I found myself defending Ron Paul on some Comments threads yesterday, which prompted me to go back and re-read some of his Farewell Speech to the House of Representatives on the occasion of his retirement from that dishonored body. But more on that latter matter in a moment. First, the comments.
They opined as a post to a blog entitled 'Ron Paul Calls On UN To Confiscate Website Of His Supporters' at Patriot Update, posted the same day (Feb. 11). Some of that give-and-take:
NavWorks Press3 hours ago
No public figure should have to buy their own name back for a web presence. If that were the case, then countless thousands of people would buy names up just to sell them back to celebrities and others when they got well known or famous.
The owners of his name ought to reach an easy deal, such as pay for a new name for us, like RonPaulSupporters.com or something and then just give him the name.
That's completely reasonable so that they are not out anything.
And Ron, don't become a cranky, bitter old man. You had great impact on America and changed much in the political process and impacted this year's election so much that the GOP establishmentarians and RINOs had to steal your delegates by last minute rule changes that showed them out to be the idiots they are. Many who supported the GOP, myself included, thought this was a crass and vile move, and it also was a power-grab that stripped power from the grassroots people in the party and put it more squarely in the hands of the corrupt and lying politicians.
Be proud of your accomplishments and know that history will look kindly upon you if you continue to be a gracious statesman and work hard to support others, like your son, who have a real chance to bring more lasting change.
Thanks.
Reply
+1
|
germeten3 hours ago
No, this is actually quite predictable behaviour on part of libertarianism, which first and foremost, if anyone has ever noticed, is about making money, and opportunism, under cover of the "Constitution." It's how "capitalism" works, in its most gross sort of way. Besides it has Ron Paul's name, which he'd like to protect, and probably wishes he started himself, had he the wit or time when he was a Congressman. It was a business management magazine editor who said: "From an economics point of view, taking what doesn't belong to you, is the cheapest way to go."
+1
|
  |
Stan StanfieldLess than a minute ago
I beg to differ, germeten. Libertarianism, "first and foremost," is about essential liberty from the oppressive state.
Not everybody's cup of tea, it is, at least, not a bad position to take.
It sure beats statism. As we have noticed, for too many years now.
Reply
0
|
 |
Keith Edwards3 hours ago
libertarian champion of the people or poseur? You decide....
Reply 2 replies
+2
|
 |
Ed Barton3 hours ago
I'll go with poseur. He's no champion of anything.
Reply 1 reply
+3
|
|
Stan StanfieldLess than a minute ago
You obviously haven't read his farewell address to the Congress, Ed. He's a champion of at least one thing:
individual liberty.
Reply
0
|
  |
noelle levesque3 hours ago
WHAT THE HELL!
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON WITH RON!
Reply 1 reply
+1
|
|
Ed Barton2 hours ago
Ron Paul is an old kook, that's what.
Reply
+2
|
 |
Jalina Stutte3 hours ago
Ron Paul has always been a bit loony but he is really gone over the deep end now. He didnt refuse his lucrative retirement from congress., he worked with Barney Frank and George Soros to cut our military and defense down to nil on july 2010. We have been fooled by this old man long enough, it's time to let him go to a retirement home and find a real patriot for America.
Reply 1 reply
+6
|
|
Stan StanfieldLess than a minute ago
Jalilna:
No. 1: If you had spent as many years serving in the Congress as Ron has, wouldn't YOU consider that your basic position to retire from?? A little fairness here, please.
No. 2: The Defense budget has been bloated beyond laughability for years. Any responsible Congressman would have taken a fat cleaver to that creature long ago. Sometimes the Right AND the Left get some things right.
And no, that budget was not cut down "to nil on July 2010". As Ron has said repeatedly: the U.S. shouldn't be charging around the world playing policeman. That's not only the game plan of the Neocons; that is precisely the sort of thing that did Rome in. Some people learn from history. Some don't.
No. 3: You will be hard put to find a better "real patriot for America" than Ron Paul has been. Or aren't you familiar with the founding principles of this country???
Reply
0
|
---
shaye4 hours ago
The problem is that Paul claims to be anti UN, and now wants them to illegally take the domains without any compensation to the owners of the domains, and he is srewing over his supporters!!!! WOW BOOOOO RON PAUL.
Reply 4 replies
+9
|
|
Stephen Heard4 hours ago
So true, that is rather ironic going to the un.
Reply
+5
|
|
Darfur Deng3 hours ago
Unfortunately he has NO CHOICE, the UN has been granted the power by ICANN to act as the sole arbiters in regards to domain name disputes.
Anyone who wishes to dispute a lawful claim to a domain name must go through the court established by the UN.
The question here is, why would anyone claiming to truly support Ron Paul seek to oppose him, unless of course they are somehow benefiting from the use of his name and position? They are the true phonies, and the frauds in this regard.
Reply 2 replies
+2
|
|
Ed Barton2 hours ago
Ronnie Paul is the phoney.
Reply 1 reply
+3
|
|
Stan StanfieldLess than a minute ago
Ed,
If you had done half as much as Ron Paul has done over these takeover years trying to get the country and its people back in alignment with its roots (in individual liberty and personal responsibility), you might have some cause to be mouthing off the way you have been on this thread.
Learn something from your elders, son.
|
---
…and Patriot Update again, this time a blog entitled 'Shame On You, Ron Paul' by David L. Goetsch - Feb. 11:
Stan StanfieldLess than a minute ago
David,
I can sympathize with your feelings on this matter. But will you give Ron Paul the benefit of hearing what he has to say in response to all the flak that he has been getting over this? As to precisely what he was trying to communicate?? And what he would say now, if he had it to do all over again???
