Posted on 02/20/2010 2:42:51 PM PST by onyx
Ron Paul Wins CPAC 2012 Presidential Straw Poll
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Weak field.
If marriage had remained a church matter, maybe more people would have been in a church often enough that there would not be any satanic churches or homosexual churches, just maybe more people would have had their children exposed to something other than that crap at an early age. But where there is nothing, something will fill the void.
But God gave us the choice to serve Him or not, the results will reflect that.
But, whatever the state says, marriage is between a man and a woman, in the eyes of God, and no Government has the authority to change that. Just watch, they are going to try, and it is because of the Government that God has been kicked out of so many public venues that the other ideas are gaining any toehold in our culture.
But look to your government for salvation if you must. You won't find it there.
The history of marriage suggests the state has long had a substantial interest in defining marriage sufficiently to be able to address the legal effects of procreative activity, such as paternity, survivorship, default rules of estate transfer, not to mention the legal and social obligations of raising children. That is why state marriage regulations have traditionally focused on heterosexual marriages; they are, by volume and by character, the most important source of the state’s most valuable resource, the next generation of citizens. Therefore, to the extent a state understands and values its own continuity, the state will naturally be concerned with the most natural context for sustainable procreation: Marriage.
As for Libertarianism, it has two basic flavors. One is more of a natural law, constitutional orientation, and the other more toward anarchy. I suspect the natural law camp has an easier time allowing the state to regulate marriage. Whereas the anarchistic would tend to revere individual autonomy as the supreme good and thus resist any such regulation.
Likewise, with abortion, the tendency to absolute individual autonomy, combined with a low view of the unborn child, tends to tilt libertarians toward unrestricted abortion. Our own libertarian candidate for governor, Lex Green, is so conflicted on the matter he says he is neither pro-life nor pro-abortion. Huh? Yet in reference to capital punishment, in the same radio interview, he said he was pro-life. Pro-life for capital felons, and “don’t care” about unborn children? That is tragically incoherent.
No, libertarianism may be a friendly force for free markets in theory, but its permissive nature on the social issues, if fully fleshed out as social norms, just makes our culture worse, more dependent on the state, and less likely to be able to sustain a free market. It is, IMHO, an inherently self-defeating system.
I vote for a traditional, natural law conservatism that recognizes both the rights of the individual and the beneficial role of government, at the highest level possible, in defending the rights of the recently procreated, whether it concerns the stability of traditional family structure that nurtures them, or the more basic issue of not being killed in the womb.
LOL, I’m only looking for the government not to let each church or mosque impose it’s own definitions of marriage and eliminate age restrictions like you want.
“In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and also allows a state to ignore gay marriages performed outside its borders.”
He never said that, he never said that, yes, and he never said that. Next.
Note, ectopic pregnancies and fallopian pregnancies are not in the womb, but outside the boundaries, anatomically speaking. Only when the continuation of the pregnancy will result in the death of both the mother and the baby is the termination of pregnancy justifiable.
As for: Therefore, to the extent a state understands and values its own continuity, the state will naturally be concerned with the most natural context for sustainable procreation: Marriage
These matters were handled by the churches at one time. If you dig far enough back into geneology, the records of birth, death, marriages and such fall primarily into church records, not government ones.
Legal matters of property were recorded by government, primarily for the purpose of taxation. Heirs and assigns were recorded for the purpose of recovering such debts as may have been owed the state, and for the purpose of levying taxes upon them subsequent to the demise of the former owner.
While the church may have been concerned with the welfare of the children, such has not been the concern of the State until the last hundred years or so. Legal obligations were, again concerned with taxation and succession, moral obligations were the focus of the Parish.
Marriage regulationa have focused on heterosexual marriage because that has heretofore been the only variety recognized by either church or state, as it should be. It is only in the past 40 years or so that perversion has supplanted the presence of open reference to God in public and even private institutions to the degree that homosexuality has become an 'open' issue at all.
I would note that the attempts by the state to take over the responsibilities of the church have only led to a variety of 'morals' which can only survive as long as they are supported by popular vote. The Church has scripture to guide it, and without the convolutions of twisting the teachings of the Bible cannot condone anything but heterosexual relationships.
LOL, I’m only looking for the government not to let each church or mosque impose it’s own definitions of marriage and eliminate age restrictions like you want.
That was a badly phrased sentence that I wrote to you. I meant that you want individual churches to define marriage, not that you want age restrictions removed, although that would be the result if you got your desire of keeping the state out of marriage and letting churches write their own rules for marriage.
He, in fact, predicted 9/11 would happen as a result of Clinton’s foreign policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA
If Ron Paul isn’t conservative, then there is no principle left in conservatism worth fighting for. End of story.
“Ron and the Paulettes have spammed straw polls before.
It’s what they do.”
that’s different than Freeping a poll, right?
Well, the history of state regulation of marriage and its points of contact with legal systems actually goes back as far as Hammurabi. The problem using the argument that it is strictly a province of the church is that the church, in various periods and locations, was for all intents and purposes coextensive with the government. Our modern quasi-bifurcation of church and state is a relatively recent phenomena and took a long time to evolve to its current condition, and I would contend that part of what is happening is the modern state is attempting, with some difficulty, to learn how to function in an area where the absence of religious governance is making the procreative interests of the state more difficult to secure. Therefore, I would still contend that, as long as natural law is the basis, government may still reasonably and beneficially involve itself with questions of marriage.
Consider the consequences if it does not. There is a dynamic of mutual exclusivity in the marital paradigm shift from primarily procreative and thus exclusively heterosexual, to the postmodern notion of arbitrary and primarily pleasure driven relationships. In the former, there are natural human propensities that foster a self-sustaining system that is beneficial to the state. The latter, as demonstrated by the Netherlands, tends over time to a disintegration of the whole concept of marriage. Therefore, if the state does not take sides, the private parties will end up in a winner takes all struggle, with no referee. Heterosexual practices are already actively being deconstructed by, among other things, carefully calculated lawsuits, of which the net effect is not the increase of equal rights but the diminishing of the protected status of the procreative paradigm, which in turn results in higher risk of harm to children.
This is a nontrivial effect and should be a consideration in what position the state takes. A state position of theoretical neutrality amounts to a decision of the state to do harm by doing nothing. Therefore, neutrality, as posited by some libertarians, is not an option.
I totally agree with Paul’s stance on drugs
the so called War on Drugs is a big govt joke
just another bloated bureaucracy in the name of “security”
I fought in the war on drugs and you had to be on drugs to think it was a war.
Ron Paul is 74 or something
hardly a presidential contender
lots of wasted energy on fr worrying about someone who is not going to run
or perhaps you know he is going to run
if so please tell us
Well, that’s true in part. Ron Paul has a decent number of dedicated supporters who do spend time and money to do things that they think will help Ron Paul. Ron Paul really doesn’t spend much time coordinating these people, if he even could.
His supporters congregate on message boards, not this one, and come up with ideas about how to help Ron Paul, promote limited government, things like that, and they try to implement them.
Romney basically has a lot of money and pays people with that money to do things he wants them to do.
Paul and Romney, I guess, have the “best organizations” but they don’t work at all the same way.
Palin at 7%? Huckabee at 4%? The results have to be seen as embarassing for any top-tier or middle-tier candidate not named Ron Paul.
Although I like Palin, she’s started to lose some people recently. When she was attacking Obama, she was saying things that everyone could agree on. Now she’s taking positions on issues, and that’s hurting her. She has to be able to do better than 7%. “She wasn’t there” isn’t much of an excuse. She’s considered the front-runner (as well as Romney), she has to do much better than 7%.
I didn’t know Ron Paul was anti-Jew. Do you have a link?
Ron Paul supporters have a type of argument. Back in December 2007, when Ron Paul was running for President, the Ron Paul Grassroots put together a Ron Paul Tea Party Money Bomb, on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Tea was dumped into Boston Harbor, other stuff happened that I don’t recall, and Ron Paul raised somewhere between 5 and 10 million bucks that day.
