Bob Parks: Last Word on Ron Paul and His ‘In Your Face’ Supporters

Ron Paul Mob Zombies

Mr. Parks nails it all in a nutshell with these two columns. Thanks Bob.

I know what you mean.

Last Word on Ron Paul
By Bob Parks (12/20/07)

While I agree with some of Mr. Paul’s positions, such as elimination of the Department of Education or the anchor baby magnet, there are some positions such as his belief that we should never intervene in the foreign crisis of others I find troubling. And let us not forget, that prior to Mr. Paul’s position on immigration, those who support him today called Republicans “racists” and “xenophobes” when we brought up those same points.

Many of those who support Mr. Paul are the first to align themselves with George Clooney et al on the humanitarian crisis that is Darfur. Should the United States decide to get involved and help the people there, it would involve a military mission, as those committing the atrocities wouldn’t just let us walk in and help out.

The very people who support Mr. Paul are always claiming to be the compassionate, specifically in their defense and support of Black people. I’ll never forget the late Peter Jennings’ numerous reports on the Rwanda refugee crisis and the urging for the US to help those poor people. The very people who support Mr. Paul, to this day, never criticize Bill Clinton for sending in our soldiers to aid in that crisis; a crisis in which we had no national security interests at all.

Those same people demanded we “do something” about the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, even though we had no national security interests there. But these people, under their newfound constitutionalism of Mr. Paul, would kick the people of Darfur to the curb. Or would they…?

Public pressure goes along with being the President of all people, not just Republicans, as Mr. Paul reminds us. Also, he’ll need the support of the members of the Congress and Senate to get his ideas implemented. That’s an ugly process. Will he take on the unions who support Democrats with the same zeal he attacks the war?

I also find it troubling that he takes the word of some like-minded, in some cases, short term former CIA agents who say that we are creating terrorists by our “occupation” in some Middle Eastern holy lands, while ignoring people like Frank Salvato and Dr. Daniel Pipes who document the intention of Islamo-fascists to kill everyone just because they’re not Muslim. There’s nothing in their rhetoric that says they’ll leave us alone if we removed every single base from foreign territories.

France and Spain pulled out of Iraq. What did they get as thanks? Bombings. Great Britain has reduced their presence in Iraq. What did they get as thanks? Bombings.

I’d personally have more respect (which is earned, not demanded) for Mr. Paul if he ran as a libertarian. Some of his views are not compatible with those of today, and if not for him, many that support Mr. Paul would be aiming all their slings and arrows at Republicans because, for the most part, they’re liberals.

What I’m looking forward to seeing is the vote count. Mr. Paul’s supporters dismiss the polls because he registers around 4%, but I’ll bet they’d be shouting from the mountaintops if he were in the mid-thirties. Depending on the state you live in, many of his supporters are going to have to do something they thought they’d burn in hell before doing: register as a Republican so they can vote for him. Whether or not that happens will be interesting to watch.

His supporters are passionate, but in some cases, are immature.

Getting in people’s face is not the way to endear people to your perspective. Most of the time, we hear calls for honest debate. But the intolerance for alternative views, taught and tolerated, in colleges today will not work in the street, or America’s dinner tables. Many people are put off from Mr. Paul more for the actions of his supporters who appear to be yesterday’s liberals. Excuse me for having suspicions when today they insist we vote Republican.

Politics is not a fad.

Mr. Paul has some good smaller government ideas, some of which will meet stiff resistance on Capitol Hill. What will the Paulies do, flood the congressional and senate offices with angry, pushy, insulting phone calls? I thought these were the same people who believed in diplomacy?

As a student of politics, there are too many weird marriages taking place within the Paul phenomenon. When liberals are willing to call themselves Republicans, for at least the short term, especially after all they’ve said about our party for the last decade, pardon me for throwing up a red flag.


I’ve been writing columns for a few years now, so I’ve had the opportunity to see patterns when they look me square in the face and, based on my recent encounters with Ron Paul supporters, patterns have begun to emerge.

When looking at pictures of Paul supporters you see young and old alike, but you also see the peace signs, the word “love” reversed in the word “revolution”. What one clearly sees is a bunch of disenfranchised liberals who assume they’ve found a welcoming new home.

They’ve clearly identified with the anti-war message of Dr. Paul. Obviously, these people feel betrayed by the Democrats with whom they voted for in 2006 after being promised an end to the Iraq War. Democrats clearly have been unable to make good on their many promises. While that’s not news to real Republicans, the anti-war left has been left dismayed, betrayed, and rudderless.

Dr. Paul has the attention of the anti-war crowd, thus he’s attracted them into his camp, as they won’t trust a Democrat, at least for the foreseeable future.

I say they “assume” they’ve found a new home because these are the same people who’ve over the last few years have loudly and proudly called conservatives every name in the book. They’ve called us “racists”, “homophobes”, “bigots”, “hate mongers”, “sexists”, and more. They’ve called me an “uncle tom”, “wannabe white”, and that’s from white liberals. Look at what they did to Dr. Condoleezza Rice, and were damn proud of it.

However, now they’ve found a “man of principle” who just happens to be a… Republican.

Just because they now find certain conservative principles acceptable, doesn’t make any of them the real deal, and like elephants, Republicans never forget.

Paul’s supporters claim to embrace his message of smaller government. However, these are the same people who demanded federally funded student loans and free health care for illegal aliens. These are the same people who always advocate some new program for the poor and disenfranchised. And now, just because they’ve found religion, we’re to just open the door, forget about the years of slanderous shout downs, and say, “Welcome home?”

When certain candidates or a party realizes they are hemorrhaging support, the first thing they ask is “How do we get them back?” I’ve heard no Democrat presidential candidate attempt to lure the Paulies back home. Maybe… just maybe, that’s because they don’t want them back.

After all, would any of us open the door to people who occupy our offices, infiltrate our meetings, protest us in front of your workplaces, throw paint on our war dead memorials, and shout us during presentations in which we were invited? And now they expect us to say, “Welcome to the Republican Party” just because they now demand we listen to them and their candidate?

You’re damn right; there are sour grapes and deep suspicions here. I don’t trust these people for a minute.

Neither do I Bob. The threats, intimidation and worse are just hallmarks of this bunch who literally worship Ron Paul as some sort of political messiah. One supporter posted on several blogs and forums that Ron Paul was the Second or Third Coming of Christ.

In the many emails I’ve received from the Paulies, I’ve been talked down to like a child, had my intelligence questioned, cursed at, and all because I committed the mortal sin of not mentioning their candidate by name in a column where I was taking Republican presidential candidates to my own personal woodshed.

Their emails are all about their feelings. It’s all about “me”, “me”, “me”, and damn anyone who won’t hear THEM out.

Someone has to ask what the real motive is here.

Should Paul get the nomination and bring his supporters into our party, what kind of changes will they demand to bring from within? Will they demand political correctness be instituted? Will they attempt to stifle speech they don’t authorize? Will they shout us down? In fact, all the traits most of these people seem to have on display are those the Democrat Party seems to have no problem jettisoning.

And they’re jettisoning them right into the Republican Party.

That’s my conspiracy theory. I don’t think I’m that far off.

Not at all Bob. You’re right on target.

The rabidness of these Mob Zombies and the threats of everything from violence, death, lawsuits and shut down has only steeled my resolve from simply not casting a vote for their messiah, to actively campaigning AGAINST him as vigorously (if not moreso) than I am Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Hillary’s people have not yet threatened me with death for daring to write any disparaging remarks about their candidate. Ron Paul’s people have. If I had to judge the fruits – Hillary’s people respect the right to free speech, and Ron Paul’s supporters, those who supposedly support the Constitution – do not.

Now THERE’S a twist of the surreal for you.


Filed under Politics

27 responses to “Bob Parks: Last Word on Ron Paul and His ‘In Your Face’ Supporters

  1. Chance

    Do you have any proof that a significant percent of his support come from “a bunch of disenfranchised liberals”? Any surveys, polls, or even strong anecdotal evidence?

  2. I’ve been a conservative for pretty much all of my life and have been a fan of Ron Paul’s for quite some time. The difference between him and so called “conservatives” who are in the race is he will address the core critical issues, and not just tell people what they want to hear concerning issues that are irrelevant in the long run. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the “frontrunners” of either party. Ron Paul is a true choice.

