Quantcast

Santorum Supporter - Visits Ron Paul Rally @ Ft. Worth Texas - Shares His Reaction

rdmatheny 2012/04/14 18:36:24
You!
Add Photos & Videos
"COULD I BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE?





Sometimes I think this whole world

Is one big prison yard

Some of us are prisoners

Some of us are guards

Bob Dylan



Having lost my preferred choice for a presidential candidate on Tuesday,
I determined that after a suitable period of mourning and reflection
the only viable option was to shake it off and begin the search anew,
the presumptive, media-anointed frontrunner not being desirable or
acceptable.



Last night, as part of this Quixote-like quest, I ventured into the
heretofore unexplored dimension of a Ron Paul rally and was witness to
something that can only be described as all parts exhilarating,
befuddling, encouraging, depressing, moving, maddening and, ultimately,
inspiring. More on all that later.



Over the years I have been to more political rallies, events, forums,
roundtables, discussion groups, debates and whatever than I care to
remember. While a whole range of adjectives from boring to thrilling
could be used to describe these events, I have never before been moved
to use contradictory metaphors for the same event. Attending a Ron Paul
campaign rally is a singularly unique experience. I have never seen
anything like it before. Perhaps phenomenal is the word that comes
closest in accuracy, not in the ordinary “awesome” sense, but in the
other-worldly, spatiotemporal sense.



A little truth in advertising first: I come from an old school of
conservatism, a hodgepodge of Strauss, Kirk, Buckley, Reagan and a
smattering of other modern day conservative thinkers who shaped my
thinking while coming of age in the midst of a persistent nuclear threat
during the so-called Cold War, replete with duck and cover, fallout
shelters and a young girl sitting in a meadow picking the petals off a
daisy. One is shaped by the world one is raised in and then, if playing
the game right, uses those experiences to shape the world for those who
will inherit it.



The purpose of this piece is not to analyze Mr. Paul’s specific
policies, although my worldview does not coalesce with his on many
fronts. I do not write this piece from the point of view of a longtime
Paul devotee, many of whom (and you know who you are) I have
exasperatingly debated over the fallacies I see in some (not all) of his
positions. Over the years, though, I have learned (much to my surprise
and dismay) that not everyone will agree with my positions on all things
and I often frustratingly find myself having internal disagreements
with my own stated beliefs. Such is the nature of evolving thought.



I have spoken before a lot of groups in the last several years as we
have all grappled with the seeming dissolution of our country. I have
half-jokingly said on many of these occasions that the other side
doesn’t really have to defeat us politically, they just have to wait for
us all to die off so they can implement their plans. My point has been
that the greatest issue facing the conservative cause is a demographical
one, a lack of diversity that will shortly render the conservative
message irrelevant. Where are the youth? I and others have asked. Where
are the people of color? Why doesn’t the conservative message resonate?



The answer to where they are could be found last night at the Will
Rogers Auditorium. Often at political events there is a sense of
excitement, anticipation, a certain buzz in the audience while waiting
for the main event. Excitement, anticipation and buzz are weak and
inadequate words to describe the pre-rally crowd last night. Energy is
even inadequate. What undulated through the thousands who thronged
outside before the doors opened last night was a kinetic power, the
power of hope, the power of liberation, the power of anger at a system
turned upside down, the power of liberation and, yes, the ultimate and
emancipating power of freedom. You had to be there to understand it.



Once inside, for the only time in my politically active life, I was
transported to a world I had not seen before. There was enough energy in
that room to power a skyscraper. Teenagers, college students, whites,
Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, middle-aged, elderly, every
racial, ethnic, socio-economic, cross cultural ingredient of the
American melting pot was there. The auditorium was a cauldron of
American citizens who understand and have grasped the true nature of the
tyranny which has befallen this nation, a conflagration, if you will,
of passion and anger and joy and determination. This is where the fire
starts this time. The eruption when Mr. Paul took the stage was
deafening.



