What is it about Ron's Peace and Prosperity Institute that terrifies the Trotskyites?

[sailingaway]

Because they are out in force, with completely non substantive arguments (this guy there can be demonized as having this idea and that guy must be anti Semite because he doesn't want to give foreign aid) and the institute has done almost nothing yet. This really makes me hopeful, to be honest!

David Frum has apparently known all along Ron never wrote the newsletters he has smeared him over, and apparently is sure he knows who did write them, since he says Ron appointed them to the board.

Note here is David Frum standing as a witness that Ron never wrote them:

davidfrum ‏@davidfrum now
Ron Paul, so appalled by racism of those newsletters he never read, names their author to board of his new institute h p://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/25/ron-paul-s-insane-asylum.html …

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/327500122151845888

I'm not posting his article, because once you've read one fictional smear job by him you really don't have any need to read more (I didn't read it myself.)

And the Daily Beast is shouting Truther!! Anti Semite!!! about people who are working on this, and we already know how little substance that ever has.

Anyhow, I am jazzed about this. Clearly they are really worried.

 

[Petar]

Well, if you subscribe to Carroll Quigley, then the CFR was one of the main tools of the fabian socialists/globalists centered in London England, so I guess that it is only natural that they should seriously fear a competing think-tank that uses the same model, but it based on real American values instead.

I agree that seeing them freak out is actually very encouraging.

 

[sailingaway]

Jamie Kirchick ‏@jkirchick now
Re-upping my piece on the Ron Paul Institute for Genocide Denial and Dictator Worship http://po .st/fFLIea LOL!!

 

[sailingaway]

This whole nonsensical barrage of name calling attacks before the Institute really even does anything reminds me of something Raimondo wrote after Ron's CPAC 2010 speech, about the attacks then when the same thing happened, as terrorized neocons came out after Ron's first CPAC win:

"Conspiracy theorist," "zealot," "deranged," "truther" – rinse, and repeat. There is something oddly childish about the taunting polemical style of the neocons: what it boils down to is simple name-calling. Rather than engage Paul’s actual views, the idea is to drive him out of the public square by means of pure epithets.

(It's a good article, by the way, and worth reading, in part as a reminder of how far we've come in changing public opinion): http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/02/21/ron-paul/

 

[sailingaway]

 

[NH4RonPaul]

Yet another part of the concerted attack: THE WEEK

Clueless

h xxp://theweek.com/article/index/243348/why-the-new-ron-paul-institute-is-terrible-news-for-rand-paul

 

[Origanalist]

The advisory board, Kirchick says, includes Lew Rockwell, Paul's former chief of staff and the man most probably responsible for the "toxic stew of racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, sympathy for right-wing militia movements, and support for a litany of conspiracy theories" in Ron Paul's branded newsletters in the 1990s; and Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, a 9/11 skeptic.

 

[NH4RonPaul]

TPMDC

Yeah Ron Paul is that same old bigot... LOL

/tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/ron-pauls-extreme-ties-reemerge-at-new-institute.php

 

[NH4RonPaul]

Low information bloggers love to make this sh-- up don't they?

 

[sailingaway]

break links of hit articles, also I'm sure this has already been posted so I'll merge these. No one pays attention to these people, no need to raise their profile.

 

[sailingaway]

Yeah Ron Paul is that same old bigot... LOL

/tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/ron-pauls-extreme-ties-reemerge-at-new-institute.php

thanks for breaking the link

 

[wormyguy]

I do note that the thought controllers are trying to have it both ways on the newsletter thing, sometimes it's impossible that anyone other than Ron could possibly have written them, and other times they were written by Lew Rockwell when that's a more effective smear.

 

[Barrex]

Racism is hot topic in USA. I guess as an outsider I am not under pressure or fear: Those articles werent racist. They were politically incorrect.

Meanwhile:Black Guy , Priest, Rabbi get on a plane

 

[sailingaway]

I do note that the thought controllers are trying to have it both ways on the newsletter thing, sometimes it's impossible that anyone other than Ron could possibly have written them, and other times they were written by Lew Rockwell when that's a more effective smear.

Yeah, I tweeted back to Frum thanks for confirming Ron had never written them, which he had implied differently before. I may be blocked now....

 

[Anti Federalist]

His best speech ever AFAIC

 

[sailingaway]

 

[sailingaway]

 

[Ivash]

A few thing:

1) Just because someone is insulting someone, doesn't mean they are worried about that person. The Blackhawks, by and large, are not worried about the Wild in the NHL Finals, even though they are trash talking them.

2) Just because someone is worried about something, doesn't mean the other side is winning. I'm sure there was one Heat fan legitimately worried about their series against the Bucks when the Heat were on the verge of a sweep. There can be other explanations for why they are worried. Like, they might be ignorant of the situations (and thus are overrating the threat).

3) Why Trotskyities/Trotskyism? I see this term thrown around abrasively a lot more than I do Stalinist/Maoist/Leninist (but not, obviously communism), and I'm just curious if there is logic behind it ('They really aren't as bad as Stalinists...' for example) or if its just something that snowballed (a small case of mob mentality).

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Well, for one thing, the name is brilliant. Peace and Prosperity? Yes, the two can be linked, and they don't want people making that link, or even hearing the two said together.

 

[sailingaway]

A few thing:

1) Just because someone is insulting someone, doesn't mean they are worried about that person. The Blackhawks, by and large, are not worried about the Wild in the NHL Finals, even though they are trash talking them.

2) Just because someone is worried about something, doesn't mean the other side is winning. I'm sure there was one Heat fan legitimately worried about their series against the Bucks when the Heat were on the verge of a sweep. There can be other explanations for why they are worried. Like, they might be ignorant of the situations (and thus are overrating the threat).

3) Why Trotskyities/Trotskyism? I see this term thrown around abrasively a lot more than I do Stalinist/Maoist/Leninist (but not, obviously communism), and I'm just curious if there is logic behind it ('They really aren't as bad as Stalinists...' for example) or if its just something that snowballed (a small case of mob mentality).

There is always logic behind my choice of words, thank you (unless I simply misspeak.) Neoconservative and 'neocon' are tricky words because the left used them for so long to demonize any conservative not knowing or caring that it was a term of art. The neoconservatives were Trotskyite, big government, particularly on the world stage, internationalists seeking pure democracy with no pure 'rights' such as in our constitution, for individuals to withstand the whims of the majority at any given time. Power through manipulation of the masses. That isn't remotely conservative and never was. It found a niche in the GOP when the Democrats became identified with being the peace party, and Kristol's Dad (one of the originals) and his friends moved over to the GOP to manipulate evangelicals (using the argument that the current governmental unit that selected the name Israel today = the Israel the Bible says to support argument), and to manipulate national security conservatives who want DEFENSE but writ large, a world presence to make damned sure we have defense, as necessary.

National security conservatives are not the same thing as neoconservatives. National Security conservatives are literally driven through wanting to be too big to attack, a kind of defensive posture. They understand debt MATTERS to national security so while they want a lot more 'defense' than we think we need, they don't want it at the expense of a thriving economy. I see Jim DeMint as a national security conservative, and while I don't agree with his foreign policy views, I respect him as someone who stays true to his views. Compare DeMint to Lindsay Graham, now....or McCain.

Even Kristol jokes about his Dad being a Trotskyite, he just pretends he himself, with indistinguishable policies, isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism

As to the other points, of course that is true, sometimes, but I don't believe either of those caveats fits here. Here they were ignoring Ron blatantly in media until he had this pretty low key announcement of his institute, and on the same day six or eight of the main MSM Trotskyite mouth pieces or leftist agenda protectors came out shrilly recycling old smears in a way that sure appears coordinated. It has happened before, and with something that anyone who knows anything about Ron knows isn't part of his character at all, and with the people in question, particularly Weigel and Kirchik or whatever his name is, absolutely know is false. (Humorously, Frum is one who wrote about this OFTEN as being 'Ron's' newsletters, yet he was tweeting this round of articles saying Lew had written them and therefore the Institute is racist. I tweeted back thanks that he confirmed Ron hadn't written them. They make up the facts to suit their current agenda.)

Here is a write up of when it was done 24 hours before the NH primary in 2008 (note that it had first made a big round of media in 1996 when Ron went back to Congress, yet they acted as if it was new. And did again in 2011.), Some of these just think Ron sucks too much oxegyn from the room JOHNSON supporters were pushing it in the primary this round, and they absolutely know better. The pattern I have seen of this nonsense being spun against Ron is that it comes out when they are scared. Ron is tied for first going into the Iowa caucuses, Ron surges to second place in the Reuters national poll with 22% before Super Tuesday. So I read it as fear, and the poll that more now are concerned that their constitutional rights be protected than that they get more security, DESPITE the poll being taken RIGHT after the Boston incident, tells me we are winning. Or, as Ron Paul puts it, "changing the direction of the wind."

http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-orange-line-anatomy-of-a-smear-campaign/