  3. Liz

    Unbelievable … I don’t come from the anti-war anything and I support Ron Paul. I’m not distrustworthy and I don’t use profanity and slam anyone. I love how I, and all Ron Paul supporters, lumped in with a very vocal few who act badly. Do you not think that a president who will listen and support the will of the people isn’t enough of a reason after the Bush, Clinton, Bush era? God forbid we have another Clinton! I believe that the reason alot are disenfranchised from their parties (whish I’ve refused to have in the first place ever) is because we’ve had almighty, power grabbing, war mongering, socialists. They’ve run on stances, gotten elected and then turned on exactly the platforms they ran on. Ron Paul is at least the most honest politician I’ve seen. Is he perfect? No but would he run the government the way it was intended? Yes. Would he follow through on what he says he believes? He’s already proven this with his track record. You take your opinion (which you are entitled to have, however erroneous it may be), and spread it all you want. It won’t stop those of us who love LIBERTY AND FREEDOM! That is why we follow Ron Paul.

  4. tnn

    Let me tell you why you’re wrong.

    Firstly, Ron Paul supporters are disenfranchised Reagan supporters ya dolt.

    Reagan was very clear about NO MORE soldiers dying in Vietnam when he campaigned for Goldwater – who’s son has endorsed Ron Paul. Reagan was very clear about NOT starting a war with Russia. He didn’t fly off the handle simply because Russia had WMDs. Reagan didn’t start nuking the Russians because of a “possibility” of a threat. Rather, he TALKED with Russia.

    Furthermore, Paul and Reagan agree(d) on a STRONG national defense without nation building and un-just war. What we are practicing is NOT just war.

    ON top of that, Ron Paul has NEVER said that he is against helping our allies. He has never said, as you imply, that we should”never intervene in the foreign crisis.” Ron Paul said, just a couple of days ago on the Glenn Beck show, that we COULD come to the aid of an ally, IF congress upheld the constitution and declared war. Ron Paul has said over and over again that he simply wants to return to the constitution. Until we do return to the constitution people like you will see to it that this nation is destroyed from within.

    According to Reagan, “there can be no peace as long as ONE soldier dies over there.” Reagan was the last president to understand the need to shrink government. Too bad the Neo-cons wouldn’t let him. Speaking of Neo-Cons: The term was coined by Irving Kristol – Bill Kristol’s father – who was a disenfranchised, self-proclaimed – Trotsky-ite (that’s communism for those of you who don’t know modern history).

    Every position Ron Paul has taken has been a constitutionalist position. Pretty soon America will be divided not by the false division of “left” and “right”, but by those who hold the constitution and those who do not. The globalists and the constitutionalists. The difference between the two, in terms of the general population, are those like me who actually spend many hours a week studying modern history, reading political theory and economics, and those of you who are informed by the opinions of talk show hosts and mainstream news media like CNN and Fox News. They may argue over how un-constitutional we should be, and how socialist we should be, but they agree that we should essentially remain socialist to one degree or another.

    Until we start talking about abolishing the federal reserve, the IRS, and 90% of the government, we will continue our trend towards tyranny.

    Wake up America! It’s getting really late.

  5. Desert Rat

    This is a hateful little rag of a blog.

  6. Jeff

    You’re right. It is all about my feelings as a Ron Paul supporter.

    I feel that WE THE PEOPLE should take back the responsibility and authority that is ours. I feel that WE THE PEOPLE have been slighted for far too long, and haven’t lived upto our responsibility to keep government in check. I feel that our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, is to be obeyed not just by us but by those whom WE choose to govern us. I feel violated by those whom we have entrusted to protect us, and by those who ought to be calling them to account instead of pandering for scraps from them.

    Yeah, it’s about my feelings alright.

  7. Jim McClarin

    It’s good to get another perspective of our campaign. It’s probably true that some of Dr. Paul’s support is fickle but for years Dr. Paul has yearned for some way to expose millions to the breadth and depth of his libertarian/paleoconservative philosophy so that they may grow in understanding of the greatness of the unique experiment in governance that our founders created, enshrined in the Constitution. Now the campaign is providing that exposure and unquestionably many more Americans (and even those in other countries) will embrace the concepts of liberty by the end of his campaign than at its beginning.