While I didn’t find much to cheer about on the foreign policy portion of
his speech, it is on domestic policy that I find much agreement with
Ron Paul. In fact, he could have lifted whole tracks of his speech from
my book, Common Ground America. Foreign policy, while a crucial element
of any president’s agenda, has slowly shifted from my center of
attention to domestic policy, I having long come to the conclusion that
the greatest threat to American freedom comes not from foreign
governments, but from our own. Sadly, America has become one of the
least free nations on earth. Increasingly, everything in our lives is
being regulated by a faceless bureaucracy, to a degree that neither
Orwell nor Huxley could have imagined. Want to add a room onto your
house? Get permission. Want to get married? Get permission. Want to open
a business? Get permission. Want to fly a flag in your front yard? Get
permission. Want to own a gun? Get permission. Want to open a lemonade
stand? Get permission. Want to play Frisbee on the beach? Get fined.
Want to preach politics from the pulpit? Get fined. Want to protest your
government without permission? Get arrested.



We have become a nation of regulations and licenses and permits, fines
and punishment and intimidation by a remorseless, uncaring government.
We have become, as Dylan sang in 1971, “One big prison yard”, in which
our guards are always watching, always monitoring, always snooping,
always threatening, always ready to swoop in with a fine or a cuff or a
taser or a bullet should we wander outside the boundaries of what is
allowed. The IRS can now revoke your passport should you owe too much on
your taxes, making you not just a literal prisoner but a figurative one
as well. It has been so long since we were truly free that we don’t
even recognize it anymore. Freedom is slowly being snuffed out in
American.



Obamacare is only the latest affront to freedom. While lawyers and
pundits debate the constitutionality of this provision or that, what
goes unstated is the insidious evil of the bill itself. Your very body,
your existence, you own life will now belong to the state should
Obamacare stand. If your physical body belongs to the state, how then is
American freedom defined?



What exactly is our national security securing? Certainly not our
liberty. We have been sacrificing ever larger chucks of our liberty to
the gods of security for decades now and in the interests of securing
our liberty have given it all away. Go to an airport if you want to
witness the loss of liberty in all its glorious humiliation. One wonders
if we actually were taken over by another power and our Constitution
dismantled what exactly could they do to restrict our movements, monitor
our activities and control our actions that would be any worse or
oppressive than what our own government is doing right now?



This part of Mr. Paul’s message, if I have interpreted it correctly, is
what resonates with me. All the other things pale in contrast to our
becoming a nation of slaves.



Can Mr. Paul become the next president of the United States? At the risk
of inflaming his supporters, I must say I doubt it. The media’s message
is that he no longer exists, the question is settled and Mr. Romney is
the Republican nominee. It is true Mr. Paul’s most ardent supporters are
strenuously working at the precinct level to tilt the delegate count at
the Republican convention in his favor. Do they have the numbers to
pull that off? I don’t know. But knowing the ones involved locally I
would guess their chances are better than 50/50. Will that type of
organized effort be successful in enough states nationwide to put Mr.
Paul over the top? Your guess is as good as mine. I’m not even going
there.



So what did I come away with last night? It can be captured in one
picture. Before Mr. Paul was introduced, part of his family took the
stage: his wife, one of his sons, a smattering of cousins, nieces and
nephews. That picture tells us all we need to know. They are us. They
weren’t pulled from central casting, exquisitely coifed and finely
tailored, prepped and ready for the cameras. No. They are a family. They
are us.



Where personally do I go now? As I said, I have more internal debates
than an outwardly sane person should admit. For over three years now I
have been looking for an army - an army to take on the anti-Americans,
the Communists, the statists, the outright criminals running our
government. An army of citizens fiercely devoted to liberty and the
founding principles of America. One rose up three years ago but slowly
faded away. As I looked around the room last night, I saw a lot of faces
I recognized from the past, from the ghost army that either became
dispirited or no longer believed in the message. So this is where you
all went….



The flame of liberty’s torch is no longer just slowly being
extinguished. Each day brings new Executive Orders, new laws, new
regulations, each more ominous than the last. Corruption in our
government and our financial markets is rampant. The disease of
dependency is infecting every layer of society. America is dying. We
need an army of citizens, motivated and committed, to restore liberty in
America, to breathe new life, new vibrancy into a nation on life
support. We will not return our nation’s vitality with lawyers. We will
not be prescribed the cures for our ailments by opportunistic
politicians pedaling the latest edition of What Will It Take to Buy Your
Vote. We simply will not. America is on the brink of flatlining.



Which logically only leads to one question:



Is there a doctor in the house?



Which logically only leads to one answer:



Ron Paul 2012"



--------------------------



-Adrian Murray, Fort Worth, TX.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Lisa Ray The Pat... 2012/04/15 03:28:42
    Lisa Ray
    +3
    He's likely a Romney aide posing as a Marxist....lol
  • rdmatheny Lisa Ray 2012/04/15 12:04:06
    rdmatheny
    No, he's a 100% certified Obama boot licker.
  • stormy rae Che Gue... 2012/04/15 02:31:11
  • stormy rae stormy rae 2012/04/15 02:40:37
  • K. Katt 2012/04/15 00:21:52
    Undecided
    K. Katt
    +1
    You refer to Romney as the "media anointed frontrunner ". Are you saying that he is not really the frontrunner? If you had posted this 4 months ago, I might have checked the "Wow!!!...." choice, but now when the race is over, what's the point?

    I can appreciate that you prefer another candidate over Romney, but the reality is that Romney is the nominee. If you were thinking of voting for a Republican in the first place, it seems that the only sensible course of action at this point is to get on board and try to defeat Obama. Supporting Paul isn't helpful. Romney wasn't my first choice either (and Santorum wasn't even on my Radar) but the only choice we have now is Obama or Romney.
  • Claire ... K. Katt 2012/04/15 00:40:51
    Claire Kitterman
    +16
    Ron Paul took the delegates in Colorado today. That is reality. America is sick to death of neocons and the oligarchy they have created. I'm not "jumping on board" to elect someone just like Obama.
  • K. Katt Claire ... 2012/04/15 01:42:18
    K. Katt
    +1
    It would really be a stretch to think that Romney is just like Obama. Paul was bound to win a state sooner or later. The reality is the race is over.
  • HAlex1972 Claire ... 2012/04/15 11:53:52
    HAlex1972
    Colorado's primary was Feb. 7. Santorum won that state in Feb. Not sure what happens to his delegates, though, now that he's dropped out of the race.
  • rdmatheny K. Katt 2012/04/15 01:00:02
    rdmatheny
    +8
    No one has the nomination yet and the race is only at the half way point and Romney still needs over 500 delegates to reach 1144. So yes, Romney is the "media anointed frontrunner", but Paul is closing the gap on Romney with a estimated 200 delegates.
  • K. Katt rdmatheny 2012/04/15 02:20:45
    K. Katt
    Going into today Romney had 656 delegates and Paul 67. I haven't watched any news or seen it on the internet so I don't really know what happened in Colorado. I just took your word for it. Actually I thought they had a caucus a couple of months ago with Santorum being the big winner. Am I wrong? They are moving back to the N. Eastern part of the country where Romney will easily defeat Paul in most, if not all, the states. Romney will just continue to increase his lead until it's over.
  • rdmatheny K. Katt 2012/04/15 03:01:32
    rdmatheny
    +4
    No one really knows how many delegates any of the candidates have at this point, siince the process is still ongoing. Most of the reports of delegates by the msm are guesstimates and most are over reporting Romney's count.
    This article will explain it a little bit, but it too is not completely accurate. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-5...
  • K. Katt rdmatheny 2012/04/15 04:08:51
    K. Katt
    I know it's not 100% accurate, but it still appears impossible for Paul.
  • rdmatheny K. Katt 2012/04/15 05:01:04
    rdmatheny
    +1
    Well if you know its not accurate, why do you continue to post everywhere the wrong numbers? Can you answer that simple question?
  • K. Katt rdmatheny 2012/04/15 07:40:55
    K. Katt
    They're probably nearly 100% accurate. Close enough. I took the current numbers from RealClearPolitics.com, which is fairly rigorous about such things. Romney will be at 1144 sometime in June, if not sooner. I answered your question but you never answered mine about what happened in Colorado today.
  • rdmatheny K. Katt 2012/04/15 12:17:23 (edited)
  • K. Katt rdmatheny 2012/04/16 01:38:14
    K. Katt
    Ok. Thank you.
  • HAlex1972 K. Katt 2012/04/15 12:19:18
    HAlex1972
    +1
    This is the only thing I could find about April and it actually affects Missouri:
    http://www.stltoday.com/news/...
  • K. Katt HAlex1972 2012/04/16 01:43:01
    K. Katt
    They should just get rid of the caucus system. Paul is claiming a victory where he actually only got 13% of the vote. Crazy, but it only has tiny consequences.
  • HAlex1972 K. Katt 2012/04/16 02:53:07
    HAlex1972
    +1
    Why do you think they should get rid of the caucus system? I ask because, to be honest with you, I'm not sure how that system works. I am knowledgeable on the electoral system in the presidential elections (its pretty clear in the Constitution), but not how everything works in the various parties, and how they decide who their candidate will be.
  • K. Katt HAlex1972 2012/04/16 03:09:43 (edited)
    K. Katt
    It doesn't work exactly the same in every state. But essentially political party officials designate a group of individuals to come together and vote for the candidates. The basic problem with it is that it is such a very small (and maybe biased) sample of the state population that votes for the candidates. Sometimes only a few hundred people vote.
  • HAlex1972 K. Katt 2012/04/16 03:47:46
    HAlex1972
    +1
    Sounds pretty complicated, but I guess each party can do what they like to determine who the candidate will be. I'm personally against having political parties at all. The two major parties have taken over politics, drowning out all other voices. Our country is in dire straits and these two parties are only exacerbating the problem with their petty disagreements. The only thing they ever agree on is taking our individual liberties away from us.
  • K. Katt HAlex1972 2012/04/16 04:44:02 (edited)
    K. Katt
    +1
    It's a longer discussion than I want to get into but I can see some value in the Party system and also I think it would be hard to get rid of. It might not be a panacea but I think term limits would be very helpful. If you take reelection out of the equation, I think the Senators and Congressmen would be more independent and more likely to act in the country's rather than the Party's interest.
  • HAlex1972 K. Katt 2012/04/16 05:12:15
    HAlex1972
    +1
    Agreed. Thank you for the discussion!
  • K. Katt HAlex1972 2012/04/16 07:22:02
    K. Katt
    +1
    You're welcome and I have enjoyed it. Take care.
  • rdmatheny HAlex1972 2012/04/16 04:50:16
    rdmatheny
    +1
    The caucus system is how our founding fathers wanted elections to be held. Read this article for a better understanding.
    http://communities.washington...
  • HAlex1972 rdmatheny 2012/04/16 05:15:02
    HAlex1972
    +1
    Thank you for the link! Very informative. I'm learning a lot from this SH post. ;)
  • HAlex1972 K. Katt 2012/04/15 12:07:37
    HAlex1972
    +1
    Santorum was the winner for Colorado. Colorado doesn't have a winner-take-all rule, or a proportional rule, in regards to assigning delegates. There is no way to know who their delegates will vote for considering Romney and Paul weren't too far apart in votes. Santorum had really won by a landslide. What do they do with that anyhow? Do you know, because I'm completely confused on what happens to the delegates when a candidate drops out. (I know Santorum has technically suspended his run, but what does that mean?)
  • rdmatheny HAlex1972 2012/04/15 12:28:59
    rdmatheny
    +1
    No, that is not accurate. Please read the following articles:

    Here's what happened in Colorado: http://durangoherald.com/arti...
    ..and this: http://www.denverpost.com/bre...
  • HAlex1972 rdmatheny 2012/04/15 12:35:42
    HAlex1972
    Awesome! Thanks for the link. The first one didn't work, but the second one took me to the homepage of the website where I was able to find the article. Nothing came up in the Bing search engine, so again, Thanks! That's good news!
  • K. Katt HAlex1972 2012/04/16 01:44:33
    K. Katt
    I think it means Santorum keeps is delegates, based on the inferences to be made from some of the articles I read recently.
  • HAlex1972 K. Katt 2012/04/16 02:51:10
    HAlex1972
    +1
    Not sure how that works. I think if he rejoins the race, then its possible that those delegates could vote for him. If he doesn't, then those 18 delegates will vote for Paul. That's what I got out of it, anyway.
  • K. Katt HAlex1972 2012/04/16 03:11:16
    K. Katt
    +1
    That seemed to be be the gist of the article.
  • Grammar... HAlex1972 2012/04/20 14:40:46
    Grammar Freak
    +1
    They will likely vote for Paul... at least we hope so anyway.
    Which means in the end, that Dr. Paul is a hell of a long way from being out of it.
    hehehe.

    The west is really where it's at for Dr. Paul. I think that he'll take a hell of a lot of the western states' delegates & walk into the Florida convention grinning from ear to ear.

    Ron Paul 2012.
  • HAlex1972 Grammar... 2012/04/26 23:21:03
    HAlex1972
    +1
    I hope so. I would love to see him win the Presidency.
  • Sandra ... K. Katt 2012/04/15 01:12:23
  • Che Gue... Sandra ... 2012/04/15 01:48:46 (edited)
    Che Guevara - Hero
    UPDATE****UPDATE***UPDATE****...
    Once again I was BLOCKED for posting the truth about Ron Paul.
    UPDATE****UPDATE***UPDATE****...

    An honest White Supremacist and Homophobe ?

    Ron Paul voted AGAINST the MLK Holiday.

    Ron Paul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks the Congressional Medal of Freedom.

    Ron Paul said he would have voted AGAINST the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    Paul has a 30 year history of pandering to the KKK and White Power Movement.

    You can make all the LAME excuses for White Supremacist Ron Paul you want. His actions speak louder than words

    -FACT: Ron Paul's presidential campaign issued a flyer that boasted about the candidate's efforts to introduce legislation that would remove challenges to the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act from the federal court system.
    http://www.joemygod.blogspot....

    -FACT: Ron Paul's Iowa state director is Mike Heath, a long-term Christian-right activist who formerly served as the board chairman of an SPLC-certified anti-gay hate group known as "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality."
    http://thenewcivilrightsmovem...

    -FACT: Ron Paul has a long history of racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic comments.
    http://www.tnr.com/article/po...

    -FACT: As state above, Ron Paul supports the so-called "states' rights" approach to marriage, but interestingly, only for LGBT co...











    UPDATE****UPDATE***UPDATE****...
    Once again I was BLOCKED for posting the truth about Ron Paul.
    UPDATE****UPDATE***UPDATE****...

    An honest White Supremacist and Homophobe ?

    Ron Paul voted AGAINST the MLK Holiday.

    Ron Paul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks the Congressional Medal of Freedom.

    Ron Paul said he would have voted AGAINST the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    Paul has a 30 year history of pandering to the KKK and White Power Movement.

    You can make all the LAME excuses for White Supremacist Ron Paul you want. His actions speak louder than words

    -FACT: Ron Paul's presidential campaign issued a flyer that boasted about the candidate's efforts to introduce legislation that would remove challenges to the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act from the federal court system.
    http://www.joemygod.blogspot....

    -FACT: Ron Paul's Iowa state director is Mike Heath, a long-term Christian-right activist who formerly served as the board chairman of an SPLC-certified anti-gay hate group known as "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality."
    http://thenewcivilrightsmovem...

    -FACT: Ron Paul has a long history of racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic comments.
    http://www.tnr.com/article/po...

    -FACT: As state above, Ron Paul supports the so-called "states' rights" approach to marriage, but interestingly, only for LGBT couples.
    http://www.yourtango.com/2008...

    -FACT: Ron Paul said, "If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress' constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage license issued in another state."
    http://www.thepoliticalguide....

    -FACT: Ron Paul opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by civilian, nonreligious employers.
    http://www.salon.com/2007/09/...


    UPDATE****UPDATE***UPDATE****...
    Once again I was BLOCKED for posting the truth about Ron Paul.
    UPDATE****UPDATE***UPDATE****...
    (more)
  • Sandra ... Che Gue... 2012/04/15 04:58:19
  • Steven ... Che Gue... 2012/04/15 07:48:59
    Steven Wolma
    +4
    Your statement about him voting no on MLK is wrong. The first vote in 1979 he voted aye. The second vote failed, and he was not even present during the vote. Maybe you can try to say he was negligent the second time, but you can't say that he voted against it, so you aren't 100% correct.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congre...
    http://www.govtrack.us/congre...

    He did vote against giving a medal to Rosa Parks, but also voted against giving a gold medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, Mother Theresa, Tony Blair, Cardinal O'Connor, and the Dalai Lama- on the basis that the taxpayer has to eat the cost to have those medals minted. The only exception he made was in giving medals (which were not as expensive to mint) to US World War II veterans and the Tuskegee Airmen.

    http://www.ronpaularchive.com...
    http://www.ronpaularchive.com...

    He did say he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but he also has his reasons. And you can argue with his logic on the topic, but you still don't have viable proof- by his response- that he is a flat-out racist.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/pa...

    Alright, I'm going to have to finish this response later, I can't spend all my time responding to posts I disagree with. Seriously though, why do you spend all your energy trying to go after this guy? Don't you...



    Your statement about him voting no on MLK is wrong. The first vote in 1979 he voted aye. The second vote failed, and he was not even present during the vote. Maybe you can try to say he was negligent the second time, but you can't say that he voted against it, so you aren't 100% correct.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congre...
    http://www.govtrack.us/congre...

    He did vote against giving a medal to Rosa Parks, but also voted against giving a gold medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, Mother Theresa, Tony Blair, Cardinal O'Connor, and the Dalai Lama- on the basis that the taxpayer has to eat the cost to have those medals minted. The only exception he made was in giving medals (which were not as expensive to mint) to US World War II veterans and the Tuskegee Airmen.

    http://www.ronpaularchive.com...
    http://www.ronpaularchive.com...

    He did say he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but he also has his reasons. And you can argue with his logic on the topic, but you still don't have viable proof- by his response- that he is a flat-out racist.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/pa...

    Alright, I'm going to have to finish this response later, I can't spend all my time responding to posts I disagree with. Seriously though, why do you spend all your energy trying to go after this guy? Don't you have a candidate of your own to follow and support? I'm pretty sure you're fired up about the "Racist Newsletters", huh?

    -The "Racist Newsletters" that everyone speaks of, that have continuously reemerged, but never seem to stick; due in part because the language doesn't match Paul's speaking style and nobody can link Paul's fingers to the typewriter that printed that trash. In addition, Paul did admit fault in being negligent and not overseeing his own Newsletter; he is definitely guilty of that. However, It's important to note that Paul was the publisher, not the editor. The editor oversees all the material that is printed, not the publisher. How many times have publishers of major newspapers been caught with their pants down because something makes it into the final edition that wasn’t intended? How many publishers do you think genuinely read every edition of their newspaper, in its entirety? You have enough evidence to accuse him of gross negligence, but not of being a racist.

    We'll finish this up at a later date though, because I certainly want to finish responding to your points.
    (more)
  • HAlex1972 Steven ... 2012/04/16 02:54:21 (edited)
    HAlex1972
    +1
    Thank you for taking the time to respond to him and clear up his errors. He's not going to listen though, resorting to spamming everybody, everywhere, at every opportunity.
    Then he blocks people that respond to him. Go figure.
  • Steven ... HAlex1972 2012/04/16 03:25:27
    Steven Wolma
    +3
    Hahaha! That's just sad...

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/25 13:46:33

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals