'We Are About To Take Over The Republican Party" -Ron Paul Spokesman

As I have been saying for quite some time now,  Ron Paul is organizing a coup.  It is the desire of his group to take over the Republican Party in order to get control of the money and organizational information that goes along with it.  Then they will convert those resources to the libertarian ideas and plans for America that Ron Paul espouses.

The Ron Paul campaign reports that they captured a number of delegates in Minnesota and Colorado yesterday and will probably secure Santorum's delegates. "We are in the process of taking over the GOP," says Doug Wead, a Paul campaign advisor.On his April 11, 2012 blog post, Wead explains how the Paul campaign strategy to capture delegates is working.

Many of the delegates who have already been selected to go to Tampa and are pledged to vote for Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are actually Ron Paul activists who were chosen as delegates because they showed up and got elected as such, not because they committed to any of the candidates. We don’t yet have a complete count on any of this but it is substantial. We are in the process of taking over the GOP at many precinct and county levels. And that is translating into power at the state conventions where the delegations are chosen.... This means that the convention floor in Tampa will be loaded with Ron Paul supporters. And it means if Santorum releases his delegates many of them will vote for us because they were never Rick Santorum supporters in the first place. [Digital Journal]

Once again we have been told precisely what is afoot, and yet people still think that the TEA party is just a bunch of staunch conservatives demanding government accountability, serious reductions in federal spending and a more constitutionally based agenda.

Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware that politics is all about a wrestling match for authority. The GOP struggles for a majority, the democrats struggle for a majority and the TEA party struggles to be taken more seriously.

And I don't fault Ron Paul or his organization for trying to wedge their way into seats of power so they can advance their own agenda. But is the Ron Paul agenda the Republican agenda? Or is it his own?

I am going to use an extreme analogy which I want to point out in advance is strictly for example purposes and is specifically not intended to accuse Ron Paul of being an Islamist or anything of the sort.

But imagine that you are a member of a church within the Christian faith. Now imagine that a number of Muslims in your community started coming to services, working on various church projects and eventually working their way into positions of church leadership.

If they came to become members of your church, and your faith, they would be welcomed, right? But what if their agenda was not to really become Christians, but to co-opt your church building, your church bank account and your church membership roster to their own purposes of preaching another faith, having failed to succeed on their own. If they then boldly announced that they were about to take over your church, how would you feel about that?

Is Ron Paul and his organization doing something similar with the GOP? If not, then why do they use words like "take-over"? Doesn't that sound a bit hostile?

You tell me.

Comments

[A Facebook User]

I'm a long time republican who agrees with Ron Paul on almost every important issue, but unlike Ron Paul, I'm not a devout Christian. Do these facts make me unwelcome in the republican party? I certainly hope not, since I've been a loyal republican since 2001.

[Marc's Reply: You would certainly be welcome as a voter of course. However, in order to be an officer you would additionally have to be loyal to the party platform and it's candidates. You can read the platform here: http://whitehouse12.com/republican-party-platform/ Thanks for the comment]

[Mr. Scott Ryan]

Once again you fail to see Paul’s objective.

It is important to note that none of this is being done in a stealth manner.

If Paul has intentions, he lets it be known in the public arena.

Yes, Paul wants to win the Presidency, but only because then, can he declare his ideas victorious.

It is about ideas.

His people are being appointed to positions and elected into party positions by REPUBLICANS.

If you don’t like it, then you need to recruit 1 more Republican than Paul can to defeat his very CONSEVATIVE ideas.

It is also important to note that Paul has been an elected REPUBLICAN leader for over 40 years. He began is partisan career in 1971.

If you claimed that Paul was trying to take over the party and he denied it, then there would be cause for concern.

It’s out there in the open, now what are the status quos going to do about it? The answer is nothing. They can’t. They are quickly becoming a minority within the party.

The market place of ideas. A truly wonderful thing.

Stealth politics are losing the war in this new age of the internet.

Is that such a bad thing?

Paul won’t win the primary, but I bet his ideas takes over the party. The only question is when.

God Bless.

[Reagan Republican]

Marc: The Republican party HAS lost its backbone and its distinguishing characteristics from the D's. Used to be we were the party of personal responsibility and limited government, particularly on the federal level. W abused the trust of the Republican base with excessive taxing and spending. I do not agree with Dr. Paul on his foreign policy stance (though I do agree we need to limit or end foreign aid), nor do I agree with him on many social issues. But lets look at the top of the ticket: Mitt supported government health care in Massachusetts. Mitt increased Massachusetts spending and taxing. Mitt looks a whole lot more like Obama to me than Dr. Paul. As a conservative Republican, I agree with more of Dr. Paul than I do Mitt Romney. So, if Dr. Paul's influence causes the party platform to run more right, particularly in areas of spending, government size, and taxation, then I view that as a good thing.

[Marc's reply: Thanks for the comment. First of all, I agree with the fiscal sanity, defense of personal liberty and constitutional principles espoused by Ron Paul. But that is not the point of my commentary. Listen to the words his spokesman used. He did not say we are going to "help" the republican party, "improve" the republican party, "embolden" the republican party, "restore" the republican party or anything like that. He said we are going to "take over" the republican party. That sounds hostile to me.]

[not a Ron Paul fan]

Well call me a neo-con but I am a Republican not a libertarian Republican. I am not only disturbed by all this but offended and ANGRY. If they want a party then by all means go form your own but that would take , time, energy, money and morals which I find sorely lacking in so many of these Ron Paul fans. None of this is about transformation its solely about power , Power for Ron Paul. These people are more like militants then party members. I have been on the inside of a campaign working with one of their opponents and its not pretty what they will do to a person to accomplish their goals. There is no respect for a difference of opinion , no respect for other candidates and I could write a book on the ugly that was done to me personally and to those working on that campaign. The man draws a crowd of folks I personally am not comfortable being around , two words comes to mind , white supremacist !

[The Tea Party]

Your church analogy would work if the Ron Paul supporters were the true Christians trying to reform the church to its true foundation.

In your incorrect analogy, you represent libertarians as an enemy force, but Ronald Reagan certainly didn't view them that way. He said "libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism."

I'll stick with Reagan on this one. The libertarian influence in the GOP is good and serves as its heart and soul.

[Marc's Reply: Thanks for the comment. Actually Reagan spoke of the pretty general description of Libertarianism being a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom. With those things I agree. But the Ron Paul movement is about more than that. It is about military cuts, includes an extension of the personal liberty viewpoint to encompass legalizing prostitution, heroin and blames America for 9-11. I neither think Ronald Reagan nor many republicans are for such things.

To extend our use of analogy, Ron Paul's plans are not like a bunch of devout Christians joining a church in order to have more prayers during the service, rather they seek to join the church in order to have a building, a membership list and a bank account they can use to advocate the replacement of the ten commandments with a more "if it feels good, do it" philosophy. Don't fall for that. I saw it happen in the 60's with the secular humanists when they removed the Lord's Prayer from our schools, the manger scenes from our town squares and drove God out of the lives of four generations of American youth.]

[We aren't in Kentucky anymore]

I can only account for people I spoke to, but I was also disturbed to hear a pattern of hostility toward anything to be considered "the system" and definitely a preoccupation with social issues. If Ron Paul supporters claimed they organized their version of tea party with strictly financial issues in mind, then they in so doing deny their day-to-day activism with social issues, I.e. marriage, Gitmo and drugs, to name three subjects specifically in which I was schooled. A fourth "libertarian" person I had known even as a child and ran into while volunteering was cold and ignored all my communications. In the end, I made no lasting acquaintance, felt a little foolish, and became very suspicious of the motives of some people claiming to be interested in politics. A natural outcome to thet above facts, wouldn't you say?

While there is room for healthy discussion, I would wager the quiet majority far outweighs the Ron Paul theology supporters, in which case any "takeover" would not be representative of reality.

[Raulie Casteel]

Would it damage the party by Cong Paul relinquishing his seat for a position w/in the next Repub Admin? Either way, I'd like to see him cut loose on restoring transparency w/ the Treasury and implementing measures to seriously reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy. If he was allowed to take on these missions (seeking out his career passions) and his base new the intent, we could bring them into the fold. Just an idea.

[Raulie Casteel]

Ron Paul should work within the Party to accompish his objectives. Focus on retoration of the Constitution, preserving our freedoms from Islamic terrorists, and the Republican platform.

[Marc's reply: Thanks for the comment. Please clear something up. You say Ron Paul should focus on preserving our freedoms "from Islamic terrorists, and the Republican platform." Please explain that last part if you would be so kind.]