Ron Paul wins CPAC

There has been an uproar recently over Ron Paul's victory at the 2010 CPAC straw poll for the preferred 2012 GOP presidential nominee. The topline numbers were:

Ron Paul 31% (has real ideas)
Mitt Romney 22% (is disingenuous)
Sarah Palin 7% (is a tool)
Gov. Pawlenty 6% (trying to out neocon the rest)
Mike Pence 5% (neocon)
Newt Gingrich 4% (ridiculous)
Mike Huckabee 4% (kill Palestinian babies in the name of the JEEEZUS)

Romney had won the previous three ballots (2007-9), and this was hailed by talking heads and neocons on Fox News as a significant indication of the direction of conservative activists, if not conservatism in America generally. Suddenly, Ron Paul wins and the whole contest is "irrelevant" and the people who voted for him were just a bunch of "college kids", "libertarians", etc.

Now, I agree that Ron Paul is not a true conservative, but who among the bunch above is? If we view conservatism as conserving our culture and heritage and working to build a cohesive, sustainable (no, not in ecologist terms) society, then I'd say Huckabee is the closest thing to a conservative above. Such conservatism is not obsessed with "liberty" or capitalism. However, if we want to view conservatism through the eyes of the official line of the official conservative movement, then Ron Paul most certainly comes closest to an official conservative.

The Conservative Movement (TM) of the USA believes in (1) free enterprise, (2) the US Constitution, and (3) a foreign policy that puts national interests first. Ron Paul supports virtually unhindered free enterprise, whereas the Republican hacks support state-sponsored monopolies and the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul supports strict constructionism whereas the neocons will make exceptions for their torture and the globalist core of the GOP hands over national sovereignty ***not out of socialist desires (as in the John Bircher line) but in order to free themselves from taxation, regulation, and any oversight***. Ron Paul wants to end foreign aid, get the US out of the UN, and stop fighting foreign wars. The globalist- and Zionist-controlled Republicans call for endless expansion of already unpopular wars, often with the overt aims of, to sample some excuses we hear time to time, "gain access to (their) oil", "protect Israel", "make the world safe for democracy", "womens' rights", and any other litany of nakedly imperialistic, openly Israel-first, or left-liberal/egalitarian motivations.

This is why we must be in sympathy with Ron Paul. Yes, his solutions could cause a certain sort of chaos. I do not want to live in an America where private banks are unregulated, or where the value of money is fixed by the value of commodities which are also largely controlled by the private banks. Austrian economics will not save America or put Americans to work. However, such an America might be preferable to one in which a PRIVATE Federal Reserve has governmental power over our lives and, in open corruption, protects its friends on Wall Street or in Frankfurt, or the City of London, at our expense. An America isolated from the world is preferable to one which has claimed for itself the legal right to mow down not only foreigners, but also American citizens, abroad without any legal process whatsoever.

In short, Ron Paul battles corruption and officially-sanctioned evil perpetrated from Washington. While a true populist might have a debate with his style of libertarianism and win, Ron Paul will always win a debate against the status quo.

His victory at CPAC is welcomed as a victory not for true conservatism so much as for a conservative TRUTH.

Introduction

This blog will be dedicated to current events, political philosophy, and occasional bouts of theology, historical analysis, and historical linguistics :)

The name is derived from a couple different origins that are also reflected in my blog address socialpopulist.blogspot.com . First, the Red Cross represents a foundation of Christian socialist principles...that of a Social Gospel and moralistic interpretation of the mission of Christianity, tinged with the blue/purple/darker colours that usually underpin social conservatism and nationalism.

Why specifically crimson and not maroon or purple? -I grew up partially in Tuscaloosa, Alabama :)

Now the obligatory disclaimer following all political pronouncements: this blog does not endorse radical Marxism, Christian fundamentalism, or extreme nationalism/fascism. However, any of the above may be preferable to open corruption, open egoism, a state of complete libertarian moral decadence, or the politically-correct neoconservatism that reigns in America (whereby it is evil to make a racial joke but responsible to send drones to kill brown people at a wedding party). This blog stands for Christian humanism (including life ... for all!) and national sovereignty (for all!).