Vox Day
The Ron Paul Epiphany
Mon Sep 10, 2007 09:18
The Ron Paul epiphany

Posted: September 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


U.S. Rep. Ron Paul

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Judging by the sounds of the laughter of the other Republican candidates directed at their rival, Ron Paul has now reached the second of Mohandas K. Ghandi's four stages. It is still unlikely that he will win the nomination of a party which has proven it doesn't deserve him, but it is far less unlikely than it was back when Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain were still considered "electable" by most political observers. The candidates, never a particularly bright lot, may be laughing, but as the neocons and party leaders turn to Fred Thompson in desperation, more intelligent observers are not.

Why is there so much cheering for Ron Paul?

– Andy McCarthy, National Review, Sept. 5, 2007

The reason there is so much cheering for Ron Paul is that he is the only Republican who has staked out popular positions on the two most significant issues of the 2008 election cycle. He is anti-occupation and pro-border control. No amount of Bush administration spin is going to change the fact that "the surge" is strategically irrelevant, that the neocon's Democratic World Revolution is a total failure and that Mexico is being allowed to invade the United States. In short, Ron Paul is the only Republican whose positions on the two primary issues are different than Hillary Clinton's stance on them, and, more importantly, are more credible and more popular than Hillary Clinton's. He is the only Republican whose nomination can realistically be considered a potential impediment to what otherwise looks like a Democratic landslide.

The Gay Old Party's leadership, which is far more interested in propositioning interns and policemen than the Constitution, hates Ron Paul and quite rightly feels threatened by him. But their incessant spreading of fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding his candidacy is no more believable than a Microsoft treatise on Linux. In fact, I surmise that most of the top Republicans would prefer a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidency to a Paul one. This may be why they have drafted the sluggish, uncharismatic Thompson; Giuliani, Romney and McCain are so obviously unelectable that none of them can even manage to put themselves in a position to get run over by Hillary in November
When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on.

– Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 7, 2007

What's going on is the same as in 1976 and 1980, the Republican peasantry is rebelling against the choices that their lords and masters have laid before them. This is not merely a threat to the Republican leadership, but to the very concept of the bifactional ruling party that rules America in a "bipartisan" spirit. Ron Paul threatens the notion of politics as a team sport; his focus on actual Constitutional principles makes him equally appealing to anti-occupation, pro-border Democrats as to anti-occupation, pro-border Republicans. That's why he is the only candidate in either party whose support ranges from devout Christian conservatives to gay, peacenik Ralph Nader fans.

Between now and November 2008, many Americans will experience the Ron Paul epiphany, in which the scales will fall from their eyes, and they will suddenly realize that they do not want the nation to continue in the direction that George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Fred Thompson, Hussein Osama and Rudy McRomney all intend on taking it. At this point, a 1976 scenario looks far more likely than a 1980 one, but then, few pundits thought Ron Paul would still require consideration at this point in the campaign.

The choice is simple. If you want to live under an EU-style regime that is intent on invading and occupying other countries in the name of democracy for the forseeable future, vote for any of the so-called major candidates. It doesn't matter which one. There is no significant difference between President Bush and Sen. Clinton, or between Sen. Thompson and Sen. Obama. If, on the other hand, you wish to live in a nation where the United States government is governed by the Constitution, you had better support Ron Paul. This may be your only opportunity, for it is entirely possible that this will be the last time such a choice is presented to you.



Vox Day is a Christian libertarian opinion columnist. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and IGDA, and has been down with Madden since 1992. Visit his blog, Vox Popoli, for daily commentary and spirited discussions open to all. -http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/09/wnazi109.xml - God created us, we belong to Him. He made mankind for Himself. But we have been kidnapped by God's powerful enemy, Satan, and tricked into all kinds of wrongdoing, sin. As a result, we have become enslaved to doing wrong. Our debt is mounting all the time and it seems we have no way out. Then God sends along the ransom price, His Son Jesus. Jesus is debt-free. He did not sin at all (I Peter 2:22). Rather, He loved God with all His heart, mind, soul and strength, and He loved the people round Him. Jesus pays for our debts by dying on the cross. By believing in what God has done in Jesus Christ, we can be freed from our debts, released from slavery, and come back to God as our Father.

Jesus said "My blood is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28). The debt we each owe to God, because of our sins and offenses against Him and against one another, is colossal.[http://planetquo.com/Illuminati-Design-And-Symbolism-In-The-Israeli-Supreme-Court-Building] Jesus paid with His blood the price our sins exacted in God's eyes, so He could purchase us back to God (redeem us). Peter writes: "know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like gold and silver, from your aimless conduct, but you were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ (Messiah), the blood of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (I Peter 1:18-19).

In the Bible, Silver is used to symbolise 'redemption', the ransom price God placed on each of the children of Israel (Exodus 30:11-16).[http://www.israelect.com/reference/Willie-Martin/] God desires to redeem people, not to condemn them, but to satisfy His righteousness a price must be paid. When Jesus was betrayed by Judas Iscariot, the price paid was thirty pieces of Silver (prophesied in Zechariah 11:12-13 and fulfilled in Matthew 26:15; 27:3).


Main Page - Tuesday, 09/11/07

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)