Sobran: The Honor of Ron Paul

[Mike Mazzone of Palatine]

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=787

June 26, 2007
Sobran: The Honor of Ron Paul
posted by Linda

by Joe Sobran

I guess I’ve known Ron Paul for a quarter of a century now, and I don’t remember how we met. My first memory of him is a quiet dinner on Capitol Hill, during the Reagan years. He told me with dry humor of being the only member of Congress to vote against some bill Reagan wanted passed. For Ron it was a matter of principle, and he was under heavy pressure to change his vote.

What amused him was that the Democrats didn’t mind his voting against it; all the pressure came from his fellow Republicans, professed conservatives, who were embarrassed that anyone should actually stand up for their avowed principles when it was unpopular to do so.

That was Ron Paul for you. Still is. The whole country is getting to know him now, and the Republicans still want to get rid of him. The party’s hacks, led by Newt Gingrich, have even tried in vain to destroy him in his own Texas district.

They’re right, in a way. He doesn’t belong in a party that has made “conservative” a synonym for “destructive.” George Will calls him a “useful anachronism” because he actually believes, as literally as circumstances permit, in the U.S. Constitution. In his unassuming way, without priggery or histrionics, he stands alone.

He may have become at last what he has always deserved to be: the most respected member of the U.S. Congress. He is also the only Republican candidate for president who is truly what all the others pretend to be, namely, a conservative. His career shows that a patriotic, pacific conservatism isn’t a paradox.

If they can’t expel Ron Paul from the party, they can at least deny him the nomination. The GOP front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, who says he hates abortion more than any other constitutional right (or words to that effect), went into raptures of phony indignation during the first “debate” when Paul said simply that the 9/11 attacks were a natural result of U.S. foreign policy. The pundits applauded the demagogue, but millions of viewers were thrilled to find one honest man on that crowded stage. (By the way, Paul is a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies and never killed one.)

Ron — I’m very proud to call him my friend — fares well not only in comparison with the party’s sorry current candidates, but also with its legendary conservative giants, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. He lacks their charisma and of course Reagan’s matchless charm, but he excels them both in consistency, depth, historical awareness, courage, and honor. Heaven grant him some of Reagan’s luck!

Which brings us to the big question: does Ron Paul have a prayer? Well, he may have a prayer, but that’s about it. He doesn’t have a billion dollars; delivering babies, often free of charge, is not the way to amass a staggering fortune. He has nothing to offer the special and foreign interests who pour millions into Rudy’s and Hillary’s coffers. Sorry, this isn’t a Frank Capra movie.

But virtue — honor — is rare enough to be an asset, especially when the two big parties don’t have much of it. If both offer pro-war, pro-abortion New York liberals next year, there could be an urgent demand for a third option, especially since Giuliani could smash what’s left of the Bush-riddled GOP coalition while Hillary remains, well, Hillary.

What if Ron Paul runs for president on, say, the Constitution Party ticket? Who knows? I can only attest that to know him is to love him, and knowing him for many years has only deepened the esteem I felt for him when we were both much younger men. This is a man who strikes deep chords in people’s hearts.

Every attempt to portray him as an extremist, or even eccentric, founders on his palpable probity and wisdom. His words are the carefully measured words of one given to meditation. Ron Paul is a man you listen closely to.

The odds are heavily against his being elected president next year. But if he is on the ballot in November, the odds are far heavier against his candidacy’s being forgotten. He will say things worth pondering long after the votes are cast.

Until now, the GOP has been able to contain Paul by pretending he wasn’t there. But the silent treatment can no longer stifle this soft-spoken man. He has been proved right too often.

SOURCE: Joe Sobran
Spread the Word!

[Geoff Beck]

Isn't there always some candidate like Ron Paul?

Some wild card or maverick candidate?

Lets see...

A few year ago it was Buchanan; then Perot; then Anderson, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

Maybe Paul is legit, don't know. But he's is a system candidate and I don't won't to reinforce the system's legitimacy.

In the end, he'll lose but not before requesting his votes go to Guiliani or McCain or whomever the Republicans put up.

The point is we are creating a new national reality. Break free.

[Mike Mazzone of Palatine]

Isn't there always some candidate like Ron Paul?
Not since 1988 which was the last time he ran.
Some wild card or maverick candidate?
The MSM always smears the candidates that don't serve their agenda as such.
A few year ago it was Buchanan; then Perot; then Anderson, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some.
None of them had the grassroots support that Paul has. The MSM is whining that he's "taken over the web."

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/06/ron_paul
Maybe Paul is legit, don't know. But he's is a system candidate and I don't won't to reinforce the system's legitimacy.
You don't reinforce the system's legitimacy by spreading his message of liberty. You'll never know his stance on any issues if you don't look into it.
In the end, he'll lose but not before requesting his votes go to Guiliani or McCain or whomever the Republicans put up.
He ran until the end in 1988 and got 0.5% of the popular vote. That was in the age before the internet, when the MSM never faced blowback for attempting to silence opposing opinions the way they do today.
The point is we are creating a new national reality. Break free.
I agree wholeheartedly with your point and assert that supporting Ron Paul is the best thing you can do right now to create that new reality.

