Monday, February 27, 2012

Salute the New Camouflaged Warriors in the Grand Old Party

Conservative Republican values—I remember them well from my rural, independently-minded Idaho upbringing: limited government, personal liberty and responsibility, fiscal restraint, and respect for human life, right? As proof of my dyed-in-the-wool Republican childhood, Reagan’s portrait had such a prominent place on my family’s mantle I always assumed he was one of our uncles. When George W. Bush changed his address to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I was squarely in the middle of a growing young voter demographic. That’s when I got to know the heavy-hitting Grand Old Republicans in the behemoth states of California and Texas.

It has since taken me a decade to realize that the GOP is run by three types of people: busy-bodied heifers who dominate others through gossip and intimidation, their emasculated sidekicks who meekly fall in line, and shrewd business people who have figured out how to game the system for personal profit, prestige or, if they’re exceptionally shrewd, both.

Try as I might over the years to recruit fresh blood to the Republican Party, the mighty missing alpha males with their well-toned leadership abilities and hearts full of devotion to our country were invariably engaged in more noble, rewarding pursuits. It seemed the guys and gals who could turn the GOP and the country around were deployed overseas, hunting deer at the ranch, raising strong sons, running a business, or throwing a football with friends. Heroes like this have better things to do than dedicate countless nights and beautiful weekends to GOP meeting minutia. Over time, I abandoned my goal to change the GOP from within by introducing pure-hearted, limited government, common sense warriors. I then picked up a few hobbies of my own that did not result in me beating my head against the wall in a room full of mean heifers and girlie men manipulating Robert’s Rules of Order to their advantage.

Cue the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2012. By this stage in my political exposure to the GOPandemic, I knew I was witnessing the party of Uncle Reagan flatline. Mitt Romney of Taxachusetts is your pick? Really, CPAC? Congratulations. Your brand is officially ruined. Thanks for driving the stake through my party’s undead corpse.

Dejected does not begin to describe how I felt when I realized I wasted my twenties as a GOP activist. I wondered if I was the only longtime Republican who had chosen to swallow the Truth Pill in spite of its permanent side effects.

Imagine my delight this President’s Day when I found myself among 544 impressive military members and veterans excited to enlist in Republican politics! My heart soared as Veterans for Ron Paul marched in step toward Chancellor Obama’s pretty white palace, chanting for serious reform in deep-voiced unison. “End this War!” and “Legalize the Constitution!” reverberated like cannon fire off the cheerless government buildings. Upon reaching the Presidential gates, they promptly did an about face and stood in formation with their backs to the Commander-in-Chief’s residence, silently saluting the servicemen lost to war and suicide under his administration.

The Veterans for Ron Paul’s mission is to galvanize tens of thousands of their comrades standing for peace and liberty and march them to the Republican National Convention (RNC) 2012 in Tampa. This organic veterans’ movement is noteworthy due to its leaderless leadership. It grows by word-of-mouth and is assisted by social media outlets. It has no non-profit status or mailing address. It doesn’t even have a real website. Yet, Veterans for Paul are everywhere and are poised to infuse the Republican party with good-old-fashioned American reform that would make our founders proud.

It’s a shame that the same people we send off to fight foreign wars must return only to do battle with the political machine to save their country and revive the GOP.

Ron Paul is the clear choice of the troops. They both oppose the endless wars that have bankrupted our nation. Dr. Paul represents the real Republican Party, old school style. Liberty is indeed popular and his message resonates with young and old, rich and poor, military and civilian. Fortunately, he’s bringing back into the GOP fold real leaders with sound philosophies concerning the proper role of government. The fresh faces are idealistic, to be sure, but they also have iron wills, strong stomachs and are battle-hardened thanks to our misguided policies.

Mean heifers, girlie men and shrewd opportunists be forewarned: you’re about to get some serious camo-wearing competition.

********************************************************************************

For more inane American humor and Texas grit, follow PatriotWriter on Twitter and visit Daily PAuL (Peace. Gold. Liberty.) for my weekly Wednesday column.

8 comments:

Single White Alcoholic Seeks Same said...

The extreme of Ron Paul's isolationism is almost as frightening as the extreme of Obama's socialism.

I will be the first to admit we've gotten far too war-happy in the past 20 years. But is the answer to completely withdraw from the international scene? To return to the morally bankrupt Republican Party of the 1930's that refused to lift a finger to stop fascism until it came knocking on our own door?

Can we really afford to hang Israel out to dry? To sit back while Iran builds a nuke? To turn a blind eye while China prepares every day to go to war --economic, cyber, and military-- with us?

I love Paul's domestic policies and I understand much of his international sentiments, but sticking our head in the sand for 4 years will be a bigger disaster than anything we could do with our current interventionist policies.

Priscilla Jones said...

To Single White Alcoholic Seeks Same: I can refer you to some military officers who have firsthand knowledge to answer your questions. Another 4,000 or so guys would have loved to talk to you about that, but they're quite dead. Your concerns are enormous and deserve a larger address than this comment box can give, which is why I am writing a piece on these very issues. Keep an eye out for it.

Tim Fulton said...

You know how to tell if they're an authoritarian? They openly call "non-interventionism" "isolationism". Ron Paul is not an isolationist! (wow, there's a tired argument) Ron Paul believes in a "foreign policy of peace and prosperity through free trade and diplomacy." But it doesn't surprise me that you never heard him say that, not because he hasn't said it numerous times, but because you're not listening.

"Hang Israel out to dry"? How are we doing Israel any favors when we provide more than ten times the amount of foreign aid to all of Israel's enemies than we do to Israel? Our foreign aid to Israel amounts to approximately 10% of their GDP. Israel would be far better off if we acted as broke as we are and ended ALL foreign aid. The more we intervene and meddle in the Middle East, the more our alliance with Israel builds animosity towards Israel.

Iran's nukes? You mean like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? How many times will you let Them lie to you before you begin questioning what They are telling you? Iraq was not our problem until we made them our problem. Iran will not be our problem until we make them our problem. Are you willing to "serve your country" and go to war with Iran? The vast majority of service members support non-interventionism, as Ron Paul receives more donations from military members than all the other candidates (including Obama) combined. Oh, the irony of a civilian who would beat the drum from the comforts of home, sending soldiers off to war, and question the moral ethics of all who oppose it.

Yes, we need to get our heads out of the sand here, and we need to get our boots out of the sand over there.

Single White Alcoholic Seeks Same said...

Tim: So were Republicans in the 1930's isolationists or non-interventionists? How would a "foreign policy of peace and prosperity through free trade and diplomacy" stop someone like Hitler? Or Ahmadinejad?

Paul has some great points, and we could clearly stand to draw back on our foreign interventions and economic aid. But his extremism is similar to that of radical environmentalists: most everyone thinks we could be smarter about taking care of the environment, but only the most radical think we should all stop driving cars.

Tim Fulton said...

War advocates seldom understand war anymore than they are willing to fight them. What were the causes of the World Wars? Centralized bankers, the ones who created the atmosphere for war, played both sides against each-other, got filthy rich(er), and got away with it unscathed.

Why does it have to be us (US) to stop Ahmadinejad?! What is the point and purpose of the United Nations?! Why does it always have to be America to jump in, intervene and police the world? We've done far more than our share, and all we have to show for it is massive debt and depleted freedoms for more laws to protect us from all the animosity we've brought against us while we continue to be the aggressor in the Middle East. How about if we take a leave of absence from the UN while the rest of the member nations catch up to us in their contributions of money and lives.

Why are we worried about the (supposed) nukes in Iran, when we know for certain that North Korea has nukes, and that's okay? Because North Korea doesn't have a market (ie, oil) that we're dependent on.

We have a stranglehold on the Middle Eastern oil markets, we're bullying them into only accepting the dollar for oil. That means, when Germany, China, Russia...wants to buy oil, they first have to buy dollars, then the oil. Iran wants to accept the Euro and Yen for their oil, because the dollar is being printed out of value, and it is their oil, so it is their right to accept whatever currency they want for it. Our government's response to that is to surround them with US military bases and threaten to attack them. But first they have to justify it to The People, so they come up with another WMD story, this time it's "nukes".

Israel has hundreds of nukes. Pakistan has nukes, and Pakistan hates Israel. Why is it okay for Pakistan to have nukes? No one wants a nuclear war with Israel! Israel has enough nukes to essentially wipe out Islam.

I'll tell you what, how about turning off your computer and joining me in the military? The next time I deploy to the Middle East (it will be my third) you can join me and we can have a long talk in the desert about why its good that we're there.

Single White Alcoholic Seeks Same said...

Tim:

I've tried to have a respectful conversation and you insist on throwing around insults.

No, I am not in the military. I work in education. Does that mean when discussing education your opinions mean nothing and I am the be-all end-all? More specifically, I work in college athletics. Does that mean I know more about sports than you do? Your arrogance and self-righteousness is a little over the top.

In 2004, 75% of the military supported Bush for re-election, even though he was the pro-war candidate and Kerry was the one promising to get us out of Iraq. So were the troops right then or are they right now?

If you weren't so hell-bent on picking a fight and wanted to engage in some actual conversation you might find that we agree on more than we disagree on. I am 100% for pulling out of Iraq immediately. I also would support withdrawing from the United Nations and cutting the vast majority of our foreign aid. But closing all our bases overseas? Sorry, but that's just foolish.

And your so-called history lesson on World War II is a load of crap. Blaming the bankers instead of Hitler is just the sort of anti-Semitic BS Adolph himself would have loved. World War II happened because the Allied powers lacked the spine to enforce the Treaty of Versailles that should have prevented Germany from ever rebuilding a military that could pose any threat. They sat back and tried to appease Hitler as he built the most powerful single army in the world, conquered half of Europe, and forced the United States to make unholy alliances with the Soviet Union to defeat Nazism.

Tim Fulton said...

Alcoholic, you have a lot of nerve claiming I "insist on throwing around insults". I didn't call you any names, like "arrogant" and "self-righteous". It looks like you're the pot calling the kettle black. All I did was ask you several questions you couldn't answer, and make a logical suggestion; try it first, and then see whether you want to support or oppose it. That you saw that as an insult might be your conscience talking to you.

I think I probably know a bit more about education than you know about war, because I went to school for 18 years. I also know that the history or wars is written by their victors.

I'm not "hell-bent on picking a fight", I think that's you giving yourself too much credit again. I thought maybe you were capable of intellectual debate without name calling, and maybe you had an answer for some of those questions. Obviously, I thought wrong. It happens...

Tim Fulton said...

Alcoholic, you have a lot of nerve claiming I "insist on throwing around insults". I didn't call you any names, like "arrogant" and "self-righteous". It looks like you're the pot calling the kettle black. All I did was ask you several questions you couldn't answer, and make a logical suggestion; try it first, and then see whether you want to support or oppose it. That you saw that as an insult might be your conscience talking to you.

I think I probably know a bit more about education than you know about war, because I went to school for 16 years. I also know that the history of wars is written by their victors.

I'm not "hell-bent on picking a fight", I think that's you giving yourself too much credit again. I thought maybe you were capable of intellectual debate without name calling, and maybe you had an answer for some of those questions. Obviously, I thought wrong. It happens...