[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Chabria: ICE arrested a California union leader. Does Trump understand what that means?Anita Chabria White House Staffer Responsible for ‘Fanning Flames’ Between Trump and Musk ID’d Texas Yanks Major Perk From Illegal Aliens - After Pioneering It 24 Years Ago Dozens detained during Los Angeles ICE raids Russian army suffers massive losses as Kremlin feigns interest in peace talks — ISW Russia’s Defense Collapse Exposed by Ukraine Strike I heard libs might block some streets. 🤣 Jimmy Dore: What’s Being Said On Israeli TV Will BLOW YOUR MIND! Tucker Carlson: Douglas Macgregor- Elites will be overthrown 🎵Breakin' rocks in the hot sun!🎵 Musk & Andreessen Predict A Robot Revolution Comedian sentenced to 8 years in prison for jokes — judge allegedly cites Wikipedia during conviction BBC report finds Gaza Humanitarian Foundation hesitant to answer questions DHS nabbed 1,500 illegal aliens in MA— The Day After: Trump 'Not Interested' In Talking As Musk Continues To Make Case Against BBB Biden Judge Issues Absurd Ruling Against Trump and Gives the Boulder Terrorist a Win Alan Dershowitz Pushing for Trump to Pardon Ghislaine Maxwell Signs Of The Tremendous Economic Suffering That Is Quickly Spreading All Around Us Joe Biden Used Autopen to Sign All Pardons During His Final Weeks In Office BREAKING NEWS: Kilmar Abrego Garcia Coming Back To U.S. For Criminal Prosecution, Report Says he BEST GEN X & Millennials Memes | Ep 79 - Nostalgia 60s 70s 80s #akornzstash Paul Joseph Watson They Did Something Horrific Romantic walk under Eiffel Tower in conquered Paris srael's Attorney General orders draft for 50,000 Haredim amid Knesset turmoil Elon Musk If America goes broke, nothing else matters US disabilities from BLS broke out to a new high in May adding 739k. "Discrimination in the name of 'diversity' is not only fundamental unjust, but it also violates federal law" Target Replaces Pride Displays With Stars and Stripes, Left Melts Down [WATCH] Look at what they are giving Covid Patients in other Countries Whole packs of holistic medicine Vitamins and Ivermectin SHOCKING Gaza Aid Thefts Involve Netanyahu Himself!

All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: Get Ready for a Major, Major Disappointment (Ron Paul's Built-In Loss)
Source: Meself
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 24, 2007
Author: Me, Me, Me
Post Date: 2007-12-24 10:19:48 by a vast rightwing conspirator
Keywords: None
Views: 7778
Comments: 264

Merry Xmas everyone and may your grandest wishes come true, for as long as they don't come into conflict with my own :). I haven't done a vanity in a long, long, long time but I felt that it's important to discuss the reality of where RP is currently heading.

Disclaimer: I stand for just about everything RP stands for. 'Just about' stands for his continuing membership in the stupid, evil, dangerous GOP party.

Now, on the topic of Ron Paul. I just watched a clip of him on the Tim Russert show where RP re-stated in the most forceful way that he has no intention whatsoever to run for US Prez outside of the GOP reservation. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that RP is really running for the GOP nomination and, of course, he is NOT going to get it. He is not even going to be a close third or fourth. In the end, you will find RP trailing Huckabee, McCain, Thompson, Giuliani and just about everyone else who stands for Bush, War and the fat State way because this is what the GOP membership is standing for these days.

I am fully aware of the 'hijacking' theory. Its exponents believe that, somehow, the RP activists are going to show up all 100% of them to vote in primaries and everyone else's supporters are going to stay home and we will see RP winning state after state after state. This is, of course, nonsense. Reality is coming on Jan 3, I believe, and Jan 2 will be the last time you are going to hear about the hijacking theory.

Then, I heard someone here stating that 'the 2 parties' are nothing but tools for whomever is seeking the presidency to get the presidency. This, my friends, is as naive as it gets. The parties are Mafia-like organizations whose aim is to seek, get and exercise political power for the benefit of the inner circles who own them and they as much a 'free' tool for the people the parties put forward for the voters to vote on as the Mafia is a tool for the Mafia bosses. The inner circle has no use for RP, he does not support the type of 'leadership' they are paying for.

Now, RP is going to lose. He took millions of dollars from supporters who refused to accept that he can NOT win the US presidency under the stinky and filthy flag of the GOP. He was asked repeatedly whether he would consider running as an independent, OPPOSING the 2 monstrous political Mafias and, every time he answered the question, the answer was a strong 'NO'.

THE FUTURE: the next US Prez is going to be Hillary, O'Bama, Giuliani, Romney or, maybe, Huckabee. Ron Paul will win ZERO primaries/caucuses and, if he is true to his words, he will get back to delivering babies and representing his Texas district. I suspect that RP is going to be very much at peace with himself but, what are his supporters going to feel about it? What are they going to do? They supported a campaign for the US presidency that was built from the ground up to lose the race - and they refused to see it because they liked the excitement. Are they going to be sad? Angry? What would be the consequences of RP's campaign? The main consequence that I see is that of legitimizing the 2-party system. RP is a saint among politicians. He says and does all the right things and, yet, he insists in staying inside the GOP party and he retreats when the GOP, as predicted and as expected, deals him a humiliating defeat in his attempt to represent the political Cosa Nostra - because he is not a made made and he is not from the families. However, staying as an 'unmade' member of the organization, he adds credibility to it. It would be something close to Jesus joining the Pharisees and seeking Caiafa's job.

I will be watching with interest how the RP fantasy gets itself crushed by the inevitable political reality. Just you all keep in mind that, while 'the media' and 'the corrupt politicians' can be blamed for RP's inability to win the GOP nomination, the main problem is RP's seeking the GOP nomination instead of running for the US presidency and seeking the support of the people, not the nod of the GOP party bosses.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 97.

#37. To: noone222 (#0)

your opinion?

christine  posted on  2007-12-24   17:57:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

your opinion?

I have yet to see a comparable political situation. Ron Paul has support from every quarter of society and the unique position of having a 20 year track record of excellence. He also has the internet communications network supplying more energy, contributing more dollars and converts than the competition.

Kennedy had the Catholic Church network with its publications, sermons, organizations, Bingo and millions of energetic supporters when he made his run, and I saw that as a child. There were posters everywhere, people in the streets talking about it, people attending conferences and meetings etc., similar to what appears to be happening with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is hated by his own party. He will have more problem getting nominated than he would have getting elected. I think the secret to his success lies in the nomination process. Get him nominated and he will be elected.

That's my 2 cents worth !

noone222  posted on  2007-12-25   11:29:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

He will have more problem getting nominated than he would have getting elected.

I have been preaching that for a long time but to no avail. Glad you share the view.

Cynicom  posted on  2007-12-25   11:34:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

What can we do to help get him nominated?

buckeye  posted on  2007-12-25   11:43:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

What can we do to help get him nominated?

Glad you asked.

Money is always the prime need but it alone will not accomplish the job.

It takes thinking and doing, big and small, by many people, such as the money bombs and the blimp and the 4um ad. Waiting for someone else to do it has gotten this country into this mess.

Cynicom  posted on  2007-12-25   12:00:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The MSM will not get the message out, and advertisements can only do so much. Some people will google Ron Paul and learn what he stands for, but many more will have to be reached one-on-one. Discuss him with family, friends, co-workers, associates. Show how he has credible arguments for

eliminating the income tax,
bringing the troops home -- discuss how many countries we have troops posted in --
discuss that there is a credible economic answer to the inflation of $3-4/gas and $4-5/milk and $4 hamburger.

People will start to look and think for themselves.

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2007-12-25   12:26:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

In that vein, I asked a friend if he could support Ron Paul. His answer... "I am a democrat".

Cynicom  posted on  2007-12-25   12:38:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Democrats are going to have to face the facts: do they want to war to end, or do they want Fed-funded welfare. They can have welfare a little longer under Ron Paul, but he'll lead us away from both war and socialism. I wish I could teach them what I know: a big federal welfare state requires an empire to pay for its excesses. They can't be unlinked.

buckeye  posted on  2007-12-25   12:46:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The overwhelming advantage to genuine Constitutional Government is that it isn't biased in favor of anyone or any group. I think Ron Paul already enjoys a good deal of "democrat" support.

This country hasn't had an open, honest leader in a hundred years or more. It's time we did.

noone222  posted on  2007-12-25   12:53:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This country hasn't had an open, honest leader in a hundred years or more. It's time we did.

You would have loved Rutherford B. Hayes. No, I was not olde enough to vote for him.

Hayes promised two things, he would serve one term and go away and there would be no corruption. He delivered on both.

His wife promised no booze in the Whitehouse and she delivered on that.

Cynicom  posted on  2007-12-25   13:07:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

According to President Rutherford Hayes, who issued no formally designated “executive orders”:

The executive power is large because not defined in the Constitution. The real test has never come, because the Presidents have down to the present been conservative, or what might be called conscientious men, and have kept within limited range. And there is an unwritten law of usage that has come to regulate an average administration. But if a Napoleon ever became President, he could make the executive almost what he wished to make it. The war power of President Lincoln went to lengths which could scarcely be surpassed in despotic principle.

cited in Executive Orders and National Emergencies: How Presidents Have Come to "Run the Country" by Usurping Legislative Power

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2007-12-25   14:08:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The executive power is large because not defined in the Constitution.

someone(s) erred, big time, with that.

christine  posted on  2007-12-26   10:10:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The executive power is large because not defined in the Constitution.

someone(s) erred, big time, with that.

It was not an err, christine. To understand, study the establishment of the First Bank of the United States, and Washington's.... as in President Washington's, role in the charade.

Or, as I have posted before, study the order made by President Washington that established what has come to be known as the Federal Zone, which overlays the states of the union.

Or, read the book, The CONstitution That Never Was, but, well, perhaps you get the picture.

richard9151  posted on  2007-12-26   10:39:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Or, read the book, The CONstitution That Never Was, but, well, perhaps you get the picture.

i do, richard. in fact, i started to write in my post to Deacon that it was purposeful.

Lysander Spooner: The Constitution of No Authority

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:

We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any intention or desire, nor that they imagined they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc. Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:

We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.

This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.

When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.

So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.

So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their object was, not "to secure to them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.

It cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of the United States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as "ourselves." Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any "posterity." It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality.

Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it.

Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those who established it.

If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes.

---snip---

christine  posted on  2007-12-26   10:53:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#101. To: christine (#97)

only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes.

Excellent, christine. Spooner is one of the few attorneys that ever lived who deserves real respect.

The real point of what he said, however, is contracts. You enter into such by the actions mentioned above, and today, in many, many other ways as well. It is amazing to me, and well illustrates where we have gone, when opening a bank account is a contract to pay taxes!

Oh well, we live and learn... well, some of us do anyway.

richard9151  posted on  2007-12-26 11:01:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes."

L. Spooner

If it was interpreted and administered with the original intent of the parties in the contract, I would gladly sign up for its protections and encourage others to do same. But, what we have today resembles little original intent therefore, all bets are off until the chains of the Constitution are properly re-attached.

I acknowledge the wisdom of the original authors of the contract but, I will not allow present day usurpers to obscure the original intent of the lawmakers/founders.

wakeup  posted on  2007-12-26 15:45:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]