[Geoff Beck]

Not since 1988 which was the last time he ran.

The MSM always smears the candidates that don't serve their agenda as such.

None of them had the grassroots support that Paul has. The MSM is whining that he's "taken over the web."

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/06/ron_paul

You don't reinforce the system's legitimacy by spreading his message of liberty. You'll never know his stance on any issues if you don't look into it.

He ran until the end in 1988 and got 0.5% of the popular vote. That was in the age before the internet, when the MSM never faced blowback for attempting to silence opposing opinions the way they do today.

I agree wholeheartedly with your point and assert that supporting Ron Paul is the best thing you can do right now to create that new reality.

Well, I suppose its just a way of interpreting things. I don't think promoting Paul is a bad thing, and on the margins it may be incidently helpful to our cause, yet he is not a WN'ist candidat.

He is not as Adolf Hilter said "parlimentary by compulsion".

[Mike Mazzone of Palatine]

His platform is exactly what white people need. We know where he stands on the issues. He is opposed to forced racial integration. Once the 1964 Civil Rights Act is repealed, there is nothing stopping white people from living amongst other white people exclusively. That is the goal of White Nationalism, is it not? The goal is not to duplicate Hitler, who had his flaws like any other leader.

[ohgolly]

Paul is the first man in decades who's worthy of our support. It doesn't matter that he isn't a WN, he's going after the regime structure same as we are. The publicity his campaign receives will send many frustrated people our way. And there couldn't be a better line-up of clowns, of both parties, to run against.

[Geoff Beck]

Deserve our support?

I suppose some groupings of White Nationalists could support him. But it is my belief he is ultimately a creature of the system AND Libertarianism is not the best approach for White Nationalism - or at least some White Nationalists.

Yes, there is "diversity" within White Nationalism. Let a 1000 flowers bloom.

[ohgolly]

Anyone who has grown up in the last few decades and isn't a cynic hasn't been paying attention. There are probably few if any of us here who have ever known or heard of a statesman, as opposed to a political hack. Don't let your cynicism prevent you from seeing something good, when it does happen, though. Paul is an honest and principled man, even if he is constrained by the Jews' system. This is why I say that he is worthy of support. Of course that system won't permit his election.

More importantly to us, his popularity can only help us. A major portion of his national base consists of young educated/educable White interneters who know that the system is corrupt and deliberately working against them. They're most likely where we'll end up finding the extra base that we need.

[Alex Linder]

The response to Paul is a good measure of how vicious, vile, and slanderous the sell-outs really are. All Paul is doing is putting forward sensible ideas about foreign and domestic policy, the kinds of things America believed and practiced before it was jewed. In return he gets spitting hate. The feel of vampire bat Giuliani is what I notice. Sick hatred and fear. The synthetic patriotard rage. The neocon-appeasers now act like Kennedys always have. Unfortunately, Paul is not the type to let that fake piece of shit Julie-Annie have it the way that cunt deserves. There is only one way to go at these fucksticks, and that's to treat them like shit under the shoe. But if he's the wrong opponent, Paul is the perfect foil to these stuck-up, shallow, hypocritical sellouts. He's what we were, and his opponents are what we are.

[Angst]

Here's my translation of his position statements.


Debt and Taxes (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/)

Translation: Increases White birth rates.

American Independence and Sovereignty (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and-sovereignty/)

Translation: Increases White birth rates, keeps out aliens.

War and Foreign Policy (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/)

Translation: No more war for Israel.

Life and Liberty (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/)

Translation: Increases White birth rates.

Border Security and Immigration Reform (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/)

Translation: Keeps the spics out, helps to maintain a White majority.

Privacy and Personal Liberty (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/privacy-and-personal-liberty/)

Translation: Against ZOG control of civilians.

Property Rights and Eminent Domain (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/property-rights-and-eminent-domain/)

Translation: Against ZOG control of civilians.

