Posted by
Charles Lewis on Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:13:57 PM
Ron OK with Money Saved Surrendering Iraq reverting not back to Taxpayers, but to the Welfare State
by Charles R Lewis
Open letter to those wishful thinkers on the right still in denial over the true nature of Ron Paul:
Last week I told you about a YouTube posting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJcnoDfFWhM) where Paul can be seen asserting that if he himself were not a candidate for president he would most likely be supporting Dennis Kucinich - the candidate that fellow Marxists Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama like to be contrasted with so they can appear (at least relatively) moderate.
Well you can hear the other shoe drop by going to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUG8T0ceeRs, "fast forwarding" about 7 minutes into Ron Paul's piece there, and listening to how he'd be amenable to considering Democrat Kucinich (who makes Joseph Stalin look like Joseph Farah) as a running mate should he (Paul) get the GOP nomination.
You'll hear Paul "qualify" this sentiment only in the sense of acknowledging that the two "don't agree on all the economic issues" (emphasis mine). But even here, Paul states he'd be willing to make concessions to his prospective VP. You see, he'd be inclined to channel the billions we'd save conceding Iraq (to the Islamofascists who've vowed to cut off all our heads) not back to the hard working American taxpayer, but rather to some of Dennis's favored "welfare state" programs.
Just an extremely abbreviated reminder as to who this Rep. Dennis Kucinich (whose most notable resume item so far is his bankrupting of Cleveland) is. He favors:
- absolutely unrestricted abortion,
- an across-the-board ban on handguns nationwide,
- mandatory government schooling (ie the prohibition of home schooling, Christian schooling, and even secular private schooling) for all American children - from pre-school through college.
...Those and a plethora of similarly communistic initiatives that dovetail with the positions of Fidel Castro (whom Kucinich openly admires - about as much as Ron Paul seems to admire Kucinich). And I would hasten to point out that none of the above referenced issues (nor most of a wide range of unlisted similar ones) have anything to do with economics (emphasis most definitely mine).
Don't get me wrong. I could never support a Rudy Fred "The Huckster" McRomney. They all speak with forked tongues.
Santuarudy, Sactuaromney, and Sanctuary-Huckaberry have all presided over large geo-political entities that implemented just such treasonous policies, and have only recently found it politically advantageous to feign a desire to protect our borders - in order to CON CONservative voters.
John McKennedy spent most of the past year spending virtually all of his political capital in a disingenuous effort to turn the whole country into such a sanctuary (with advantages legal Americans can only dream of having) for criminal invaders. And Familiar Fred was one of the principle reasons we don't have the 1st Amendment to kick around anymore - with his fervent support for the McCain-Feingold Act.
Plus Rudy is a Governator-style liberal on the majority of issues, especially gun control ('nuff said). And Mitt has a history as a gun grabber, promoter of gay marriage, and advocate of socialized medicine.
McCain wants to extend the free-speech-silencing measures in said McCain-Fengold to that last bastion, the Internet, which he also seeks to turn over to the auspices of the lovely UN. And he opposed the modest Bush tax cuts on John Edwards-style Marxist grounds.
Mike Huckabee governed Arkansas as one of the nation's premier tax-and-spenders (he likewise didn't endorse Bush's comparatively token tax cuts). arranged some unconstitutional sweetheart deals (at the expense of taxpayers) with the Mexicans, and drew nothing but wrath from the conservatives of his state. And Fred Thompson (a member of the same powerful Council on Foreign Relations that's working so hard to merge us with socialist Canada and Mexico by 2010) expresses great compassion for "young girls" who murder their babies and no compassion for the babies, positing that the right to life (not to mention liberty and the pursuit of happiness?) is no business of the federal government (a position identical to that of Ron Paul, by the way).
No, don't get me wrong. I'd like nothing better than the sort of candidate that so many of my fellow arch-conservatives consider Ron Paul to be - that mixture of super-patriotism and libertarian Constitutionalism that America so desperately needs.
And I firmly hold to such "radical rightwing" positions as getting out of the UN, a ban on forced mental health screening or drugging, eliminating CAFTA's CODEX threat to our access to natural supplements, the defeat of Bush's Law of the Seas and North American Union schemes, strict adherence to the 10th Amendment, eliminating the federal income tax, "property tax" (one of my favorite oxymorons), and eminent domain tyranny, an end to undeclared wars, and many of the others that the army of Ronvolutionaries tends to associate with its fearless leader.
...Which is why I root for Tom Tancredo, Hugh Cort, and (assuming he's for real) Alan Keyes. And why, if the Minutemen get their act together and form a party, I plan to vote neither Democrat nor Republican in '08. But the ever-emerging picture of Ron Paul strongly suggests he's just a figurehead for at least most of these issues. I'll share an anecdote:
Back in the days when I was about as enamored of Ron Paul as still are the millions of well-intentioned "Paulista" attack dogs, a good friend who was the chief of staff for one of the tiny handful of congressmen (besides Paul) whom I trusted warned me to be wary of Paul. He averred that Paul's stances - courageous though they seemed - essentially amounted to posturing, aimed at enhancing his own reputation and raising money from (justly) disaffected conservatives.
...That his stands never resulted in the accomplishment of anything, and that, when approached by this small cadre of decent representatives on simon pure initiatives that actually had a chance of making some headway, he was always suddenly uninterested in participating.
Friends have offered that this was simply Paul's uncompromising strict constructionalist side - that he must have smelled something tangentially unconstitutional about these projects. But phenomena such as the recent YouTube sequences indicate he has no such scruples negotiating away his supposed core principles to ultra-Marxists like Dennis Kucinich.
Actually, I myself disbelieved my chief-of-staff buddy's admonition for a number of years. I couldn't accept that a personal icon could be so fraudulent. I remained in denial until the past year, during which all the worst particulars of the man have fallen into place.
At least tacitly, he favors assisted suicide, the abortion pill, legalized prostitution and marijuana, American flag desecration, and gays in the military, and opposes prayer in schools, the marriage amendment, and so much as arms sales to our few remaining allies worldwide,
He's made it clear in recent speeches that he considers America - in the form of her brave fighting troops - the world's menace, and thinks of the likes of China and Iran as something between relatively mild offenders and our innocent victims. And he's earned unspeakably high 67% ratings from both the ACLU and the NEA (read http://elusivetruth.townhall.com/g/df7b58e5-eff3-4d24-9913-1fc79872a458).
A friend I know to be level-headed and responsible says she recently heard Paul on CNN saying we should turn Iraq over to Muqtada al-Sadr. That this mass murderer of innocent civilians is the one who can stabilize the place. Have Paul's erstwhile salt-of-the-earth backers gone mad in their willingness to rationalize him?
I have fully awakened from my mesmerized state on Ron Paul. I urge his well-intentioned supporters - especially those on the Christian right - to emerge from their own hero-worship-induced hypnotic trances and see him for what he is and increasingly is becoming. When are his evermore outlandish pronouncements going to start churning the stomachs of other enlightened conservatives the way they've been churning mine?
We have one month till the primaries start. One month to shift our energies to the support of those "fringe" candidates - led by Tancredo - on whom we can depend for pro-American, unwavering constitutionalist ideals.
This is your wake-up call. If this doesn't do it, I doubt if anything will - until it's too late for it to matter.