Populist revolt in primary elections: patriot Paul in; traitor Spector out -Robert Stark

May 27, 2010

Robert Stark

Primary elections were held across the country on Tuesday and Wednesday. While the last two major elections had a partisan tone, within both the democrat and republican primaries there has been a major backlash against the establishment candidates. Rand Paul, who is the son of Congressman Ron Paul and favorite of the Tea Party Movement, defeated the establishment backed candidate Trey Grayson in the Republican Primary of Senate in Kentucky and Senator Arlen Specter was defeated on the democratic primary by Congressman Joe Sestak.

What we are seeing with this election that has not been seen in a while is the voters are rejecting the establishment backed candidates. While the Tea Party has been co-opted to some degree, it has given a platform for patriotic Americans to to influence the result of elections. Rand Paul whose father helped start this movement had the backing of liberty minded Americans across the country. His opponent Tray Grayson had the backing of the entire GOP establishment, including Dick Cheney, but that was not enough to get him nominated.

Rand Paul’s nomination is a sign for change to come with the GOP. The Hill’s John Feehery said “Rand Paul’s election may very well mean the beginning of the end of the neo-conservative movement in the Republican Party. It also might mark the beginning of the end of the social-conservative wing of the Republican Party.” Mainstream Conservative pundit George Will even admitted his ideas were catching on with Republican voters stating “it may seem strange for a Republican to have opposed, as Paul did, the invasion of Iraq. But in the eighth year of that war, many Kentuckians may think he was strangely prescient. To some it may seem extreme to say, as Paul does, that although the invasion of Afghanistan was proper, our current mission there is “murky.” But many Kentuckians may think this is an extreme understatement.

This has caused concern for the Republican establishment. Former Bush speech writer David Frum denounced Paul’s victory, stating, “Rand Paul’s victory in the Kentucky Republican primary is obviously a depressing event for those who support strong national defense and rational conservative politics. In another year, such a victory would be a prelude to a Republican defeat in the general election.” While some of Paul’s hardcore supporters are disappointed by his verbal support for Israel, Neocons like Frum are upset that the principles of non-interventionism and opposition to foreign air making a comeback within the conservative movement.

Frum acknowledges that Paul’s victory symbolized frustration with the Republican establishment stating, “How is it that the GOP has lost its antibodies against a candidate like Rand Paul?” He admits his impact on the GOP adding, “But despite Paul’s self-presentation as “anti-establishment,” the D.C. conservative establishment by and large made its peace with him. It is this acquiescence – even more than Paul’s own nomination – that is the most ominous news from tonight’s vote.”

Senator Arlen Specter Specter dropped out of the Republican Party because of opposition from the Tea Party crowd. Sestak who had the backing of the anti-war movement will go on to face Republican Pat Toomey who is the Tea Party favorite in the general. Specter was beholden to powerful pro-Israel interest. Morton Klein who was the former head of the Zionist Organization of America said, “Anything I ever asked Arlen Specter to do with respect to Israel or Jews, he has always done it.” Klein also credit Specter’s role in maintaining foreign aid for Israel. While Toomey and Sestak are no Rand Pauls, they are certainly vast improvements over Specter, who was for amnesty for illegal immigrants, bailouts, foreign aid, and the Iraq War.

In the upcoming primaries many more establishment candidates are vulnerable, primarily John McCain who angered voters will his co-signing of the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill. He is facing Congressman J.D. Hayworth, who has made border enforcement his signatory issue. Like Specter, McCain supported the bailouts and represents much of the same globalist interventionist agenda.

Paul’s victory and Specter’s defeat represent a growing movement for national sovereignty and non-interventionism that threatens the powers that be. This is just the beginning, as many other candidates are appealing to this growing populist sentiment against partisan politics and corruption in Washington and Wall Street.

Source: LA Examiner.


6 Responses to “Populist revolt in primary elections: patriot Paul in; traitor Spector out -Robert Stark”

  1. Ian on May 27th, 2010 8:36 am

    Apparently opposition to “foreign air” is making a comeback. Thank goodness, its about time…

  2. keere on May 27th, 2010 12:32 pm

    Have you read Rand’s position paper on Israel?

    Not very patriotic.

  3. Skeeter on May 27th, 2010 1:40 pm

    What about your boy Rand’s new and improved views on the 1964 War on White People Act? …Eh?…Eh? I bet you regret writing this screamingly patriotarded article.

  4. Bob G. on June 1st, 2010 6:44 pm

    I don’t believe that Rand (as in Jewess Ayn Rand) Paul is a patriot. He is loyal to “America”, an entity that includes negroes. He isn’t loyal to his nation, which is a homogenous group.

    “Segregation, the Jim Crow laws–these things were so abhorrent that I think the South had failed and that the federal government had a role in ending discrimination in all of these practices.”

    He’s saying that Southern Aryans were the bad guys and negroes and FedGov were the good guys.

    He is promoting the genocide of Aryans. If you integrate with another race, they become part of the gene pool. Complete mongrelization will be the inevitable result. Look at India.

    If the U.S. had imported millions of negroes of all ages into occupied Japan after W.W.II and forced the Japanese schools to allow them to enroll, the Japanese would rightly have accused FedGov of genocide. And yet “Rand” is happy, even eager, to have integration with negroes inflicted on us.

    He vigorously promotes the annihilation of his race, but he thinks it would be cool to have gold-backed money. That makes him a Jew-approved “patriot”.

    (In any case, FedGov has no constitutional control over the territory of the States.)

    Contrast the treason of “Rand” with the stance of Jefferson and Lincoln:

    [T]he two races, equally free, cannot live under the same
    — Thomas Jefferson

    Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time
    favorable to, or at least not against, our interest to transfer the
    African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however
    great the task may be.
    — A. Lincoln, Sept. 22, 1856

    A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of
    amalgamation; but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next
    best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together.
    If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will
    never mix blood in Kansas.
    — A. Lincoln, June 26, 1857

    What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and
    black races.
    — A. Lincoln, July 17, 1858

    I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of
    bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of
    the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been in
    favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying
    them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people.
    — A. Lincoln, Sept. 18, 1858

    Reduce the supply of black labor by colonizing the black laborer out
    of the country, and by precisely so much you increase the demand for,
    and wages of, white labor.
    — A. Lincoln, Dec. 1, 1862

  5. listener on June 1st, 2010 8:43 pm

    “[T]he two races, equally free, cannot live under the same

    Well that one is clearly wrong.

    Jefferson and Lincoln aren’t authorities on biological race. Invoking them as if they are isn’t going to do much good.

  6. Bob G. on June 1st, 2010 11:12 pm

    > “[T]he two races, equally free, cannot live under the same
    > government.”
    > Well that one is clearly wrong.

    No, it’s not. Aryans are not free in this country. They do not have freedom of association. They are not allowed to send their children to all-Aryan schools, but negroes can have all-negro schools. Aryans are treated as serfs while negroes are treated as aristocrats; an Aryan who commits a crime against a negro is charged with a “hate crime”, but a negro isn’t when he murders or rapes an Aryan. Negroes benefit from government-mandated “affirmative action”. Government-mandated quotas force businesses to hire and universities to accept negroes instead of Aryans with better qualifications.

    As for “biological science”, Boasian anthropology is simply Jewish pseudo-science. Scientific studies of negro intelligence in the U.S. have shown it to be about 83; in Africa, it’s below 80. (Statistics show that there is a very strong correlation around the world between hunger and low IQ.)

    Everything that Jefferson and Lincoln believed about the Congoid race has been verified by science and history. That is common knowledge. What is significant about their opinions is the moral and political aspect. They didn’t believe that it was “the White man’s burden” to serve and “uplift” the negro. They didn’t think that it was “wicked” and “un-Christian” for the Aryan to segregate the races or even to deport the negroes to Africa, where they can sink or swim on their own. It’s not a biological question, it’s an ethical one.

    One doesn’t have to be an “expert” in biology to be rationally opposed to the genocide of his own race.