Posted by igmar graf on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:04 | #

Ron Paul understands the complexcity of the worlds problems far better than any other candidate. Unfortuatly the common voter cannot comprehend what he is about.Ron Paul might have some views that don’t match yours,but he would never impose his views onto others unless it endangers the freedom of the individual and that of the society.He makes me want to be a better person and believe me i never idolize a person .

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:30 | #

I agree that was a very important, informative interview.  I was going to post something in the other thread for the purpose of drawing further attention to it after Marge O’Brien let us know it existed (thank you so much, Marge!), when I saw just now it had been made the subject of a log entry.  Excellent choice, James! 

On immigration:  again, Ron Paul doesn’t dazzle us with the stands he takes on immigration and H1-B.  In fact, in our eyes he very disappointingly falls somewhat flat where those are concerned.  But we’re the guys from MajorityRights.com don’t forget — it’ll take someone pretty extraordinary to dazzle us!  A candidate who sees it the way we do, says so, and is politically viable isn’t going to come down the pike every week or ten days, let us say.  At this stage of the game that kind of candidate is going to remain a rare bird, one we can hope to see maybe once in our lifetimes if we’re lucky. 

So perhaps we shouldn’t turn up our noses at second best, especially when 1) time’s running short, to say the least, and 2) second best is better than any other candidate out there whether Republican or Democrat, far better, with two exceptions:  Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, both of whom are better than Ron Paul on immigration but have nowhere near his potential for actually either winning or coming so close that even in losing to be able to influence things, perhaps by getting a GOP policy plank changed or himself or one of his men appointed to a cabinet post or something. 

I like Tancredo and Hunter better than Paul, and it’s a certainty that, were Paul not in the race, Tancredo would be doing far better, would be the man to back for our side, and might even have some winning potential, objectively speaking (Paul is siphoning off support Tancredo would get).  In fact, for that reason I almost wish Paul weren’t in the race — it would give the Tancredo forces, who’ve been quietly organizing for this for almost a decade and whom I like better because more zeroed-in on immigration, a chance to really test the waters in regard to an explicit immigration-sanity position (a position Tancredo, all four of whose grandparents immigrated from Italy, would be better suited to take than the Anglo-Saxon Ron Paul because an Italian is less vulnerable to the inevitable Jewish-launched “racism” slurs — Jews, who sling these charges the most, paradoxically being among the planet’s worst “racists,” incidentally ... “Go figure!,” as the Jews say ...).

But Paul is in the race and we have to play the hand we’re dealt and, in matters electoral, go where the potential votes are unless the man in question is flatly unacceptable which, despite his very luke-warm showings on immigration, Paul is not, not by a long shot.  Quite the contrary:  1) the explicit positions Paul would take on immigration would add up to far better than we’d get from any other major GOP (or Dem, needless to add) candidate, and 2) the positions Paul would take on matters having indirect impact on immigration and race-replacement, impact immensely beneficial for our side, are completely absent in all other candidates — positions on matters such as the current systematic redistribution of wealth from whites to non-whites both native-born and immigrant; fiscal, financial, and tax policies deliberately designed to force white birth rates down below replacement level; abortion policies ditto; all manner of anti-liberty restrictions on freedom of association and related freedoms, restrictions deliberately designed to force race-mixing on an unwilling white population; and many others. 

The way these bear on race-replacement should be clear, as it is precisely these that are race-replacing us, not Negroes, Mestizos, Chinamen, or Subcons themselves.  Left to themselves, they can’t.  It’s our government doing it (if you can call Jewish overlords “our” government in any sense of the word “our”), forcing these unlike peoples on us through such means and when I say “forcing” I mean exactly that and brutally so, as those whites who’ve resisted have learned the hard way. 

Negroes, Mestizos, Chinamen, and Subcons can’t race-replace us if we’re free (which is why JJR was actually on our side:  he would free us), free to exercise unrestricted choice in selling or renting, in whom to allow to move into our neighborhoods, unrestricted choice in hiring and promoting, admission to our clubs and private associations, admission to schools and universities, choice in whom to make eligible for welfare benefits, drivers’ licenses and voting privileges, and so forth:  the Jews can pry open the immigration doors all they want but if the immigrants can’t settle, work, earn, rent, find leisure, vote, or earn they can’t race-replace us.  They won’t be able to stay but will return home.  No more will come after them, as these first will spread the word back home that they can’t make a go of it here. 

That is why the Jews have seen to it that prying open the immigration doors is only one facet of this multifaceted campaign to cleanse the land of Euros so the Jews can have it:  the other facets include all these replacement-guaranteeing laws, rules, and directives without which replacement couldn’t go to completion no matter how much mystery meat the Jews brought in for the purpose.   

Any candidate has to be looked at as the representative of a coalition.  Ron Paul is no exception.  He appeals to lots of libertarians for reasons that don’t interest me.  But for our purposes he’s good-to-excellent and should be supported to the hilt.  When you consider viability (the guarantor whereof is precisely his appeal to a broader coalition) he’s the best we can hope for at the present juncture.  In fact, he’s damn good.

Posted by onetwothree on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:57 | #

Paul has tremedous, almost strangely fanatic, support from wildly disparate people. A lot of this comes from young liberals who either 1) Don’t understand *modern* liberalism or 2) Want him to be a spoiler.