  8. Steve

    As Franklin Roosevelt used to say when presented with a convoluted scheme whose underpinnings were far from self-evident, “That all sounds very theoretical to me.”

    I presume, Bob, you found the grassroots support for Eugene McCarthy — who never won the nomination of the Democrats but who catalyzed a sea change in the direction of the country — equally shallow. Of course McCarthy also had an active military draft galvanizing his support, while Rep. Paul has none.

    Perhaps some of his secret is reflected in the popularity of the Congressman in his own district where, when the Democrats even can find a sacrificial lamb to run against him — they couldn’t in 2004 — Paul wins by 60+ percent margins. This from a 10-term Congressman who doesn’t bring pork back to his district.

    My view is that Paul’s appeal is in part his message but in the main his character, a politician who says what he means and means what he says, whether it happens to be the popular flavor of the moment or not. Of course he appeals to young people and his campaign contributions reflect what in stock market parlance would be termed the ‘retail trade’ of individuals, not the ‘institutional trade’ of special interests.

    This generation has never encountered such a politician on the national stage before. They didn’t know it was possible for someone to actually stand for something, not merely cynically spout platitudes while weaving webs behind the scene.

    But that explanation rooted in honesty and personal integrity is probably too simplistic since the one part of the universe where Occam’s Razor evidently doesn’t apply is politics.


    I’m GOP faithful….and there are many others like me here in NH where GOP means something other than false war-mongering patriotism, while we give up sovereignty to the NAU.

    Get a clue will you?

  10. John Howard

    It is growing stale and tiresome to keep reading that Ron Paul’s supporters are this or that.

    1) It is irrelevant to Ron Paul’s message. He has no control over his supporters and it is absurd to keep pretending that he is responsible for their choices.

    2) It is a lie. His supporters are no more rude or obnoxious than his detractors.

    3) They are merely more numerous.

    4) And since his positions can’t be honestly refuted, his supporters must be dishonestly attacked.

  11. EA

    All three of the top Democrats running have said that there is no way they could or would pull the troops out of Iraq until their second term in 2013. That is insane…

    It is not only Iraq though. Paul wants to pull troops out across the world.

    The U.S. population is only 1/25 of the world’s population, yet we spend 80% of the entire world’s military budget.

    We have troops in 130 different countries!


    We still have 50,000 troops in Japan! 40,000 troops in Korea! 75,000 + in Germany! This is insanity and it is bankrupting America!

    Down with the military-industrial complex!

    Go Ron Paul!

    Champion of the Constitution!

  12. chris lawton

    Ron Paul vs. The Philosophically Bankrupt

    After reading the name-calling and other non sequiturs from the anti-Ron Paul crowd, I am of the view that their hostility arises less from his opposition to war, or the direction American foreign policy has taken for decades, or any of the other specific programs he has criticized. What troubles them the most is that Paul has a philosophically-principled integrity in what he advocates and that, to challenge him, one must be prepared to deal with him at that higher level.

    But modern political discourse long ago gave up on principles, in favor of the pursuit of power as a sufficient end. There is an intellectual bankruptcy exhibited by writers and speakers on the political “left,” “right,” or “middle.” Competing ideas and values that once engaged the minds of thoughtful men and women have given way to little more than pronouncements on behalf of narrowly-defined political programs; the validity of a proposition no longer depends upon reasoned analysis, but upon the outcome of public opinion polls.

    Ron Paul’s campaign interjects an energized, principled inquiry into the political realm, an undertaking for which men and women with no philosophic center or rigorous minds find themselves woefully ill-prepared.

    Looks like you’re running the plays directly from the “The Official Media Guide to Attacking Ron Paul”

  13. rhys

    I voted for Bush twice. The first time, because he was for tax cuts, which he pushed through, and a humble foreign policy devoid of nation building. I voted for him a second time because, even though I thought the War was wrong, I thought it irresponsible to switch Commander in Chief mid stream.

    We have won the War against Iraq, we need tax relief, and we must cut spending. The current Republic contenders that fail to see these three obvious facts are not conservative. It is the Repulican leaders that are the liberals not the supporters of Paul.

  14. Aw, cmon you guys… let up on him. After all, it must be hard being told hundreds of times a day that you’re wrong. Of course, Bob you could always try using logos and ethos in your arguments instead of just pathos – I’m sure RP supporters would flock to your banner then. Honor, honesty and principle – that’s why people love Ron Paul. Who would ever think we’d find that in a politician?

  15. Keep thinking that the American public would respond with increased generosity if it was aware of its citizen complicity in the early CIA fostering of rebelious war in Southern Sudan after oil was discoved there. (my article IS on the ‘Operation Sudan of SaveDafur” web site)

    “Early CIA Involvement in Darfur Has Gone Unreported” HistoryNewsNetwork

    I once worked on a documentary for an anniversary of the African Development Bank and although never was in Darfur, I was close enough to the Sudan border in Ethiopian and Kenya and have a spot in my heart for the magnificent people of this region. I just knocked out this article when I remembered, (I’m well into my 70s) of U.S. backing the rebels was never being factored in.
    By the way, I wonder and ask you as someone more conversant on the Sudan than I, whether or not the U.S. is still actively supporting the rebellion{s}, either materially or diplomatically, either openly or secretly. sentimentally, morally and/or spiritually.?
    Appreciativly in advance should you have time to read my article below and comment,
    Jay Janson

    While there is great sorrow and indignation over the suffering and loss of life in the Sudan, early U.S. involvement in the war goes unmentioned. Instead, the U.S. leads an effort to condemn China for buying Sudan’s oil. For years the U.S. had paid for war in hopes to arrange for some eventual control of the oil discovered in Darfur, (all well once well reported in the New York Times). The human crises receives modest financial aid from a U.S. government, silently protected from any embarrassment of acknowledging a prime complicity in fomenting war in Darfur.

    HistoryNewNetwork, George Mason University republished the folloing from:

    “Early CIA Involvement in Darfur Has Gone Unreported” HNN Darfur

    republished as well by Global Research, Operation Sudan of SaveDafur, UK IndyMedia, Ethiopian News, FreeThoughtManifesto, Islamic Forum, Countercurrents, Nicholas D. Kristof, Schema-Root news, jcturner23’s reviews, NewsTrust,News Search Tracker, alfatomega, Newsvine, Digg, Netscape, Boreal Access, Newswire, Tailrank, Congo Music News, Zaire,, Darfur News from Google, and sundry other sites from the original in OpEdNews, January 23, 2007

    There has been a glaring omission in the U.S. media presentation of the Darfur tragedy. The compassion demonstrated, mostly in words, until recently, has not been accompanied by a recognition of U.S. complicity, or at least involvement, in the war which has led to the enormous suffering and loss of life that has been taking place in Darfur for many years.

    In 1978 oil was discovered in Southern Sudan. Rebellious war began five years later and was led by John Garang, who had taken military training at infamous Fort Benning, Georgia. “The US government decided, in 1996, to send nearly $20 million of military equipment through the ‘front-line’ states of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda to help the Sudanese opposition overthrow the Khartoum regime.” [Federation of American Scientists]

    Between 1983 and the peace agreement signed in January 2005, Sudan’s civil war took nearly two million lives and left millions more displaced. Garang became a First Vice President of Sudan as part of the peace agreement in 2005. From 1983, “war and famine-related effects resulted in more than 4 million people displaced and, according to rebel estimates, more than 2 million deaths over a period of two decades.”
    [CIA Fact Book -entry Sudan]

    The BBC obituary of John Garang, who died in a plane crash shortly afterward, describes him as having “varied from Marxism to drawing support from Christian fundamentalists in the US.” “There was always confusion on central issues such as whether the Sudan People’s Liberation Army was fighting for independence for southern Sudan or merely more autonomy. Friends and foes alike found the SPLA’s human rights record in southern Sudan and Mr Garang’s style of governance disturbing.” Gill Lusk – deputy editor of Africa Confidential and a Sudan specialist who interviewed the ex-guerrilla leader several times over the years was quoted by BBC, “John Garang did not tolerate dissent and anyone who disagreed with him was either imprisoned or killed.”

