Posted by
Charles Lewis on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:43:52 AM
by Charles R Lewis
Arch-conservatives, the time has come to realize we've been bamboozled. To recognize that our anger at this treasonous pseudocon administration and its innumerable RINO allies in congress has been painstakingly channeled toward driving us into the arms of the extreme (from the standpoint of outspokenness - all neomarxists, Hillary included, are extreme) America hating left, abandoning all the principles we (apparently only vaguely) believed in.
You see, the ubiquitous YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJcnoDfFWhM) has captured Ron Paul responding to a question as to whom he'd be supporting for president if he were not in the race. Naturally, his choice was Tom Tancredo, the grassroots, border defending, administration defying Christian conservative who was flying high until Paul cut him off two days into his campaign and siphoned off the anger vote with an even more defiant mystique, right? Uh...actually, not.
Instead Paul cited Duncan Hunter, that other true conservative (not just in empty words, like sanctuary-state Huckabee or "Rudy Fred McRomney", but in deeds, as well). Psyche! Not Hunter either. Nor any of the staunchly conservative, "fringe" candidates - not Hugh Cort, not John Cox, not Alan Keyes..
Who, then? Certainly not any of the aforementioned "front runners," right? (Well, you're right, at least, on that count.) And certainly none of the Marxists qua Democrats. After all, Ron Paul's as far as you can get from the radical international federalist positions of those traitors.
Er, not exactly. Paul did indeed cite a jack-a**, er, donkey. Then it must have been one of the more "moderate" of those communists - who was it, Bill Richardson or Mike Gravel? No? You can't mean it was Hillary, Hussein, or John Edwards! Relax - none of those particular infanticide advocates. Remember, Ron Paul is THE rightwing candidate; he'd never slink that far to the left.
No, instead it was that bastion of blue dog conservatism, the renowned Mr. Dennis Kucinich. Excuse me? You're not talking about the guy so far to the left he makes "the b****" look like the Gipper, are you?
Just kidding, Paul actually named (at least in passing) a Republican, namely Chuck Hagel (the unchallenged king of the RINO-filled Republican side of the Senate aisle, and darling of the anti-borders lobby) - before he launched into a virtual nomination speech for, yes, Dennis Kucinich.
Yes, that Dennis Kucinich - he of the abortion on demand, gay marriage, total handgun ban, across-the-board socialized medicine, affirmative action forever, thought crimes, slavery reparations, BIG government, Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender agenda, mandatory government schooling, Cleveland bankrupting wing of the party of the left (http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm).
Surprised? Astonished? You shouldn't be, when you consider that Ron Paul has gotten as high as a 67% rating from the ACLU, and ditto from the (even more sinister) NEA. That Paul is fine with the abortion pill and "physician-assisted suicide," opposes prayer in school, the marriage amendment, and weapons sales to Taiwan, and favors legalized narcotics, prostitution, gays in the military, and American flag desecration. Oh, and considers American troops the bag guys in the war on terror (http://elusivetruth.townhall.com/g/df7b58e5-eff3-4d24-9913-1fc79872a458).
I won't go on and on about how Paul's policies amount to basing our foreign policy on the whims and druthers of Osama bin Laden (instead you can read http://elusivetruth.townhall.com/g/b16776d0-4dd2-46ca-a769-a31d7d5eb6f9?comments=true). Or the "who said it?" game capable of being played in terms of responsibility-for-9/11 comments made by (a) Rosie O'Donnell, (b) Ward Churchill, or (c) Ron Paul (if you must, read http://elusivetruth.townhall.com/2007/05 - 2nd article down, "Rosie and Ron").
Suffice it to say that Paul has made Bush's supposed lies-to-justify-the-Iraq-invasion the be-all, end-all of his campaign, and thus he's hot to jump into bed with anybody in either party advancing that line. I've written extensively (http://elusivetruth.townhall.com/g/06a63265-e0ae-4ef5-b836-b7363ac1a854) on the exact opposite - Bush's coverup of the thousands of WMDs and WMD programs uncovered by Rick Santorum (whose Senate seat was unceremoniously snatched out from under him shortly thereafter), Richard Miniter, David Gaubatz, John Shaw, Iraqi General Georges Sada, John Loftus, and others - not to mention the soft pedaling of the Salman Pak 9/11-style terrorist training camp found in Iraq, or the squelching of the enormous body of evidence that Saddam was behind the Oklahoma City bombing (and that the Clintonistas had systematically covered this up, for their own nefarious political purposes).
...And on the fact that this curious apparent self-immolation was conducted in order to (a) vindicate the UN, to which the administration is positively antsy to hand over our sovereignty, and (b) elect a far left Democrat congress, far more amenable to the Bush agenda of the NAU, the erasure of our southern border, the extension of McCain-Feingold to the Internet, the Law of the Seas Treaty, mandatory universal mental health screening and child drugging...
...Reason enough to hate what has become of the national GOP and turn over our support to the original Republican anti-hero (Tancredo), which is what was happening until Paul arrived with his even angrier leftist-in-rightist-clothing appeal and usurped that support.
But now, finally, Ron Paul is completely out of the closet - he's had his Swift-Boatable moment. The emperor is bare for even the blind to see.
One day we get news of a p*mp whose "ho's" are passing the Paul plate, with Paul gratefully accepting the backing. And now this.
Kucinich-Paul '08? A perfect fit.
Paul-Christian conservative constitutionalists? An alternative marriage made in hell - and headed back.