Tancredo is great on immigration and a disaster on everything else. For what it’s worth, Paul seems to have to whole package, including a mildness that won’t remind *anybody* that the guy is fully intent on bringing down the federal government.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:26 | #

While I agree that a consequence of a Ron Paul presidency would be to bring down the Federal government, I don’t believe that he differs in that respect from a Hillary Clinton presidency except in the pathway.  Ron Paul really is the best hope for the Federal government for the same reasons he cites that he is the best hope for social programs like Social Security, Medicare, etc.:  The imperial ambitions of USrael must be abandoned for the Federal government to be solvent and he’s the only candidate other than Kucinich willing to stand up to the Jews.

However, as I can’t repeat enough, Machiavelli’s rule is the primary consequence (and cause) of a Ron Paul Presidency.

The only platform that could really save the Federal government at this point is an exceedingly unlikely combination of:

1) conversion to an net asset tax—> with subsistence asset exemption <—to remove capital welfare resulting from private sector economic rent seeking (NAT rate equal to modern portfolio theory’s risk free interest rate, and assessment at liquidation/collateral value)
2) a citizen’s dividend (ala Charles Murray’s book “In Our Hands”) to remove public choice economic rent seeking
3) eminent domain support of forced expulsions of incompatible minorities (religious, ethnic, racial, etc.) from areas where they have invaded under support of Federal “laws” like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
4) adjustable State boundaries so that their territories can adapt to changing of populations resulting from the above assortative migrations.

This is not going to happen unless there is violence and a lot of it—so entrenched are the minority rent-seekers in both the public and private domains.

Posted by Amalek on Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:54 | #

“Ron Paul understands the complexity of the worlds problems far better than any other candidate. Unfortuatly the common voter cannot comprehend what he is about.”

But they can comprehend that Paul wants a prompt exit from Iraq and no more adventures, like two thirds of Americans; wants an immediate and serious clampdown in illegal immigration, like nine out of ten of them; and wants to bring home the troops and use them to defend America’s frontiers, which solves both burning problems in one go.

The mood in Middle America now is heavily for non-intervention, shutting out the peons and no creeping return to high taxes for welfare. It is trending Paul’s way: hence the surges of grassroots enthusiasm such as the one that raised almost $5m on November 5. Once again the tight-lipped near silence of the MSM tells you all you need to know. The puppeteers are getting very, very worried about Paul and what he represents.

Moreover, Paul is as close as you can find in Congress to a man of rigid principle and honour—unlike Giuliani or Hillary, to put it mildly—and many voters are seeking a man they can respect even if he doesn’t tick every damn box on their personal wish lists. They are sick of being urged to grit their teeth and vote for “electable” creeps as anointed by those same deceitful, flagging MSM high priests of what is “moderate”. Karl Rove and Jim Carville are over.

The question whether America is to surrender its status as a republic and become an empire, as Pat Buchanan once phrased it, is becoming soo urgent to put off in favour of catching “American Idol” or reading about Paris Hilton.

America heads for the most ignominious military defeat ever in Iraq, while it is overrun by the kind of people the globalist-crusading approach to foreign affairs requires it to allow to swarm into its own territory. The banks and homes of the country are at risk and the Chinese are in the wings ready to buy up the industrial infrastructure of the “homeland” for chump change.

Getting the small craft warnings out is what counts now. It would be pushing on a half-open door.

The sheeple are not totally brainless. They are already asking why. They are also asking why, more than six years after 9/11, the much touted “Terror” threat screeched by tbeir masters has not produced any more attacks on them.

Paul’s proposals for a fresh beginning are more free-market and libertarian than some, including Pat B and I, would wish to see fully implemented. But he is bang on the money in joining the dots between the growth of the oppressive, interfering state at home and the condition of perpetual war for oil, Israel and corporate profits abroad.

At this time, getting the diagnosis right is way more important than crossing every t and dotting every i of some white nationalist checklist. Another four or eight years of a globalist, warmongering, ZOG liberal such as Ghouliani or the Shrew may finish the Lincoln republic in a welter of bankruptcy.

That in turn might not be altogether a bad thing: it could lead to the dissolution of the post-1860 travesty of the original Union and its reordering on looser, racially stratified lines. Strong states’ rights would be underwritten by white flight and an incapacity for any more anti-constitutional crusading. But it would be a hell of a gamble. Better to start the counter-revolution here and now against the system that began to betray the Founders’ principles when TR got into the White House, and was made a lot worse by Wilson, FDR and LBJ.

Posted by LiberalLarry on Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:53 | #

Ron Paul’s presidency makes more sense, especially after that big oil discovery off the coast of Brazil. Now the U.S. doesn’t have to rely on terrorist oil and can get cleaner, Western style Oil.

Way to go Ron.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:50 | #

I don’t get Liberal Larry’s point:  the Tupi field off Brazil is expected to put that nation into the Nigeria class of oil exporters — which is great but it’s not going to significantly lessen the U.S.‘s dependence on Middle-Eastern production.  (That oil won’t come onstream for many years — it’s something like five miles deep, underneath miles of ocean water, rock, and salt layer, technically extremely difficult to extract.)  Furthermore, the reasons Ron Paul would like us to leave the Iraq quagmire aren’t anything to do with whether or not we can do without Middle-Eastern oil.  So I don’t see what Larry’s getting at there, exactly.

Incidentally, here‘s Ron Paul grilling Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, on inflationary Fed policies (click on the video screen at the upper right of the page that comes up).