Thank you.
---
This morning I went back to that speech he gave to his peers, on Nov. 15th. (I saw it at the time, and read it in slowed-down detail in the December issue of Whistleblower magazine, the monthly publication of the World Net Daily site.) Titled 'Ron Paul's Final Warning' and subtitled 'Unless America wakes up, its future is "corporatism and even fascism"', it is, in a word, a worthy read.
At one point, he says:
"Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required."
And on this matter, of the use of force, rises the corrosive matter of theft, to bankroll a welfare class, and institute that mentality; including in the fat cats of the society.
But as to the former 'class' first; and in a specific aspect of it. To wit: Why should a taxpayer be forced to give up part of his or her income in order for others to have children and raise a family on its pooled amount with others likewise held up? And especially when they may well not be able to afford to have a child or children of their own, and are being responsible citizens in not engaging in the same scam??
For scam it is. I imagine that TPTB went along with the Left's creation of a welfare class (and thereby a voting bloc) out of delight: that it would create some more workers as they grew up, to pay taxes into the federal coffers, so that the fat cats could continue to make easy-picking money out of the deal.
Far-fetched? But it's an MO; to say, to do this sort of thing in the same way that - according to a Rockefeller family member, in a private conversation that subsequently got leaked to the public* - TPTB bankrolled the feminist movement: in order to get some more of the citizenry paying into the tax pot, in order for their minions in the nation's Congress to spend that money on the likes of the military-industrial complex. (Remember that warning? From President Eisenhower, on the occasion of his leaving of his federal office???)
I wonder how many liberated women realize that they were done so in order to finance the war industry...
In any event: this is the sort of national world that has grown up, in spite of all the warnings that The People have been given, by "real patriots" like Ron Paul, and dating back to the very beginning, of this experiment in self-governance that has been the American experience.
It doesn't say much for that ability.
But I, for one, still believe in it.
For I believe in the innate ability of The People to find their way through the thickets that were inevitably to grow up in their way, on their way to seeing, and taking, the path that leads them Home again.
And that won't come about by their succumbing to the siren song of 'welfare', and its accompanying 'principle' of 'equality' - which means, in the hands of its knowing perpetrators, redistribution of wealth; since the creation of a welfare class was cynically engineered in order for that class to be used as a battering ram for the introduction of socialism, and even more governmental power over The People -
which was, and is, the goal of both the far Left AND the far Right; meeting, in the end, at the same point: at the top of the pyramid of power, in the control of the same Elite, with their master plan for domination of the world in their vaunted New World Order.
Don't let these, your erstwhile Masters, do that to you. To say: to use you, as cannon fodder, for the accomplishment of their ends. And then toss you aside, when you are no longer of use to them.
Become, instead, the eternal souls that you already are. In the service of your Source. And of yourself; as being a part of your Source.
Inheriting, now, your better nature. Not the one involved in deceit, and chicanery - and theft.
Been there. Done that. Don't need to do the same thing over and over and over again, in history; which, at its best, is to learn from.
It's time to get off that treadmill. And opt for something entirely New.
Break the bonds that have held Humanity down for so long.
And Soar.
Been there. Done that. Don't need to do the same thing over and over and over again, in history; which, at its best, is to learn from.
It's time to get off that treadmill. And opt for something entirely New.
Break the bonds that have held Humanity down for so long.
And Soar.
---
footnote:
* see Aaron Russo's 'From Freedom To Fascism'.
Don't just think about it. Do it.
---
P.S. Am I, like Ron Paul, a libertarian?? No. I don't go quite that far. I was rather surprised recently to hear Judge Napolitano - whose opinion on political matters I usually heartily endorse (to the point of shaking my fist in delight at the screen when he so well defends the Constitution and the rule of law) - on his appearance on the Jon Stewart Show come out for no borders. I didn't stay around on the video showing of that appearance long enough to find out what his reasoning is (I think it was just a snippet of his appearance anyway), and so I still owe him that. But within the current paradigm of human affairs, I support America having strong borders; or it will be boarded to the point of imbalance and overturn.
Precisely what the Left wants; to move the nation into a state of socialism. Precisely what I, as a good supporter of the Constitution and the rule of law and the American form of government, do not want.
Do not give them the satisfaction of seeing their corrupt 'best-laid plans' come to fruition.
There is a better outcome on the way.
In point of fact: it is already here.
We just have to claim it.
And thus, move beyond the old forms, into that New.
Only from, and for, the right reasons.
P.P.S. Oh - and the matter of the House of Representatives, and the Congress as a whole, having dishonored itself??
That has to do with its failure, since 2008, to do its constitutional duty, and call the man who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama on his ineligibility for the office of the presidency.
The Republican Party went along with this charade apparently on a quid pro quo basis: in order in the future to run their own illegal candidates for either the presidential or vice presidential offices; having found it just too difficult to get an amendment to the Constitution going through the Congress as a whole - in part, obviously, because that would make the matter a little too obvious to the public at large. Best just to slip an amendment through, without anyone noticing; or if they did, well, between us, we can just do a little smear-and-ridicule job on them, can't we, boyos, eh, wink wink, nudge nudge???
And just so - with the potential of such an old boys' network going in the halls of Congress - was the amending process to the law of the land made not so easy to accomplish: to make sure that any change to the Constitution was not 'for light and transient reasons'. Because The People could be too easily manipulated, otherwise, by demagogues.
Precisely the sort of characters that have grown up, in our day.
Prescient folk, those Founding Fathers, and specifically the Framers of the law of the land - of the nation that was built to last. As a constitutional republic.
Not the plaything of scoundrels.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment