Go to: => TOP Page; ROAD MAP; Search Page; What's New? Page; Emmaus Ministries Page
See email from Aaron Russo
[COMMENT: The article below describes Ron Paul's possible candidacy for the presidency about as well as it can be put. At the title to his article below ("Paulbearers...") indicates, however, Hodges concludes that Paul cannot win because he is running as a Republican. Hodges represents the Constitution Party, which I have supported for several years now.
However, the Constitution Party has never been able to get its message out..., though it did make progress this last year on some fronts. Many supporters of the CP, such as myself, will support a Paul candidacy, and I hope that the CP will throw its support behind him if he runs. See Intro to the Constitution Party
So, I am committed now to the candidacy of Ron Paul, assuming that his initial feelers on the subject bear fruit and that he declares himself in the running (he is still testing the waters at this point - 1/17/07).
Hodges may indeed be right, that Paul cannot win the Republican nomination, but Paul is the person at this time who is in a position to make the case known to a wide audience for liberty and return to a Godly Constitution. Paul and the Constitution Party are almost identical in their beliefs. But the CP does not have much presence in the minds of the people. Ron Paul does.
I know personally some of the folks who will be helping with Paul's campaign, and trust their judgement, persons who have had strong connections with the CP. On paper, the Republican Party stands for much that is good. Not perfect, but good. If the people will get behind Paul, it could reform the Republican Party. That is a long shot, but not an impossible shot.
And if Paul's candidacy fails, it will draw together large numbers of co-believers in a free America, perhaps laying the ground for other things, perhaps even a strengthened CP, by underlining (once again) that the Republican Party is without hope.
The real test is not whether Paul wind, but will be whether Christians will find their political footing and stand up for Jesus right out in front of God and everybody. Paul's candidacy is a good place to do that. Either Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords, or He is nothing at all. We must present His case gracefully and truthfully, but we must present it. There will be no restoration of Godly freedom until God's own people stand up for Him in public.
It is not at this point important that the Republican Party stand for Jesus, only that Christians do. We must present the case for God from within any party we support. (See articles on honest pluralism in a democratic republic under God.) If our liberties are not guaranteed by God, they are not guaranteed at all -- as the Preamble to our Declaration of Independence clearly states.
The forces against such a candidacy will be enormous, relentless, and, as Hodges suggests, perhaps lethal. There have been suggestions that the assassinations of both Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy were by forces which supported things like the Federal Reserve, etc., in order to control the economy and politics of America. I think they may be right. The current globalist forces have shown themselves quite capable of such acts of violence and treason. So Paul is risking life and limb to mount a candidacy which is in any way seriously anti-globalist and Biblical.
The globalists fear nothing so much as a Judeo-Christian renewal. It will come, globalists or not. The only question is whether folks like you and I, dear reader, will be a part of it.
NOTE: (January 2010) I have become a bit disenchanted with Ron Paul because of his libertarian drift, and his apparent position that the states (if not the federal government) have the right to decide to kill babies in the womb. That is not so. Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, put "life" as the first inalienable right. Nobody can alienate that right from another person without due process by trial of the facts and law. Paul does not see that these moral issues are the foundation for all economic and political issues.
As Abe Lincoln noted, we need not to have God on our
side, rather we need to be on His side. Our
first piece of business is to get on our knees to get our marching orders and
our courage from the King. The whole candidacy must
be soaked in prayer, or it will not be able to do what needs to be done. I
do not know that Paul would honor God in that way. E. Fox]
Preserving Constitutional Liberties
|The “Paulbearers” of a Populist
Despite the fact that I am a former RIR (Republican in Recovery), I welcome the candidacy of Ron Paul for the Presidency of the United States.
A Paul candidacy would re-establish the rule of constitutional law to American society. His successful election would lead to a counter critical mass which would help to sweep all disloyal and unpatriotic politicians from office. A Ron Paul candidacy would possibly witness the restoration of the American dream.
I find myself agreeing with nearly every position espoused by the good congressman from Texas. He is adamantly against the invasion of the great sovereignty snatchers from the North American Union. He is opposed to the various trade agreements (e.g., CAFTA, NAFTA) which will permanently lower the amount of available jobs and wage structure for future generations of Americans. Paul is for reigning in the abuses of the IRS and abandoning the fiat currency which has plunged the true worth of the dollar to new international lows. Paul is also against embracing the Amero as our new currency because we would have to equalize our dollar with the Mexican Peso and the Canadian Dollar. Unless politicians like Paul have their way, one day, former American dollar holders may wake up to the fact that their life savings and retirement has been devalued by two-thirds as was the case with Mexicans when they were coerced into approving NAFTA. Equalizing the Peso with the Dollar is as scary as Rosie O'Donnell appearing in a swim suit contest with Donald Trump as the judge! Americans need to wake up to the fact that the establishment and implementation of a North American Union will threaten every American's retirement, savings and the hopes and dreams of our children and grandchildren. Ron Paul stands as the one shining light of opposition to this unconstitutional give-away of American sovereignty and economic viability.
Ron Paul is a true constitutionalist in every sense of the word. Unlike Bush, he does not view constitutional mandates as optional. When Ron Paul looks at a map, he sees a real dividing point where America begins and ends. He is opposed to American tax dollars being used to support illegal migrant health care, education, social security and unemployment insurance.
If Paul had his way, the corporate influencing of politicians would be outlawed and legally viewed for the system of bribery that it is. Ron Paul opposes the private takeover of the internet, the elimination of the alternative health care industry under CODEX and he is for returning to paper ballots in order to ensure the integrity of our elections.
In his most important stance, Ron Paul is against the continuance of the Federal Reserve System and such practices as fractional reserve banking which is responsible for the theft of untold amounts of money from the American people.
Ron Paul puts America ahead of partisan politics. I would estimate that almost all middle class Americans would welcome a Ron Paul administration.
Unfortunately, Ron Paul has zero chance of being elected President in 2008.
In a best case scenario, Paul would be marginalized by his own party because he is a threat to their personal status quo. If he pushed to roll back the unconstitutional legislation of George Bush (e.g., Military Commission Act), he would be accused of being soft on terrorism. If Paul were to unilaterally withdraw us from CAFTA and NAFTA with the hope of restoring our children's economic future, he would be accused of being a socialist, a protectionist, and war mongering politician because of his anti-trade policies.
Ron Paul would also be ostracized by the mainstream media and the six corporations which own 99% of the media. Most Americans, too busy to do any meaningful research, would be bamboozled by an unrelenting wave of yellow journalism designed to discredit his true positions. Fellow Republicans, desiring to protect their corporate fundraising turf, would join in the witch hunt that would follow a Paul candidacy because his candidacy would threaten their political coffers and future employment at the expense of the American people.
Even if a grassroots movement could be successful, Paul would have to face the same voting machines which have plagued Ohio and Florida. Al Gore and John Kerry are very familiar with this helpless feeling!
JFK was the last President to actively oppose the continued operation of the Federal Reserve. The purpose of this article is not to debate various assassination conspiracy theories except to say that even for the most ardent Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush Warren Commission supporters, it is undeniable that the forces of oil, international banking, the military industrial complex and some very key personnel in the CIA and the Pentagon were aligning against a 1964 John Kennedy re-election. A Ron Paul presidential candidacy would still have to contend with these same forces, and if for no other reason, he would receive serious opposition to his anti-war stance, his anti-Federal Reserve position and his opposition to undeclared wars is a threat to all the above interests who view Iraq and all other future military "police actions" as the great American cash cow. And in a worst case scenario, Paul would have to face these same forces with much personal and professional derision from within his own party.
A Ron Paul candidacy cannot succeed under the banner of the GOP. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have sold their political soul to the corporate devil. And any threat to the existing system will have as much of a chance of succeeding than a group of "loyal oppositionist" Chinese who would oppose their present military dictatorship. One simply cannot run for President within a dictatorial regime in the same manner that one cannot be an ardent Constitutionalist and receive the support of political parties which have evolved into a government by and for the transnational corporations.
In summary, a Ron Paul candidacy has only one flaw; his party of choice is antithetical to his positions as a person and a politician.
As is the case with Randy Pullen, Arizona 's GOP chairman candidate, Paul is the right man, with the right views, at the right time, but he is in the wrong party.
Yours in Freedom,
Constitution Party of Arizona
See email from Aaron Russo
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *