Ron Paul has a broad base of support and is the only GOP presidential candidate who is not a neocon.
"The increasing complexity and precariousness of our economic life have forced Government to take over many spheres of activity once left to choice or chance. Our intellectuals have surrendered first to the slave-philosophy of Hegel, then to Marx, finally to the linguistic analysts. As a result, classical political theory, with its Stoic, Christian, and juristic key-conceptions (natural law, the value of the individual, the rights of man), has died. The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good—anyway, to do something to us or to make us something. …We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, “Mind your own business.” Our whole lives are their business." (Italics added)
C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)
"How do you kill 11 million people? You lie."
Andy Andrews "How Do You Kill 11 Million People?"
Andy Andrews is referring to the approximately 11 million people killed in Hitler's death camps. As he mentions in his book he could just as easily have added the many millions more who died under Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and the like. All those leaders lied to their people, and the people believed those lies and died. "We the people" have been, and are being, lied to as well — whether or not we will die as the result of our naïveté and gullibility remains to be seen.
Who has been, and is, lying to us? Darn near everyone — mass media, government, entertainers, pundits, politicos, you name it. The lie is this: "Big Government is good for you." No, it is not. Big government automatically means tyranny, and big government is liberty's enemy.
It makes no difference if you listen to the Left or the Right, they are taking us down, not up. We could well already be beyond the tipping point, but electing Ron Paul as POTUS may yet serve to save our republic. We have to try in any event. It is nothing less than "we the people" against the arrogant, smug Power Elites.
Because Ron Paul is running on a "right-wing" Republican ticket I will mainly be addressing conservatives in this article, but as I have written previously the dangers that "we the people" face transcend party loyalties. There are perhaps as many liberals supporting Ron Paul as conservatives — a true grass-roots revolution. The Ron Paul revolution is about much more than "attracting a few disgruntled Independents." It is about "we the people" — left, right, and center — taking our country back from the elitists who believe that they know what is best for us. It is about liberty and unity, not ideology and conformity.
Liberal supporters of Ron Paul can expect to be called "fascists" and "teabaggers" by the liberal elites, and conservatives will no doubt be labeled "pinko-commies," kooks, and "peaceniks" by neo-cons and the uninformed. The idea that "we the people" might actually step outside the box that they have so skillfully and patiently made for us to "play in," does not go according to the elitist plan, and they are as a result jumpy, scared, and testy.
And they lie. Their lies are getting more and more egregious as Ron Paul's popularity grows. A recent report sent out by the supposedly neutral wire serve AP stated that Ron Paul flies first-class at your (the tax payer's) expense. Not so, it turns out. "He buys coach tickets and then upgrades with his frequent flyer miles, which doesn't cost any extra money above the cost of the coach seats."
"We the people" can trust little of what the corporate-owned MSM venues tell us, and almost nothing of what they relate about Ron Paul. Why? Because he, uniquely, opposes the continuation of the collusion between big government, big business, and big banking. He does not merely pay lip service to the US Constitution, he breaths it. Without the Constitution the United States transforms from a republic into a tyranny — the rule of a few elite over the many.
Who are the elite? There are various answers to that question, but perhaps the easiest litmus test to apply in order to find out if someone is an elitist or not, is to see how they deal with the US Constitution. Not what they say about it mind you, but what they do with it. Are their actions, their votes, and their behavior in line with the US Constitution, or not? Among the candidates Ron Paul is the only individual whose actions back up his words in this regard.
Mitt Romney, although fiscally conservative, is a big government neo-con all the way. Newt Gingrich is an Alvin Tofler "Third Wave" fan, and anything but a strict constitutionalist. Santorum is a morally conservative big government neo-con. I would classify them all as neo-cons. All but Ron Paul.
Do I use the word neo-con (new conservative) as a pejorative? Depends on your point of view. If you are a strict constitutionalist like me, then the label "neo-con" is not a term of endearment. If, however, you are a conservative that places little value on the US Constitution, loves big government, and are fond of war-mongering then you will like and approve of neo-cons and the neo-con platform.
(Sidebar: The subject of neo-conservatism is a somewhat convoluted one that deserves its own book, let alone article (and books there are). Suffice it to say that if a conservative is someone that believes in the US Constitution then neo-cons are not true conservatives. You can trace their linage back to the teachings of Plato, add a dash of Trotsky, a large dose of Fabianism, stir in some Leo Strauss, mix well and serve. How many neo-cons and those who support them are aware of their roots is something I do not know — I suspect darn few. This I do know, they are elitists who like war, and hoist the Constitution up the flagpole when it suits their needs, and ignore it when it does not. Why the neo-cons are so fond of war is a subject worthy of investigation).