[William Robert]

An Interview with Presidential Candidate Congressman Ron Paul
http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrakerreport.com%2Fid447.html

Congressman Ron Paul: I’m with the academics on this one. Anyone who is even remotely aware of the facts knows that American foreign policy in the Middle East has stirred up enormous anger among Muslims, our support for Israel included, and you’re correct to say that it’s the American taxpayer who’s shouldering much of the burden. Also, the sanctions in Iraq during Clinton’s presidency, which killed nearly as many Iraqis as have died under the Bush presidency, and the presence of our military bases in Saudi Arabia – together with the situation in Israel, these actions are used by extremists and jihadists as justification for killing Americans. Just look at bin Laden’s public statements throughout the nineties. Can you imagine what it would be like if parts of the United States were occupied by a foreign power, if China was building military bases the size of the Vatican in Kansas? People would be up in arms! This isn’t to say that we “invited” the attacks of 9/11, or any other terrorist attacks, but simply that our policy decisions have certain consequences that we might wish to avoid. The CIA has given a name for this – “blowback.” This was the subject of my recent disagreement with Rudy Giuliani in the debate, who has no idea what he’s talking about. On a global playing field, deeds can have a way of rebounding on the doer, which is why the older imperial powers tended to be very cautious in their dealings with strange peoples in foreign lands. The Clinton and Bush administrations have been absolutely incompetent in comparison. This doesn’t mean that I’m against the idea of spreading the concept of freedom, just not with the barrel of a gun. Like I said, my solution would be to follow the wisdom of the Founders, which means a non-interventionist foreign policy, getting rid of foreign aid to all nations, including Israel. We ought to lead by example, not by coercion or special interest: this was what the Founders had in mind.


I'm Sorry,

But he is not that Fucking Stupid,

to believe that we were "Attacked by Terrorists"

on September 11th, 2001,

How smart is he?

If he is lying about 9-11?

If he is playing word games?

What is the point?

[Mike Mazzone of Palatine]

Ron Paul is taking things one step at a time, Sir. He is using ZOG propaganda against them. He'll call up the name of Bin Laden and the official story to transfer focus onto foreign policy, just like William Pierce did from the very beginning. He has stated that if the families of 9/11 are not satisfied with the investigation, he isn't satisfied either. He has also stated that he doesn't trust government investigations because they are really just cover-ups. He avoids debating what the truth of 9/11 is in interviews because such a debate could be best steered toward promoting his position of a non-interventionist foreign policy. He's not stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing and what works best. He's getting better at it all the time.

[Geoff Beck]

Ron Paul is taking things one step at a time, Sir. He is using ZOG propaganda against them. He'll call up the name of Bin Laden and the official story to transfer focus onto foreign policy, just like William Pierce did from the very beginning. He has stated that if the families of 9/11 are not satisfied with the investigation, he isn't satisfied either. He has also stated that he doesn't trust government investigations because they are really just cover-ups. He avoids debating what the truth of 9/11 is in interviews because such a debate could be best steered toward promoting his position of a non-interventionist foreign policy. He's not stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing and what works best. He's getting better at it all the time.

If he really had those suspicions he'd be killed, or otherwise ruined. ZOG will never let anyone with those ideas get close to power.

Edit: or more importantly influence the public's perception of events.

[Bob in DC]

What surprise awaits those who have all the answers?

At this moment, Ron Paul appears to be more than a simple miner's canary benchmark of Jewdom's opposition. (Yet again the internet proves to be the greatest unintended consequence in the history of mankind.)

Any vitriol directed by Giuliani at Ron Paul is not caused by Giuliani, but by Giuliani's perception of his Jew masters' expectations.

Giuliani has now given effective knowledge of his strength and his position to friend and foe alike. His ridiculous outbursts make him an anchor, rather than a sail, for his controllers.

What now?

The Ron Paul momentum may subside. This would be a tragedy. If nothing else, his campaign raises the temperature of political awareness for those now, or shortly to be, shocked into reality by reality itself.

Thinking white people should do nothing less than fully support Ron Paul. Tomorrow will demand tomorrow's answers -- do this today!

Bob

[Mike Mazzone of Palatine]

If he really had those suspicions he'd be killed, or otherwise ruined. ZOG will never let anyone with those ideas get close to power.


ZOG has been learning that it isn't always best to kill everyone who voices opposition to their ideas. Often ruining people doesn't work either, internet media has grown by leaps and bounds and competes with mainstream media and a rate that is growing exponentially.

Is ZOG kills Ron Paul, they will have to deal with radicals who preach violent resistance. They don't like that. Look at how imprisoning Matt Hale has backfired upon them. The number of people who admire him are greater than they ever would have been had he not been imprisoned. Also, leaders who get killed become martyred, and the support for their message grows stronger as a result.

ZOG will not kill Ron Paul, no matter how many truths he points out. They will do all they can to discredit him, however. If he is killed, they'll have more unpredictable leaders to deal with. It's the old story of "Deal with the devil that you know, not the devil that you don't know."

Edit: or more importantly influence the public's perception of events.The internet is influencing the public's perception of events more so they ever anticpated just 5 or 10 years ago. The house of cards Zeitgeist on which their power is built is collapsing. Their influence and power is waning.
The Ron Paul momentum may subside.
When the MSM is continually demonizing him, you know his momentum is growing. As pilots said in WWII, "when you're above the target, that's when you get the flak".

[H.N.]

I am all for Ron Paul. He is who I will be voting for in the primary and the 2008election.