    CIA use of tough guys like Garang in Sudan, Savimbi in Angola, Mobutu in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), had been reported, even in mass media, though certainly not featured or criticized, but presently, this is of course buried away from public awareness and meant to be forgotten, as commercial media focuses on presenting the U.S. wars of today in a heroic light. It has traditionally been the chore of progressive, alternate and independent journalism to see that their deathly deeds supported by U.S. citizens tax dollars are not forgotten, ultimately not accepted and past Congresses and Presidents held responsible, even in retrospect, when not in real time.

    Oil and business interests remain paramount and although Sudan is on the U.S. Government’s state sponsors of terrorism list, the United States alternately praises its cooperation in tracking suspect individuals or scolds about the Janjaweed in Darfur. National Public Radio on May 2, 2005 had Los Angeles Times writer Ken Silverstein talk about his article “highlighting strong ties between the U.S. and Sudanese intelligence services, despite the Bush administration’s criticism of human-rights violation in the Sudan.” Title was “Sudan, CIA Forge Close Ties, Despite Rights Abuses.” Nicholas Kristof, of The New York Times, won a 2006 Pulitzer Prize for “his having alerted this nation and the world to these massive crimes against humanity. He made six dangerous trips to Darfur to report names and faces of victims of the genocide for which President Bush had long before indicted the government of Sudan to the world’s indifference.” [Reuters] But last November saw the opening of a new U.S. consulate in Juba the capital of the Southern region. (Maybe consider this an example of “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em!” especially where oil is involved.)

    The point is there is human suffering at mammoth level proportions. Humanitarian activists are trying to pry open the purse strings of an administration and congress willing to spend billions upon billions to get people killed and keep them in their place, namely, at our feet. Reminding Congress of what needs to be atoned for because of past policies of supporting war and human destruction could eventually make present policies of war intolerable. Americans are presently not exactly conscious stricken about dead and maimed Iraqis and Afghans, for commercial media always keeps of most of the human particulars of war crimes modestly out of sight, dramatizing much lesser losses and suffering of American military personal abroad.

    Darfur made the headlines again because a governor of presidential timber was building up his foreign policy credentials. Meanwhile we are going to continue to see newsreels of our mass media depressing us with scenes of starving children, basically as testimony of how evil another Islamic nation’s government is, so we can feel good – and want to purchase the products needing the advertising – which pays for the entertainment/news programs – which keep viewers in the dark about THEIR contribution to the suffering brought upon those people all the way over there in Africa.

    Just try to put 4 and 2 million of anything into perspective. We are talking about an equivalent to the sets of eyes of half the population of Manhattan. Imagine one of us, whether a precious child ,a handsome man, a beautiful women, – to the tune of, (dirge of), one times four million, half of us dead. Sorry! It has no impact right? We realize that, remembering the words of Joseph Stalin (of all people), “One man’s death is a tragedy, a thousand, is a statistic.” There is absolutely no way we can whip up enough anguish to match a total of four million displaced and two million dead Sudanese, unless we could be of a mind and heart with Martin Luther King dealing with three million dead Vietnamese, also as in this case, over on the other side of the world, far from our living rooms – “So it is that those of us who are yet determined that “America will be” are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.” (MLK, 1967, “Beyond Vietnam”)

    This writer remembers reading newspapers articles about the U.S. backing the Southern Sudan rebellion way back then. If we had supported a side that wound up winning, we would be bragging about our having supported ‘freedom fighters’. But we just threw a lot of money and outdated weapons at a John Garang in the Sudan, as we did with Jonas Savimbi in Angola, to the ultimate destruction of millions of people, and they LOST! Like we did in Vietnam, and half-way lost in Korea, and now are mid-way losing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Jesus! Calculating the chances of an investment in human life and money coming to a fruition of sorts – that is certainly the job of any intelligence gathering agency! What we have had is an Agency using its gathered intelligence to do unintelligent things because, as our Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote more than a hundred and twenty-five years ago, “Things are in the saddle and ride herd over men” (trampling others under foot, we might add)

    The European Union is under pressure from inside to assure that a United Nations force of 20,000 men will be sent to Darfur as required by Security Council resolution 1706, and to threaten sanctions in order to halt a war the U.S. was originally interested to see begun.

