Newswhores howling over Ron Paul’s CPAC win
Feb. 14, 2011
Between Faux News on the republicrat side and the barely whimpering mention(though they did post all the results) on the Commie News Network site, the mainstay of the moaning is that Ron Paul's victory in this past weekend's CPAC poll is meaningless.
As Paul said in so many words during an interview on Faux News, if someone else had won it would have been important. For those who have been around a few years there’s nothing new to this game of rhetorical cat and mouse.
Here’s an example from Yahoo News:
“Ron Paul has been heavily influenced by the writings of Hayek, Von Mises, and Ayn Rand and is thus a much firmer believer in limited, what he would call "constitutional" government than even most Republicans. He has advocated the abolishment of the Federal Reserve and the income tax.
“Congressman Paul's most controversial positions have to do with foreign policy. He is a fervent isolationist or, as his supporters prefer to say, a "noninterventionist." He has opposed the war in Iraq and has advocated that the United States withdraw from both the U.N. and NATO. Paul has suggested that American intervention in other countries is the root cause of terrorism and not the terrorists' hated of American society and culture.
“Paul's view of America's role in the world has a kind of quaint, 18th century feel to it. Aside from the despicable idea that America has brought terrorist attacks upon itself, his views on foreign policy and national security seem more suited to an era when it took weeks to cross the Atlantic from Europe to America and not the present day, when an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile can strike the United States in less than ninety minutes from anywhere in the world.”
That kind of propaganda is quaint and wearing thin. The success of Rand Paul in Kentucky’s Senate race speaks volumes for what the future may hold. The important question is can we keep a Ron Paul president safe from assassination and what will our response be if the elites and the commies they fund do something so blatant to stop the restoration of Liberty?
Meanwhile I really like this comment by ‘rocksandbroncs’ on the Human Events website about the Paul vote:
“It cannot be emphasized enough, thrasher, that we
should not allow the LeftSM to foist another McCain on us in 2012.
“The grassroots should be in charge of primary messaging. This means allowing the liberal media to attend the first GOP debate but only as members of the pool - not as moderators. Spread the word.”
Sounds like a plan to me. And why have the republicrats tolerated McCommie all these years when he should have long ago been kicked out of the party?
The Christian Science Monitor called the CPAC poll a ‘beauty contest’ but other wise had some worthwhile things to note, like how most of the voters are young, a good thing, yet most of them are only ‘fiscal’ conservatives. Maybe they just see they can’t fight the coming war if they’re broke. We can only hope.
But wait, David Franke on Lew Rockwell in a real analysis of the conference says this:
"The truth: The percentage of students declined this year, to 48% from 52% in 2009. And the percentage of registrants aged 18 to 25 also declined this year, to 54% from 57% in 2009. (The percentage of those under 18 stayed the same both years — 2%.) So the growth in Ron Paul's popularity cannot be dismissed as merely a surge of college or young voters."
So maybe there's some hope for us old patriots as well.
Meanwhile Ron Paul was ‘kicked off’ some board I
never heard of though it’s apparently been around for decades, and Lew
re-posted a piece about them by Libertarian commentator Murray
Rothbard who had this, and some not other not-so complimentary things,
to say about that organization:
“Surely every libertarian supports civil liberties, the corollary and complement of private property rights and the free-market economy. Where does the Right-wing stand on civil liberties? You know all too well. Communists, of course, have to be slaughtered or rounded up in detention camps. Being "agents of the Devil," they are no longer human and therefore have no rights. Is that it?”
I probably agree with Rothbard on many things, but this slander is a bit much. I personally don’t want to see the commies ‘slaughtered’ unless they force us to fight them, and they probably will, when enough real patriots finally decide we can no longer tolerate their evil on this continent and decide to run them off it.
It would be silly for the government to use tax dollars to imprison them for long periods only to eventually turn their disease out on our society again. Find an old oil tanker and shove the hardest of the hard core “Liberals,” progressives, whatever on it and tell them to find another continent to blight, and not to return upon pain of death.
It’s all well and dandy to say the commies have the right to believe what they want. We can tolerate that. When they try to shove their ‘beliefs’ down our throats at the point of a government gun they are committing treason against the document they swore to defend, the Bill of Rights.
We absolutely must stop tolerating the creatures in our governments on any level. They are the cancer. Their cures are almost always worse than the disease. We must find a way to inoculate against their evil.
A Washington Ghost newswhore wrote the most important line:
"The nomination will be won in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- not in a CPAC straw poll."
Well, a few other states could play a part in that
as well. The newswhores love to twist our minds with their rhetoric and
scare us back into our corners with our tails betweein our legs. We need
to develop the resolve stay on the trail and keep them on the run.
Eventually they'll have to go to ground or face the hounds of Liberty.
As I’ve written before I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything, but he’s the only one I see who will at least attempt a real effort to get the Federal beast back in its cage. This will ultimately require more than a single lion tamer, especially if our enemies are as determined as many think.
This does seem rather appropriate:
Anyone know what the blonde bimbo is actually saying? (The one at the beginning and the end.)
So what is really important according to CPAC attendees?
Or what is important enough to those committed or financially able to drive to the District of Commie criminals and stay a couple days...? Looks like they omitted a lot of things.
MSNBC seems to have posted the entire poll here.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms
to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their
future security." -
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America,
Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776
(To the Founders, 'state' meant independent sovereign nation state,
that was voluntarily entering into the union and could theoretically un-volunteer later.)
Willowtown Blog Front Page
It's time to bring back the old
saying: "Better dead than red."
Only we need to apply it to Amerika's reds.