Nov 28, 2007

The West Virginia GOP Establishment vs. Ron Paul; Neoconservatives vs. Conservatives

First a quick update on the delegate count as of last night, provided by a local reliable source, then to the main subject:





Now the voters will vote for delegates by county, to pair them down within county limits established by the GOP.
NOTE: Voters must be registered for online voting by this Friday, Nov. 30th, in order to vote for their delegates in January. (We hope the Elections Division of the Secretary of State's office will be monitoring closely for fairness, accuracy, to prevent mistakes or fraud in the GOP controlled system).

As most are aware Senator Vic Sprouse unleashed a railing alarm against Ron Paul's increasing delegates in a piece entitled Ron Paul attempting to hijack republican convention, whose delegate count was slightly ahead of the candidate that he is a delegate for, Rudolph Giuliani. The backlash from the blogosphere was incredible, the Senators ChangeWV blog receiving about 300 responses alone, and still counting.

What is significant about this is that Senator Sprouse is on the steering Committee of the state GOP party. Note the State party establishment is openly in opposition then to Ron Paul (see previous article), who has entered as a legitimate candidate, but now must be subject to the gauntlet of internal misrepresentation, persecution, even outright slander, because he is not an "establishment" favorite! "I have nothing against Ron Paul supporters", says Sen. Sprouse, but he clearly does, since they are "hijackers". Yet even the party establishment is split upon whom THEY want to 'hijack' the convention for themselves. One man's "hijack" is another man's "victory". It is the party establishment here that is being challenged, who feel threatened.


You see the state GOP, who did no advertising to inform the public about how their complex new Convention system works (which was stacked to favor the already organized establishment--see previous article), finally put out radio advertising (on the state-wide "Talk Line" with Hoppy Kercheval) for delegates--this very last week! That still 1,100 delegates were needed shows the party establishment's failure to inform West Virginians, particularly outside the Capital region--which might just be the way they preferred it, since the GOP chairman McKinney (a Romney supporter) could then select vacant delegate seats himself! Ron Paul's supporters have actually done them a favor by driving attention to the very issue they failed to communicate, including for supporters of Huckabee and Hunter who also suffered by the lack of GOP party communication. So just who was trying to "hijack", through craft instead of open and fair play, the convention?


Sen. Sprouse's warning here is to circle all the war wagons against Ron Paul who they perceive as a threat (a hijacker), while claiming in this post that he is no threat at all and "irrelevant". This is the essence of propaganda to scare people away from a message they might like. What he is trying to claim is that you will be in a small minority if you do not stay with the establishment's candidates, because they say so (i.e. "no one will vote for him"). Therefore, the very nature of the post betrays the Senator's disbelief in his own message. Ron Paul, they fear, could be a big surprise, and you might like his positions if permitted to hear them for yourself.

Does the party establishment believe THEIR thinking represents the thinking of the average conservative (most of whom questioned the justice of the war based on lies), or are the conservative Pharisees (under the cry of "we are your elected rulers, listen to us") trying to whip up a frenzy of opposition because multitudes are beginning to follow? (And do not be offended at the image, the liberal Sadducees are afraid as well). To wit, not one legitimate evidence was provided above of why we should not believe the "myths" about Ron Paul (go back and look), only empty assertions and allegations, in the same manner that the war was sold.

The establishment resistors of Ron Paul are not able to make persuasive arguments, only repeat "withdrawal is surrender" (yet that was the policy after Iraq I, Cheney decrying overthrowing Saddam or occupation as a quagmire), unjustly link him to "the left", or compare him to LaRouche. But withdrawal is not surrender in an unjust war, against Iraqis, not "terrorists" (as the 'liberal media' also calls them), and LaRouche indeed had a following, but Pat Buchanan might be a better comparison, though not entirely.

As for the Hillary fear card, Ron Paul could beat Hillary Clinton
(just like Zogby said any republican could), easily, because republicans would rally around him. But many of us would never, ever vote for Giuliani (but abstain) to overthrow domestic freedom for a police state patterned after NYC and a CFR agenda, which would be the fault of the party establishment for abandoning the constitution, not us.

One thing that is clear is that the party leaders are afraid of Ron Paul, for he threatens not the people, but the establishment's power, who do not confess their wrongs, but stubbornly and impenitently defend abhorrent policies and unjust wars, and still bow to Bush and Cheney and their neoconservatism.
But why should they be afraid, if they are sure they are right, and can defend themselves by debate? And why does Sen. Sprouse want to hijack the Convention for the biggest RINO in republican history--the former democrat Giuliani! Some have the appearance of abandoning the principles of their good legislative record by tying themselves to someone who has done the opposite! It is Sen. Sprouse that has some explaining to do as to why he supports such a candidate like Giuliani, who is a braggart but whose greatest critics are New York firefighters and 9/11 widows, and who takes credit for things not attributable directly to him.


Republicans are scattered now because they are not united on what they believe, as their smorgasbord of candidates shows. The platform is in shambles (praising individual freedom while embracing collectivist policies and Wilsonian wars for "democracy"), and the mistake was making George W. Bush part of the party platform, who is following a neoconservative, not the constitution or conservative, agenda, entirely built upon unjust war (abortion of a million Iraqi lives, invading their sovereign womb), ironically, while justly decrying abortions of the pre-born. Ron Paul is nothing less than the "blow-back" that should be anticipated when just principles are forsaken to follow a new man or agenda, in this case the neoconservatives behind Bush. The republican establishment has failed to read the principles of the neoconservatives for themselves, thus separating themselves from their constituents, and largely had blind trust in the general "Christian"-feigned image crafted of Bush by the agnostic Karl Rove.


But their fears are unfounded. Why should the republican party establishment be afraid of a candidate who is the strongest anti-tax candidate the party has ever seen since Reagan, opposes the communist (collectivist) welfare state, the strongest defender of gun rights, who has consistently opposed abortion, who defends the sovereignty of the U.S. by opposing illegal immigration, NAFTA, and North American Union (as warned of by Jerome Corsi on 58Live)who believes in limited government and states rights, simply because he insists the Constitution should be followed in declaring war (oh, the gaul of him), rejects the creeping fascism of warrantless (not all) domestic surveillance on American citizens, opposes (as does Sen. Sprouse) REAL ID (any national ID card), wants to downsize government rather than expanding its welfare and police powers under the guise of a Gestapo-like "Homeland Security" bureaucracy and creeping surveillance state that are making America look more like Stasi Germany? When did it become radical to really defend Americans' freedom, instead of just saying so and doing the opposite, through threats of fear, and then live in a fantasy world of "24" and American Idol?


And who has "hijacked" the republican party, but the neoconservatives (former democrats, disciples of Strauss and Leon Trotsky) who infiltrated through and with CFR member and David Rockefeller colleague, the RINO Dick Cheney? WHO HAS DECEIVED AND SWINDLED THE PRINCIPLES FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, FOR A PRE-PLANNED WAR AGENDA BEFORE 9/11 AND WERE MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT FOR NEW AMERICAN CENTURY? The party leadership is more committed to neo-conservatism than conservatism, without knowing the difference, because they follow men on bumper stickers who use the military as a campaign prop! (What do you think "neo" means anyway, but "new"?) As Pat Buchanan's new book highlighted in Drudge last night warned, the neoconservatives must be swept from the republican party if America is to be restored.

Just who are the "top tier candidates" that the State GOP pushes on us? Why are they all (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson) members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a David Rockefeller organization that embraces an anti-sovereign UN global agenda based upon socialist principles, unleashed immigration, through economic pragmatism (this is Giuliani in spades)--and is pushing NAFTA and North American Union, amnesty for illegals and REAL ID?
IT IS HIGH TIME FOR THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE--EXAMINE CAREFULLY WHO YOU ARE BLINDLY FOLLOWING. "Lay hands on no man quickly" is a biblical principle worthy of political application as well, and the party establishment is blindly pushing the wrong candidates, and fearing the best one.


But the people will judge, if they will be permitted to hear above the fearful establishment's cries to prevent them from listening--the tactics now being employed in desperation here. Meanwhile those who are paranoid by the neocon propaganda about "jihadists that want to kill us every day", despite the plain lack of evidence (and the evidence of fabricated threats from neocon private contractors), and despite that Americans have more reason to fear each other as "terrorists" on the roads than toiletries in airports, will continue their mantra which requires fear in order to maintain power. Most of us want to return to Constitutional government from the rogue "unitary executive" (President as dictator) before our freedoms are entirely lost. That message is popular and rational, contrary to the present neoconservative fanaticism, to which the republican party should wake up. Ron Paul is their best friend, if they would only see it, but they are like a sick patient that does not want to take its medicine from the Doctor, that would heal the government from its frenzied and feverish policies. So the people might change out the republican leadership to obtain what they want, if they have to. To them that would be hijacking, but to the people, reform--revolution. The purpose of voting is to make peaceful revolutions possible, and that kind of hijacking is legal.