Posted on 09/18/2009 10:54:12 AM PDT by GoldStandard
I received lots of comments and mail about an entry here Thursday relating Ron Paul to Sarah Palin in a political atmosphere where 43 percent consider themselves independents. Many were from Paul supporters who didn’t like the connection. Others did. Glen, who says he has supported Paul for 20 years and Palin for one possibly got closest to the current reality: “I think Palin and Paul have a lot in common,” he wrote. “They are both libertarians, but they come to it from different approaches. Paul is an erudite scholar on both economics and foreign policy. Palin comes at it from the heart and from the gut. She is a natural libertarian who believes in limited government, free markets and individual liberty just because it’s right.”
I found it interesting that one commentator claimed that Paul and Palin did not belong together because Palin was just another RINO, a Republican in Name Only. It’s a good phrase and one I have always associated with Ted Nugent, the madcap Michigan rocker with a conservative political bent. But Uncle Ted is totally in love with Palin. I heard him call to comment on a radio show a month or so ago when Palin was being interviewed about gun laws in Alaska. “God bless you, Sarah Palin,” was his comment.
The Republican Value Voters conference this week will hold a straw poll on the still long-away 2012 presidential election. It should be useful in cutting through the ambiguity and denial about the various grassroots movements around the country. In a poll six months ago, Palin and Paul came in tied for second, behind Mitt Romney. Romney will come back as we get closer to 2012, but he should sink some this weekend because of his association with healthcare insurance as governor of Massachusetts.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
What is this idiot saying? This is like Authentic Frontier gibberish....
No Romney
No Paul
PERIOD!
“You are not endearing yourself... “
Sniff............
Palin isn’t a libertarian, she is pro-life, she isn’t for giving homosexuals free reign in the military, she isn’t for shutting down the Border Patrol so that cheap labor can freely migrate to America without limits or “illegal” restrictions, she isn’t for “gay” marriage and adoption, etc.
Governor Palin is a Christian, where does this libertarian nonsense come from?
Popcorn comin right up!
IBTZ
FOREIGN POLICY??? If it wasn't for his insane FP and 9-11 Truther associations he may not be too bad.
That is with the exceptions "ansell2" lists in post #7. ;*)
Found this on the Libertarian Party web site; it’s their platform on immigration. While I don’t agree with it I respect their honesty and clear communication.
Among its many virtues, America is a nation where laws are generally reasonable, respected and impartially enforced. A glaring exception is immigration.
Today an estimated 12 million people live in the U.S. without authorization, 1.6 million in Texas alone, and that number grows every year. Many Americans understandably want the rule of law restored to a system where law-breaking has become the norm.
The fundamental choice before us is whether we redouble our efforts to enforce existing immigration law, whatever the cost, or whether we change the law to match the reality of a dynamic society and labor market.
Low-skilled immigrants cross the Mexican border illegally or overstay their visas for a simple reason: There are jobs waiting here for them to fill, especially in Texas and other, faster growing states. Each year our economy creates hundreds of thousands of net new jobs — in such sectors as retail, cleaning, food preparation, construction and tourism — that require only short-term, on-the-job training.
At the same time, the supply of Americans who have traditionally filled many of those jobs — those without a high school diploma — continues to shrink. Their numbers have declined by 4.6 million in the past decade, as the typical American worker becomes older and better educated.
Yet our system offers no legal channel for anywhere near a sufficient number of peaceful, hardworking immigrants to legally enter the United States even temporarily to fill this growing gap. The predictable result is illegal immigration.
In response, we can spend billions more to beef up border patrols. We can erect hundreds of miles of ugly fence slicing through private property along the Rio Grande. We can raid more discount stores and chicken-processing plants from coast to coast. We can require all Americans to carry a national ID card and seek approval from a government computer before starting a new job.
Or we can change our immigration law to more closely conform to how millions of normal people actually live.
Crossing an international border to support your family and pursue dreams of a better life is not an inherently criminal act like rape or robbery. If it were, then most of us descend from criminals. As the people of Texas know well, the large majority of illegal immigrants are not bad people. They are people who value family, faith and hard work trying to live within a bad system.
When large numbers of otherwise decent people routinely violate a law, the law itself is probably the problem. To argue that illegal immigration is bad merely because it is illegal avoids the threshold question of whether we should prohibit this kind of immigration in the first place.
We’ve faced this choice on immigration before. In the early 1950s, federal agents were making a million arrests a year along the Mexican border. In response, Congress ramped up enforcement, but it also dramatically increased the number of visas available through the Bracero guest worker program. As a result, apprehensions at the border dropped 95 percent. By changing the law, we transformed an illegal inflow of workers into a legal flow.
For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid “amnesty” and still offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they’ve committed. They can be required to take their place at the back of the line should they eventually apply for permanent residency.
The fatal flaw of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was not that it offered legal status to workers already here but that it made no provision for future workers to enter legally.
Immigration is not the only area of American life where a misguided law has collided with reality. In the 1920s and ‘30s, Prohibition turned millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans into lawbreakers and spawned an underworld of moon-shining, boot-legging and related criminal activity. (Sound familiar?) We eventually made the right choice to tax and regulate alcohol rather than prohibit it.
In the 19th century, America’s frontier was settled largely by illegal squatters. In his influential book on property rights, The Mystery of Capital, economist Hernando de Soto describes how these so-called extralegals began to farm, mine and otherwise improve land to which they did not have strict legal title. After failed attempts by the authorities to destroy their cabins and evict them, federal and state officials finally recognized reality, changed the laws, declared amnesty and issued legal documents conferring title to the land the settlers had improved.
As Mr. de Soto wisely concluded: “The law must be compatible with how people actually arrange their lives.” That must be a guiding principle when Congress returns to the important task of fixing our immigration laws.
One of the things that the libertarians are best at is keeping their American cultural and immigration views out of public sight and discussion.
I lived in California from 1976-2006. I watched much of it turn into a ghetto due to illegal immigration. If amnesty with chain migration is approved, America is finished.
I think people associate her with libertarianism beacuse of her stressing personal freedom, rugged individualism and independence. She also fights corruption against Republicans. But I agree she is what I consider a traditionalist both socially and economically.
The chances that Sarah Palin is a RINO is the same chance the Buffalo Bills had to close out the New England Patriots on Monday night football with just over 5 minutes to go and the game and two scores ahead.
Not a chance in hell.
You just described America from colonial times until the 1960s when we were so socially conservative that modern American media would call even the left of center Americans right wing wackos and fundamentalist Christians compared to our current libertine yet oppressive times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.