The Tea Party movement that started in 2009 wasn’t really an outgrowth of the Ron Paul campaign (there are some similarities), but the Ron Paul campaign / grassroots, did come up with the modern reuse of the tea party name.
The whole revolution / tea party / constitution / 1776 vibe was repopularized by the Ron Paul campaign / grassroots.
Obamas campaign came up with the Gotham font and the socialist realism.
Good. I guess CPAC has finally figured out that SMALL GOVERNMENT is the heart and soul of conservatism. The party bureaucrats had better start paying more attention to their base and less attention to the MSM— the tea parties are more than a minor temper tantrum.
Maybe the other 7600 didn’t have anyone to vote for? I voted for Ron Paul in the primary and I would do it again. First time I’ve had someone to vote FOR since Alan Keyes.
Jeb Bush got 2 votes? Why? The Bushes are the most liberal republicans there are
Woodrow Wilson and FDR started the War on Drugs. Wilson and FDR were both Democrats who believed in a bigger federal goverment. Ron Paul believes in a smaller federal goverment.
I forget, which are conservatives supposed to be for, a smaller federal government or a bigger federal government?
If you listen to people around here, you’d think that conservativism was about bigger government.
Yeah, a fantastic result, 7%. Down from last year. But she did squeak by Pawlenty. There’s your headline “Palin beats Pawlenty for 3rd”
There is one target with such enormous strategic importance that for it be taken out is so unthinkable that literally everything hinges on it – not just today but permanently. This target is ground zero of a balance of power strategy that has been operational for 1400 years. It is a granite cubicle called the Kaaba. Inside it is a black stone, which Muslims believe was found by Abraham and Ishmael. For hundreds of millions of Muslims, this is the holiest of relics. If these two religious objects inside Mecca were ever obliterated, the survival of Islam might be called into question....
That would make the Bomb more powerful than Allah.
This is theologically inconceivable for Muslims, or at least ritually unmentionable."
In other words -- "If you want to fight a War against Islam, it's real darn simple: either nuke Mecca and win the whole ball game, forever, or else don't play the game -- because otherwise, you're just pissing away blood and treasure to fight the same war this decade, next decade, and the decade after that, ad infinitum."
Know where I cribbed the above quotation?
From Dr. Gary North -- former chief staffer for that "hippie flower-child peacenik with no grasp of geopolitical realities", Congressman Ron Paul.
ron paul’s bill in the House of Representatives calling to Audit the Federal Reserve has been approved by a majority vote AND it has made it out of committee. Only the House Leadership is holding it up (Pelosi and others).
WHY Ron Paul’s bill is threatening is explained in the articles that are associated with another current thread here on Free Reublic that I’ve cited below.
It may well explain CPAC’s endorsement of Ron Paul and Palin not wanting to steal any of paul’s thunder at CPAC and, therefore, staying out of the limelight.
Passage of Ron Paul’s bill and a forced Audit of the Federal Reserve may be the country best hope of exposing Obama’s cengtral complicity in the causing and extending the nation’s finacial crisis.
“Central Banks Are On the Defensive” [Fed Under Attack; NY Fed Player in Greece, Spain Collapse]
Feb. 20, 2009 | Gary North
Posted on Sunday, February 21, 2010 4:59:53 AM by BIOCHEMKY
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north815.html
Tag, you're it.
I liked the Gary North piece you shared. I just discovered him.
I’m sending you some mail that discusses HOW:
Obama, the Black Panther Party (BPP), Black Liberation Army (BLA), Weather Underground (WU), global Muslim Brotherhood (MB) network, Al Qaeda, and Kenyan and American Politics are All Interconnected
I am also sending an Obama timeline that details his Ayers, radical Black Muslim, and Black Liberationist connections
That’s your analysis? The Democrats did this?
Ron Paul has a substantial organization on college campuses, it appears. I’m not sure exactly how they got there, or any details, but I’d guess that college students who support Ron Paul and Liberty got their asses over to CPAC. Ron Paul has a sizable number of dedicated supporters. We aren’t talking about huge numbers here - 1000 people maybe? Ron Paul has 1000 supporters willing to go to CPAC. No big surprise.
