Part 5: One man, two first names: Ron Paul, the Stone rejected.

The principles upon which our nation and our Party are founded, coupled with the circumstances of Republican politics, 2008, bring us to an inescapable conclusion. We have no excuse to coutenance the breakup of the Republican Party; to resolve ourselves to a McCain nomination.


There’s still one place to go.


And, once examined, one can see it is an option with surprising possibilities. It is a virtual new alignment.

I think, for the sake of perspective, it is important to make it clear where I stand on a few things.

I am a hawk. I rejoiced at the election of Ronald Reagan. I cheered the military build-up and urged forward the new aggressive stance we took against Communism. I had refused to support Gerald Ford because (among other things) he abandoned South Viet Nam. I would support the invasion of Cuba right now, as I would have done during the Kennedy administration, as Eisenhower had planned, instead of the sabotage of the Cuban people Kennedy engineered.

I believe we should take an aggressive stance agaisnst abusive tyrannical evil governments wherever it is practical across the globe. I supported the military aid we gave to freedom fighters around the world, to fight Communist Imperialism, including to Afghan Islamists. I, personally raised private funds for the Contras, to wage war on Communism in Central America.

I believe in fighting the great ideologically-based evils of the modern world intellectually, politically, legally, and, as it is practical, militarily, and that includes Fascism, Communism, Primeval Islam and Environmentalism. I am proud of American intervention on behalf of freedom around the world.

With great power comes great responsibility.

As Ronald Reagan said,

America seeks no new territory nor do we wish to dominate others. We commit our resources and risk the lives of those in our Armed Forces to rescue others from bloodshed and turmoil and to prevent humankind from drowning in a sea of tyranny.

I support intervening anywhere in the world it is appropriate and I believe in a military strong enough to ensure American security, whatever it takes.

I am a Zionist. I believe in a secure Israel behind pre-’67 borders as long as we’re talking pre-867 (BC) borders. I oppose any attempt to give or bargain away any of that historic territorial heritage by any person for any reason, most particularly the illusory objective of purchasing peace. I believe any international body’s support for the sovereignty of the nation of Israel, so described geographically, should be an absolute condition of our participation in that organization.

I despise racim in any form. I read the book “Black Like Me” (exposing white Southern racism) in, I believe, 1962 and became an outspoken, emotional and aggressive opponent of racial discrimination. I campaigned in favor of anti-discriminatory ballot measures five years before I was old enough to vote. I don’t believe there is any such thing as “reverse” racism. Discrimination for or against anyone of any race by anyone or any institution on the basis of ethnic origin or skin color is morally wrong and intellectually insupportable.

All that having been said, Let me make it as clear as water:

The single, the last remaining choice for conservatives is the Constitutionally Revolutionary Presidential candidacy of Ron Paul.

Paul represents a return to the Revolution that America must adopt if America, with the freedoms we have all taken for granted, is to survive. Those freedoms are not self-sustaining and we are on the verge of losing them.

I am more than fully aware that many conservatives and close friends believe Paul is unacceptable based on his Defense/Foreign Policy beliefs. I emphatically disagree and intend to examine that claim from the point of view of a true military hawk. I am fully aware  that credibility has been given to smears directed against Paul on the issues of Racism and Anti-Semitism. I intend to address those concerns in some detail, as well, although it is never possible to make a 100% refutation of slanders, since they are fabrications and new ones can always be made up, just as the old ones are repeated even after they have been disproved.

But first, and in this article, allow me to focus on the things all conservatives agree on, where, it seems to me, Paul is spectacularly good. So good, in fact, you wonder why we’ve been willing to settle for so much less.

What Ron Paul brings to the table:

Economic Revolution:

Ron Paul is the only fiscal conservative in the race. True fiscal conservatism means an absolute rejection of the “charitable” role of government. It is this unconstitutoinal function of the Federal Government that has unbalanced the budget, undermined our economy, spread poverty and the infrastructure of poverty: entitlement. Ron Paul would wield a veto pen that would make Ronald Reagan envious, slashing pork-barrell spending as has not been done in three quarters of a century. His Congressional record proves it. His election would be the first shot in a take-no-prisoners war on unconstitutional spending and that means most of it. He supports abolishing the IRS. We’re talking about cutting the Federal budget more than in half. Fasten your seat belt. 

The Ron Paul Economic Revolution will lead to an economic boom that will far eclipse the Reagan boom of the ‘80s founding hundreds of thousands of small businesses, unleashing the enormous strength of our industrial base, exploding prosperity and personal wealth, putting the budget into surplus in the first term. This is a Revolution the world has never seen.

Constitutional Revolution:

Across America businesses and individuals are under attack by lawless criminals wearing black robes: graduates of Hegelian Law Schools, supported by priviledged networks of good ol’ corrupt cronies. The American legal establishment has become a legal tyranny that makes up the law as they go along for their own purposes. Today they are dissassembling our rights as fast as they can and there is no activity more criminal in nature on earth.

Ron Paul, by his policy and appointments from the top down,  would begin the long war to take back our nation from the canniballistic buffet table of the Liberal Legal Establishment, re-structuring Federal powers by replacing them. In the Justice war-on-darkness.jpgDepartment, in the FBI, in the BATF, in the CIA, in the Judiciary.  

The Coattails of his second term would bring us a Congress that would begin assembly-line impeachments of the phalanxes of these oath-violators. This would re-awaken the love of freedom and justice in the hearts of America, turn back the tide of environmental communism, restore property rights, begin the restoration of marriage, and add its part to the rennaisance of economic vitality.

Social Revolution:

The progenitors of child murder and sexual perversion have not prospered because they ever won over the American Public, but rather our radical educrats, the Lords of Media, and the Ravens of Injustice. It is because they imposed their agenda, illegally, through the courts with decisions like Roe vs. Wade and Lawrence vs. Texas. Ronald Paul would do to Judicial Crime what Ronald Reagan did to Soviet Expansionism. From Chuck Baldwin:

“Ron Paul seems to be the only presidential candidate who understands that under Article. III. Section. 2., the Constitution gives to the Congress of the what-child-is-this.jpgUnited States the power to hold rogue courts in check and to overturn outlandish rulings such as Roe v. Wade.

Accordingly, Ron Paul has introduced and reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act (including in the current Congress). If passed, this Bill would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The Bill also recognizes the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children.”

Tell me you’re willing to give up the above issues to stay in Iraq, that you’re willing to continue the destruction of human life and see the country bankrupted by illegal immigration and chained by environmentalist tyranny, willing, for that, to continue the destruction of freedom in America and I say you’re not, seriously, a conservative.

I supported the invasion of Iraq. I don’t regard that initial decision as a mistake. But to make extended nation-building the only item of conservatism that means anything, as the support of any other candidate would mean, to make it a higher priority than our survival as a free people, is  deeply irresponsible and a deep, deep, misunderstanding of the fundamental principles of the founders, our nation, and of Ronald Reagan.

You say you won’t support Senator McAmnesty? Welcome to the Majority. But don’t get mad.

 Get Revolution.


5 thoughts on “Part 5: One man, two first names: Ron Paul, the Stone rejected.

  1. Pingback: Part 4: One man two first names: a Republican Obituary? «

  2. Pingback: Life of the Party

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s