    The U.N. Security Council will receive a list from the International Criminal Court of those Sudanese officials who could be charged with war crimes. The list is expected include some members of rebel organizations among Sudanese government officials and Janjaweed militias. There assuredly will be no names on the list of non-Sudanese officials of nations which were known to have involved themselves in this Sudanese civil war contrary to accepted provisions and obligations of U.N. membership. But we can know that the responsibility for war, slaughter, rape and theft in Sudan extends beyond the leaders of those murderously wielding guns and swords.

    It will be good if outside influence will now be focused on peace, but citizens best be vigilant of their nation’s foreign policy intentions. The world has heard many protestations that oil is not a reason for war, but blood and oil has been known to mix.
    ————————– end of article——————-

    That now the U.S. use its economic power humanely, to promote peace in the Sudan and give generously to help war victims.

    in brotherhood,
    Jay Janson

    Published on 5 Jul 2004 by Zaman Daily. Archived on 5 Jul 2004.
    Oil Underlies Darfur Tragedy
    by Cumali Onal

    The fighting in Sudan’s Darfur region, which is being reported in the world press as ‘ethnic cleansing’ and a ‘humanitarian crisis’, reportedly stems from attempts to gain control over the oil resources in the region, claim Arab sources.

    These Arab sources find it interesting that such skirmishes occurred when a peace agreement that would have brought an end to 21 years of north-south conflict was about to be signed. The sources point out that oil fields have recently been discovered in Darfur.

  16. Freedom2Learn

    A most Pathetic article; most disgusting because obviously Mr. Parks doesn’t really know to Dr. Paul’s position, nor has he gotten to know the good doctor. Ron Paul has delivered babies for FREE because sometimes they could not pay. He is an example. Why can’t you see the entire picture mr. parks? Agenda to peruse?

  17. L. Step

    I’m a Korean War (“Police Action”) veteran. I resent being insulted for my choice of Ron Paul as a Presidential candidate. Your vicious labeling of a political candidate and those who would vote for him is something that only a fascist would find acceptable. Yes, it is indeed well past time for you to have your “last word”. It is now time to shut up.

  18. Those who can, do; those who can’t, criticize.

  19. John Howard

    Desert Rat writes:

    “This is a hateful little rag of a blog.”

    Wish I’d said that.

  20. Stitchsaves9

    sword at the ready,

    I don’t trust Ron Paul.
    Ron Paul is a Kook.
    It’s the company he keeps.
    Birds of a feather stick together.
    The desperate are seeking a messiah.
    Almost how Hitler got into power?

    I love your spoof pictures of Ron Paul.
    You lift my spirits…..I’m not the only one who feel that Ron Paul is a Kook.

    Keep up the good work ….brave the shout downs.

  21. invar

    I resent being insulted for my choice of Ron Paul as a Presidential candidate.

    You are not being insulted personally. I have dear freinds that are RP supporters who do not fit the mold of the Mob Zombie Brownshirts I’m describing here.

    However, like the “moderate Muslims” who do not disassociate or condemn the actions of Jihadists, the loud and vocal fringe kook Mob Zombies are painting your entire campaign in their colors – and many of us are beginning to see your entire campaign being steered by your kook messiah/anarchist/ brigades.

    Your vicious labeling of a political candidate and those who would vote for him is something that only a fascist would find acceptable.

    Are you brand new to American politics or what?

    Viciousness in politics is par for the course. The fact you people think Ron Paul should be immune from criticism, disagreement and scorn speaks volumes to the “holiness” you want to impart to him – and that is far more dangerous in my estimation than the kind of smear tactics Hillary is flinging at Obama.

    Yes, it is indeed well past time for you to have your “last word”. It is now time to shut up.

    So WHO exactly is the fascist here? No one is telling YOU or the Ron Paul people or his Zombies to “shut up”.

    Like I said before, it is the height of hilarity that those of you who say you want to return to the Constitution, are the first ones demanding freedom of speech be limited and restricted.

    Therefore, you disqualify your entire platform and candidate. You are NOT interested in restoring the Constitution, you are only interested in getting your messiah elected to high office to stop the war and SELECTIVELY apply the Constitution to individuals or groups you approve of.

    That is a reason I refer to your mob as both Zombies and Brownshirts.

  22. Garion

    I am very liberal and I guess I am a now a racist too – I don’t like Ron Paul supporters but I do support Ron Paul’s platform. I don’t believe he will win but I like that these ideas are being discussed. Ron Paul is a veteran and a doctor and I think its rude to call him a kook, it shows little class.

  23. invar

    I am very liberal and I guess I am a now a racist too – I don’t like Ron Paul supporters but I do support Ron Paul’s platform.

    His anti-war Isolationism, or his desire to gut nanny-state welfare and big government that liberals support?

    I betcha I can guess which.

    And the Mob Zombies say there’s no way supports Ron Paul.

    Here’s your first clue.

  24. invar, do you know the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism? Maybe you should go look that up before trying to communicate.

    Ron Paul is pro-trade and pro-friendly toward the people in the rest of the world. He just doesn’t want to kill them, that’s all. He’s one of those “Free to Be You and Me” people, which is probably the ONLY thing he has in common with the touchy-feely Liberals (like moi).

    Not to say he’d never take us into war. He would follow the Constitution and let Congress (who is supposed to represent US, BTW) declare it first. It’s our children dying for these causes, so WE need to be the one driving the bus, not some Unitary Executive and his evil flying monkeys.

    Imperialism is expensive and in the long run ineffective, plus it’s just plain mean and unChristian to boot. How so-called “Christians” can be in favor of our worldwide Inquisition/takeover/enslavement is so beyond me, I just don’t get it. I suppose it’s a good thing that I don’t get it, ’cause it means I don’t think that way. Whew. Thanks be to God.

  25. invar

    invar, do you know the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism?

    I’ve studied Ron Paul’s record and statements regarding foreign policy going back to when he opposed every step of Reagan’s checkmate of the Soviet Union.

    Ron Paul, despite what he says about himself and how he thinks he can redefine what it means to be a Conservative, his statements and voting record reveal he is nothing more than an Isolation-Pacifist in the strictest terms.

    You might call a chocolate covered dog poop on a stick a popscicle, but it’s still dog poop.

    You might try and call Ron Paul’s foreign policy “non-interventionism”, but it’s still Isolationism – no matter how you try to parse and redefine it.

    Shutting down every U.S. Base overseas, and pulling out of every single treaty and alliance from the UN to NAFTA is an Isolationist’s dream. Put in Ron Paul’s Blame America Firstism – and you have a clueless pacifist espousing head-in-the-sand Isoltionism and calling it ‘non-interventionism’ in the face of real aggression.

    Ron Paul is a raving lunatic. His spew yesterday in calling the organizers of a cancelled debate “propagandists for war” and calling their Conservatism into question reveals an unstable paranoid maniac ala Ross Perot vying for the Presidency.

    Ron Paul is pro-trade and pro-friendly toward the people in the rest of the world.

    Only to our avowed enemies.

    That makes him a Traitor in my estimation, especially when the first words out of his mouth are to blame America for anything that happens on the globe – even if it was clearly Jihadists.

    He’s one of those “Free to Be You and Me” people

    I don’t want a guy who equivocates a a bong mindset and sings Kumbahyah heading the free world.

    Not to say he’d never take us into war. He would follow the Constitution

    He follows his own insipid interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to declaring war.

    He’s a stark-raving mad pacifist – who would no more ask for a declaration of war than Ghandi would, and he’d offer both your cheeks to Jihadists for extermination after they slapped one in his twisted view of foreign policy.

    If they nuked NY he’d offer them LA and think he was a good and moral person, despite the millions dead by his idiocy.

    It’s our children dying for these causes

    Better us making our enemies die for their cause of warring on us, than us dying because we refused to stop them when we had a chance.

    Imperialism is expensive and in the long run ineffective

    Okay Fidel.

    plus it’s just plain mean and unChristian to boot

    Yeah, I’m sure it was Satan inspiring the Colonists to pick up arms against the lawful, legal authority of the British Crown wasn’t it?

    If after 9-11, you twerps want to continue to blame your countrymen for ‘causing’ Jihadists to be mad at us, and state it is ‘unchristian’ to war on those already at war with us, then there’s no point talking with a walking dhimmi. In which case it makes perfect sense why you support an Isolation-Pacifist for President.

  26. Great post. You may be interested in this too:

  27. To live alone one must be a beast or a god, says Aristotle. Leaving out the third case: one must be both–a philosopher.FriedrichWilhelmNietzscheFriedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

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 )

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