It does make a difference whether you vote Republican or Democrat, but as Glenn Beck noted some time ago it is largely a cosmetic difference — a question of degree. Beck put it in terms of either traveling by jet-plane (Democrats), or by train (Republicans) — one moves faster than the other, but they are both headed in the same direction, with the same destination — tyranny.
It was, after all, a Republican President (Nixon) who took the US off the gold standard and set us on the road to financial ruin via fiat (paper) currency (no doubt with a little help from neo-con RINO extraordinaire Henry Kissinger). It was a Republican President (Bush Sr.) who signed America on board for the insidious Agenda 21 at Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It was a Republican President (George W. Bush) who invaded Afghanistan (not so bad), and then settled in for a long-term no-win stay that has been both grotesquely absurd and horribly tragic (very bad indeed).
And if we "win" in Afghanistan, where to next Rambo? What is the game plan? Yemen, Somalia, Iran, the road to Morocco? The whole frigging Muslim world? The federal government refuses to protect our own border and "we the people" are supposed to be okay with sending our troops half way around the world to engage in military quagmires and support "Arab Springs?" Merde!
I say bring our troops home, and put a stop to all this expensive, asinine, tragic, and unconstitutional overseas "nation building." Dr. Paul and I do not see eye to eye on everything — for example his kumbaya attitude toward Islam is a non-starter for me — but the fact that I agree with him on most important issues and trust him to say what he means and mean what he says carries a lot of weight with me.
What the elites are at pains to not tell you, is that as a strict constitutionalist Ron Paul is committed heart and soul to defending the United States (as opposed to exporting it by force). He would protect our borders, and he would react to any enemy acts against the US aggressively — but he would get the approval of Congress first (as per the US Constitution) and he would stop, and reverse, the Draconian trend of treating large swaths of US citizens as hostile suspects.
In closing I would like to address a couple of the many lies, misdirections, and innuendos aimed at Ron Paul by the elites and their sycophants — namely his being termed a (gasp) Voluntaryist , and the "grave dangers" of a Ron Paul third party run.
If you bother to look up the word you will find that a Voluntaryist is someone who believes that "churches, schools, etc. should be supported by voluntary contributions and not by the state." How horrible (that's sarcasm). There is much more to Voluntaryism then the dictionary definition I just gave, but trust me there is nothing horrible about it (unless you are a big government neo-con in which case it is horrible indeed). Myself, I agree with Thoreau's axiom that "that government is best that governs least," so I have little, if any, problem with Voluntaryism.
As far as a third party candidacy goes, we are not talking about a "Ross Perot scenario" here, where Perot's third party run caused Bush Sr. to lose the 1992 Presidential race (just as well actually, or he might have signed us up for another Agenda 21 — "Agenda 21+" or some such).
Ron Paul's support comes from a much larger, wider, and diverse base than Perot's did, and in any event we are putting the cart before the horse, in that who will receive the Republican nomination in Tampa is still very much up in the air.
It goes without saying that the leadership of the RNC, who are almost exclusively neo-cons, will oppose Ron Paul's nomination as the Republican Presidential nominee. Mitt Romney is the elite's "chosen one," but they will settle for anyone else but Ron Paul in a pinch. How nasty and duplicitous they are prepared to be in opposing Paul remains to be seen — pretty nasty and duplicitous I would think. Time will tell. In any event, I lay the whole issue on the back-burner for the moment.
Unlike some politicians we know, Dr. Paul does not claim he will slow the rising of the oceans and heal the planet, but he will get America back on track to being a free republic under the guidance of the US Constitution once again — and he will value liberty over expedience, defending America over aggressively exporting America, and he will rule by the US Constitution and not by Executive Decree.
For those of you who are scared that a Ron Paul administration will mean the end of the world as we know it (TEOTWAWKI), it is well to keep in mind that there is only so much Ron Paul can do to reverse over a hundred years of Progressive politics in a four year term. In addition, as a constitutionalist he will work through Congress, and we all know what that means. Personally, if it is to be TEOTWAWKI, then I would rather go out under the tried and true rules and principles America was founded on, than under some half-baked notions drummed up by elitist social engineers.
I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of being lied to and having my chain yanked by two-faced elites who promise the moon and stars only to deliver a cart-load of rubbish — and charge me for it. "We the people" have been betrayed, America has been betrayed, and our children, grandchildren, and down the generations to come have been betrayed — by greedy, power-hungry elitists who are are leading us all toward tyranny and enslavement.
Ron Paul in 2012: Defeat the Elites! We must resist these elitist parasites who live off the sweat of our brows. In the immortal words of the reverend Al Sharpton, "Resist we much!" And you can believe that there will be much resistance from the elites as well, as "we the people" turn in ever greater numbers to Ron Paul and the Constitution.
Elites, NeoCons, Establishments, True Conservatives are all code words designed to get Obama re-elected. I like Ron Paul, but he is NOT going to be president. Get real.