May
12th 2009
Posted under Conservatism & Politics & Ron Paul
This clown is stunningly clueless. Is he a Democrat/liberal plant? Such cluelessness almost has to be deliberate.
Here he has a website ominously titled “Do You Know Ron Paul?” Ooh… scary. And then he proceeds to list as negatives all the reasons authentic conservative love Ron Paul. Cherry complains about libertarianism, but it is impossible to make a case that all the supposedly scary and outrageous positions he lists are not the authentic conservative position. Is he really so dense that he doesn’t know this? Ron Paul needs to hire this guy for his campaign staff. With enemies like him, who needs friends?
HT: Jason Seagraves on Facebook.
Weaver on 12 May 2009 at 3:43 am #
The only one I wish Paul would drop is: “14. Wants to end the war on drugs and legalize marijuana.”
Not to bring up the drug debate: what I mean is this is a distraction from larger issues imho.
Otherwise, yea that makes Paul look great!
fellist on 12 May 2009 at 8:34 am #
That’s about the only one that many natural conservatives will have a problem with, Weaver. In the rest of the list Cherry is giving folk reasons to vote for Paul over himself.
I think Paul is capable of making a good argument that the ‘war on drugs’ is part of the single issue he focuses on – ie., the gummint’s war on freedom (he could even go a step further and say that the w.o.f. is actually part of a wider war against the people). That he can call upon a raft of statistics to show that the war on drugs makes things worse doesn’t hurt.
fellist on 12 May 2009 at 8:37 am #
– Is he a Democrat/liberal plant? –
What’s the difference between those two categories and the typical Republican party placeholder?
Filmer on 12 May 2009 at 11:25 am #
I don’t think “legalizing” drugs is necessarily the conservative position. It is clearly the libertarian position. But de-federalizing drug laws is because federal drug laws are unconstiitutional. Drug laws should be at the state and local level.
ERIC on 12 May 2009 at 4:33 pm #
Social/cultural issues such as drugs is about the only difference between libertarians and social/cultural conservatives such as me.
I primarily agree with libertarians when it comes to economic issues such as bailing out banks and others which I’m oppose to.
But then again I’m not only a social conservative but also a white nationalist who wants to deport ALL non-whites whether or not they are legal, which social conservatives would probably have a problem with.
roho on 12 May 2009 at 10:22 pm #
He does have a strange way of attacking Dr. Paul?…..But, then again, the GOP has to stay with it’s policy of “Yes we are a Liberal Party, but not as liberal as the Democrats!”
As for DRUGS?……..Give it up……The “A” in ATF has a reason, and the feds are still not comfortable with comming out into the light and admiting that they desire control over drug profits as much as they enjoy “booze” profits? (Too many States get the money on booze, but as long as it’s illegal, the feds can invest in the illegal drug trade just as the Dutch East Indies Company did for centuries.)
Drugs sponsore a lot of “Black Ops” that congress would never agree to the funding, and need not even know about acording to the CIA!
He trashes the concept of 3rd parties?……..Tell it to the “Whigs” who thought that they were here to stay?……The word “REVOLUTION” is now planted in the minds of many people, and when their patience is worn out, it will be a revolution.
Andrew T. on 14 May 2009 at 3:28 am #
ERIC,
If you have any faith whatsoever in the Providence of the Lord, can you not accept the fact that such changes to the way our society functions is a natural moral advancement and that these changes are indeed for the good of all people? It would be inconceivable — in this day and age — to even suggest a return to the demographic situation of two centuries ago. I am not naive: I have no doubt that, as always, you will ignore or scoff at what I write, reject reality, and substitute your own. This is simply me giving you my two cents.
I believe you are a deeply disturbed person who uses (and abuses) the name of God to support an embittered ideology of hatred and alienation towards genuine American people, white and non-white.
Andrew T. on 14 May 2009 at 3:39 am #
ERIC,
Furthermore, I am white, but if I weren’t, I would fight you possibly to the death if you tried to lay your hands on me to deport me. You have no more right to break into my home to deport me for some absurd, barbaric rationale as being of the wrong race than I do to beat the living s*** out of your for being someone a filthy racist windbag. Not that it would ever happen ANYWAY. Then again, NOTHING that ever comes out of your mouth has anything to do with reality… perhaps that’s why you speak it.
Andrew T. on 14 May 2009 at 3:53 am #
“Not to bring up the drug debate: what I mean is this is a distraction from larger issues imho.”
Surely you jest. The drug war issue is a big one, especially because it’s always pushed to the side. It’s a cop-out to call the issue a distraction. Something this overwhelmingly bad that’s been going on for this long doesn’t need to be further legitimized and ignored, and Americans need to become more politically informed and involved as it is. The drug war issue, if brought to the fore, could awaken a greater pro-liberty consciousness in general in this country, which is why the issue makes our leaders nervous. To learn of the drug war is to despise it and question the honesty of the leadership in D.C. that pragmatically or tacitly supported it.
The hypocrisy and lack of courage from politicians on marijuana is especially alarming: To send people to prison for years for using a naturally-growing plant which is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco and even has some MEDICAL uses (kind of like anabolic steroids!) is just awful and has to be fought.
Patroon on 14 May 2009 at 6:03 am #
I don’t think Ron Paul has any more to worry about with Jeff Cherry, than the other neocon that put up against him last year.
But again, if RP wants to run for President, then he needs to give up his seat in the House. I don’t think he can do both.
fellist on 14 May 2009 at 8:59 am #
Andrew T., if you try real hard you might see that your attitude toward White nationalists like Captain Chaos, Eric, and the Founding Fathers of your country could also be their attitude toward non-White Americans (and with greater historical justification). Consider:
***When a stranger invades your home, is your insistence that he go back from whence he came the last refuge of the beaten?***
Your words, but they make more sense coming from patriotic White Americans than from someone like you.
Until their detractors explain why CC and Eric are wrong to side with men like John Jay and Thomas Jefferson and three centuries of popularly mandated racial nationalism, and why they – and you, Andrew – are right to side with men like Teddy Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. and with four decades of state-imposed ‘diversity,’ they should not presume to be the conservative voice in that debate.
fellist on 14 May 2009 at 11:55 am #
Patroon said: I don’t think Ron Paul has any more to worry about with Jeff Cherry, than the other neocon that put up against him last year.
I hope so. It does seem that the voters in his district have a level of respect him that few politicians can match. This despite his opposition to subsidies and earmarks. Shows that men of principle can succeed in the corrupt system as long as we – the public – will be just as principled.
fellist on 14 May 2009 at 11:58 am #
Did you all hear about the row over here about MP’s expenses? Barely a single of ‘em comes out of it looking decent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/
Andrew T. on 14 May 2009 at 5:14 pm #
Fellist,
It just seems that everyone wishes to appropriate the Founders as their own. Get this: Thomas Jefferson was one of the most obvious levelers among the Founding Fathers. The man had lifelong guilt over the few slaves he owned and had sexual relations with a BLACK WOMAN.
Why do you assume I side with MLK or Ted Kennedy just because I don’t side with you? That’s as bad as the political dichotomy where you’re either a hemp-wearing tree hugger or you want to go overseas and shoot up Iraqis.
fellist on 18 May 2009 at 3:04 pm #
Andrew, it’s not case of today’s White nationalists co-opting the Founding Fathers, more a matter of their being loyal to their founding ideals. I realise that’s unfortunate for your claim to represent the Real Traditional America, but it’s a fact. Jefferson’s guilt is consistent with, and can even be explained by his White nationalism, I don’t see what point you’re making. It is not my assumption that you side with the likes of Kennedy and King on this issue – you do.
Jack on 19 May 2009 at 2:49 am #
fellist, if our founders were so “racist”, why did many of them free thier slaves, most notably George Washington? Why did Ben Franklin have more resentment towards the Jews than blacks?
They had fears of the cultural tendencies that would be brought in by those of non anglo clutures which would erode the republic form of government.
Today, Scotland, home of Adam Smith and the roots of Edmund Burke, has spawned Gordon Brown, one of the most socialist, tyrannical PM’s in Bristish History.
The key is educating the people about liberties. People have a rationle of only allowing libertarians into the country. However, if you get inot the race bating, the chinese can claim they built the railroads, the blacks can claim the building of the south, and the Red Indians can claim they were here first, leaving the “white man” screwed.
Of course, White nationalists talk about freedom and it being a “white notion”, but forget that the movement was really started by Rupard kipling, an imperailist who only cared about money and the elite and disregarded/mistreated the common white man.
Weaver on 19 May 2009 at 2:44 pm #
I think Kipling is frequently misunderstood. A friend opened my eyes to see that one of his poems doesn’t appear to be in favour of empire at all. After reading others by him, I suspect his true views are very patriotic.
Jefferson didn’t have relations with any slaves. That’s a false myth.
Weaver on 19 May 2009 at 2:48 pm #
The White Man’s Burden is supposed to be one of Kipling’s pro-imperialism poem, but it reads to me as a mocking of imperialism.
South Africa is admittedly pro-colonist.
At the least it can be said he understood imperialism and was honest about it. He doesn’t promise an easy victory or global democratic revolution or anything like that. He promises pain and suffering with no reward.
fellist on 20 May 2009 at 8:27 am #
Jack, I don’t think they were bad racists, I think they were good racists, but either way it’s not a word I’d generally use to describe them. Just to be clear, I have a profound admiration for the generation of men who founded your nation.
Franklin’s suspicion of Jews I count in his favour. If you are referring to the comments attributed to him at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention I have my doubts about their authenticity – not about their prophetic accuracy, of course – but they are consistent with his published observations of Jewish traits and their remarkable consistency through time.
I don’t quite agree with your analysis of racial contributions to America. I can’t help thinking that Whites added a little value here or there. But even if it’s all about liberty as you claim, you’ll find that nationalists can assemble a good argument, entirely from libertarian assumptions, that we are entitled to establish a sovereign polity which would exclude whoever the heck we want to exclude.
Weaver, I don’t think Kipling is misunderstood, really. The confusion is Kipling’s own. In his work you can find support for imperialism based on a belief in the benefits of his civilisation, but also strong criticism of the essential methods and effects of colonialism (a bit like the MSM’s editorial pages these last few years, only in Kipling’s case it’s all genuine sentiment). It’s a minefield we sidestep as nationalists, Weaver, but as nationalists we can enjoy a poem like ‘The Flowers’ which reveals the writer’s easy-to-overlook romantic attachment to England. I suspect we’re all naturally patriotic and that men like Kipling have their better impulses somehow corrupted by the culture of their age. Perhaps ‘The Flowers’ represents the real heart of the man?
(Are you sure Jefferson didn’t have an affair with Sally Hemmings? I think she was, technically, a slave. I even thought it had been established by DNA testing that she’d had his child. )
Weaver on 20 May 2009 at 10:06 am #
I thought it was Jefferson’s relative who had the child with a slave – hence the similar DNA.
LaissezFaire on 01 Jan 2010 at 9:36 pm #
Sorry, Jeff Cherry is not a conservative anything. You know he was always big government. He now bills himself as a “moderate Democrat” and is enthusiastically stumping to keep Democrats in power. He’s contradicting everything he has publicly stated over the past year of half-a$$ campaign appearances. Was he just trying to play both sides to see where he could raise the most money? In any case, how will he make a case that he has convictions and values when he switches sides like he doesn’t know what he stands for?
Anyways, the Democrats are welcome to him. I hear he owes LOTS of money – way more than he’s disclosed to the FEC. http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_10+H0TX14127
I wonder if the Dems knew he was defaulting on debts when they took this loser on…?
The American Conservative » What would a Ron Paul 2012 campaign look like? on 06 Feb 2010 at 12:51 am #
[...] has received since Election Day of 2008, from cable news networks to Lindsay Graham, given the fact he faces a primary challenge for re-election next year in Texas and now with his son Rand Paul poised to enter the U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, [...]