Skip to main content

Do Ron Paul Supporters Support The Wall Street Protest?



Do Ron Paul Supporters Support The Wall Street Protest?
by Matthew Edward Hayward on Wednesday, October 12, 2011

I think the disconnect we have comes from a philosophy that sounds like this: “You do not need to agree 100%, 80% is enough. We should support the candidate that fits most of our ideals.” (Please correct me if I am wrong.) Either way, I hope the following helps you to understand, at least in part, why some of Ron Paul’s supporters attend the Wall street protests and work with those on the far left.

It is the 20% I disagree with that motivated my involvement. My concerns are not vague or ideologically complex. I do not care if you support the ‘Federal’ war drugs, going into Iraq, or even to assassinate someone, even a US citizen. What matters to me is that we go about these matters in a Constitutional way. Even if I disagree with the outcome, as long as it is done legally and in accordance to the Constitution, that would be enough to win over my acceptance. The ends do not justify the means, I holistically reject utilitarianism.

All that said, I have great respect for the likes of Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader. I may disagree with them on 80%, maybe a little more, but the few things we agree on are paramount. I would vote for someone who aimed to follow the rule of law, to do something I did not want or agree with, over someone who would perverts the law to accomplish what I want. Put in simple terms, I believe in principled men/women and question the path of 99% of those in office. I am called an idealist for not supporting evil, So be it. I am an idealist that refuses to support evil.(Evil as I define it are those who hide behind the flag, religion or a political agenda in order to obfuscate and undermined, if not totally ignoring the Constitution and rule of law.) All those who vote for the lesser of evils are guilty.

I will not vote for any candidate that supports morally wrong and illegal legislation like the Patriot Act. Anyone who supports the suspension of the Bill of rights and wants to take this country toward a Nazi Germany police State, is an enemy of the people. It makes little difference if the person is a civilian or elected official, I have no respect for a traitor that serves to destroy what our country once stood for. In fact, those in higher offices that permit such acts to take place are Culpable and should be held accountable. All Americans who supporters those who commit acts of treason against the people and the Constitution are accomplices and should also be tried as traitors.

This is far bigger than left verse right, big business verse social programs and taxes, mandated healthcare, gays and marriage etc. The issues of the day fall to the core existence of a free society, none of the other matters have merit or relevance if we are going to continue to live in a lawless land of increasing State power and tyranny endorsed by both major parties. Yes, I will work with a Communist, Muslim, Socialist etc, as long as they believe we should not be torturing people, assassinating people, incarcerating people indefinitely without access to a court and defense. As long as they believe that we need to follow Article 1 Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, that makes them more American than a majority of those in both major parties.

My motivation, like that of most of Ron Paul's supporters is not about getting a party into power. We don't care about winning some token battles. We want, and believe we need a revolution. We hope to accomplish this by means of education, thus leading to a political revolution. Violence, though sometimes necessary, is a last resort and not desired. We would much rather influence and direct the anger of those protesting wall street toward the Federal Reserve. We hope to educate ‘some’ of the protesters to realize that we are all in this together, losing our rights and liberties, and that the Federal Reserve is the entity that creates an environment encouraging moral hazard, perpetual war and exploitation. Most importantly for everyone on both sides to understand is, capitalism and corporatism are not the same. I will work with anyone interested in ending the FED and restoring our civil liberties.


http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/317363_2377423707731_1201241208_n.jpg

Bard student speaking at Washington Square Park

HERE IS WHY WALL STREET IS OCCUPIED!! Tell it like it is brother....mirror

"CptnMidnite Responds To Glenn Beck" End the Fed / Occupy Wall Street

Alex Jones Breaks Down The Occupy Co-Opting

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...