sure he would be welcome there though some would like him for certain positions. But once they truly understood his full position, very few there would support him. But he would certainly speak to them. Ron Paul speaks to everyone, offers his message, and does have quite a following across the political spectrum.

Ron Paul is a fusion candidate, truly unique in his appeal. Left, Right, indies: Ron Paul offers a message to all of them. Not just a few particular slices of one of the two major establishment parties as the other candidates for president do.

[George W. Bush]

Can you tell which of the following list of advocates of decriminalization you consider to be "dopers"?

former Secretary of State George Schultz, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, former Senator Alan Cranston, newsman Walter Cronkite, U.S. Representative Ron Paul, former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, former Police Chief Joseph McNamara, National Review editor William F. Buckley, former U.S. drug czar Peter Bourne

Well? I assume it is all of them then?

That's just a short list from Googling. I could probably find hundreds.

[KDD]

You mock God with suppositions that you know His Will.

Attaching His authority to an official of the State is blasphemy.

Akin to the heresey of the money changers at the Temple.

The State is a subchristian institution whose divinely ordained daily essential actions, by necessity, are fundamentally incompatible with Christian ethics.

The term "Christian nation" is an oxymoron. A state must take actions 24/7 to maintain domestic peace and tranquility. Necessary, even imperative, actions like capital punishment and waging war contradict the core Christian ethical requirements.

Where, in Christian spiritual tradition is war ever justified within the realm of kingdom ethics (those actions commanded or prohibited in the here and now by the New Testament and binding upon believers until the Second Coming).

See Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight: Early Christian Attitudes Toward War, Violence, and the Sate, and John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Eerdmans:1972, 260 pgs.).

There is no Godly blessing to be pronounced over the killing of fellow humans. There is no strand of New Testament teaching or slivers of proof-text verses that put a Christian stamp of approval upon war. War is hell. War is of the devil. And anyone who thinks that there are or can be rules for the civilized, organized, lethal infliction of deadly force is delusional. The object of war is the utter annihilation and destruction of the enemy. War crimes and crimes against humanity are what the victors charge against the losers. But I digress.

Can you tell me the meaning of idolatry?

Or has God directly and specifically revealed His will and purpose to you and G.W. Bush?

[Rodney King]

Well, Jocelyn Elders is probably a doper!

[KDD]

Is she the one that advocated sexual self gratification as a means of birth control?

[takenoprisoner]

“I was just pointing out that I’ve never actually met someone who wanted to legalize dope who also wasn’t a doper.”

Obviously you don’t get out much. Do you believe William F. Buckley is a doper?

Now I guess it important for you to define your meaning of “doper.” My aged parents take lots of dope for one thing or another, including pain. Are they dopers too in your view? Or is it just the dope that the govt has deemed as controlled substances that has you spinning?

Would I be wrong to suggest you are anti tobacco and anti cold beer? I’m thinking you probably believe it your business and duty to at least attempt to control your neighbor’s private self indulgences that are none of your business.

[Rodney King]

yeah.

[JTN]

Dr. Paul does favor medical cannabis for certain patients.

So do other hippie dopers.

This just in: Three quarters of Americans are "hippie dopers".

Also, I object to your using our President's name as a moniker. George W. Bush is our CinC and his name should be treated with respect.

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

[George W. Bush]

Well, Jocelyn Elders is probably a doper!

LOL. True enough. I think her son was busted for crack too. Wasn't he dealing it?

Obviously, his problems were directly linked to the failure to teach him to masturbate expertly when he was a young child.

[takenoprisoner]

thanks for the chuckle.

well done

[Eric Blair 2084]

I was just pointing out that I've never actually met someone who wanted to legalize dope who also wasn't a doper. Ron Paul may be that one guy, but somehow I seriously doubt it.

That's understandable. Let me introduce you to two people. Hi, LightBeam, I'm Eric. I haven't smoked weed since the first Bush administration in 1991.

Let me introduce you to my friend Milton, whose works I spent my entire college career reading as he rebutted the idea of Keynesian Economic theory:

Milton Friedman: Legalize It!

Milton Friedman leads a list of more than 500 economists from around the U.S. who today will publicly endorse a Harvard University economist's report on the costs of marijuana prohibition and the potential revenue gains from the U.S. government instead legalizing it and taxing its sale. Ending prohibition enforcement would save $7.7 billion in combined state and federal spending, the report says, while taxation would yield up to $6.2 billion a year.

The crap never agreed with me. It just made me paranoid. I kept having these horrible nightmares that limited government adherents would turn into Taliban members or worse yet...embrace Big Gubmint if it accomplished their goals.

[Eric Blair 2084]

News Flash...There is more to libertarianism than legalizing dope. Just like liberalism is the default ideology for anybody who cares about the "helpless". It takes real logical thinking to be a Conservative.

It also takes deep philosophical thinking to look past your own personal distaste for a particular activity engaged in by your fellow free citizens and question whether your Gubmint should have anything to do with it.