And, by the way, Ron Paul supporters are joining political organizations at the lowest levels all across the country.
Sarah a true conservative? Like when she slammed a windfall profits tax on the business of her choice?
Yea.. Real conservative there.
Maybe when she lied and misrepresented her position on the Bridge to Nowhere?
Quite a conservative.
Maybe when as mayor, when she tried to raise taxes to support her hockey rink pet project.
Yes.. Quite a conservative you got there..
He hasn’t announced, but Ron Paul’s supporters want him to run.
Not the case at all, I've been here 3 days and can tell you the only reason Ron Paul came in first is the number of young college kids here....they are the majority and they all like him. They can't tell you why they like him but they are all sporting Paul signs. Of the 10,000 here, only 2900 voted and I would venture to guess most of those were kids. Kind of scary.
Thanks! Much obliged.
In previous years, let’s say 2007 and 2008, Ron Pauls supporters weren’t as numerous (2007), or were either too inexperienced or were beaten by active campaigns (2008). Nobody is running now, not Paul, Romney, Palin or anyone else.
Paul has passionate supporters and a self organizing campaign.
I was pretty surprised by the convincing victory at CPAC.
“That’s your analysis? The Democrats did this?”
My analysis is Obama is not a Democrat, he is a communist that is why in his races for Illinois State Senator he was supported by the Communist New Party (of which Obama was a card-carrying member) and why in 2008 in his Presidential race he was supported by the Communist USA party and he had prominent Communist fundraisers touring with his campaign.
My analysis is that Obama is a figurehead of an organization that consists of a collaboration of the global Muslim Brotherhood network which includes radical Islamic fundamentalists (Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Qaeda) with is why obama supports and meets with representatives of some of these groups and his advisors and envoys are taken from organizations with ties from these groups, Black Muslim Liberationists including the Black Panther Party, the Black Liberation Army, and the Nation of Islam, as well as Communists which include Marxists, Maoists, and Leninists.
The Communists have been in league with the global Muslim Brotherhood since 1928 in an effort to topple Western capitalist free enterprise societies for the purpose of domination and conversion of the world’s peoples to Islam.
Obama’s grandfather, father, Uncle, and first cousin have all been prominent in Kenyan Communist politics, three of them at the national level, two of them as Vice presidents. Obama’s mother was also openly a Communist. Also, by his own admission on his father’s side Obama comes from generation upon generation upon generation of Arabs.
These two entities are in league because they share many common goals that each will take much longer to achieve if they act alone.
Ordinary citizens are just seeing Ron Paul Wins. It’s actually a fairly big news story. CPAC has been around quite a long time, and has a significant reputation.
Most here would like the story to be “Palin doesn’t attend CPAC, therefore CPAC is a joke” or “Paul, who we don’t like, wins CPAC, therefore CPAC is a joke”. But that simply isn’t the story. The story, as it has been playing out, is simply Ron Paul Wins CPAC.
http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&source=hp&cf=all&ncl=d1z6lIzvzx9SOuMpT8UA75Z7YvibM
Good call, you wrote that 2+ years ago.
Good thing you weren’t reading Gary North in 1999. He was pushing “Y2K will kill us all” pretty hard. I like him, but he was really off on that one.
How so?
Ron Paul is very conservative.
I don’t buy the whole Communists + Islam thing.
I’m in the minority here, but I’m just not that concerned about the Islams. The Global Socialists (Glozis), Communists, and their International Banker backers, yes, but the Islams, no. The Islams were irrelevant to world affairs 100 years ago.
Al Gore’s daughter married a Great Great Grandson of Jacob Schiff. The ties between contemporary Democrats and Global Communists / International Bankers are clear and numerous.
The ties between Communists and Islam are tenuous.
This makes more sense than the Communist + Islam argument.
What I find surprising is that the MSM is reporting on Ron Paul’s victory so heavily. Typically, they ignore him whenever possible. Something has changed, I presume, but I’m not sure what.
I like the theory of libertarianism...
but there is so much that smacks of anarchy as to make the large L liberatrians just plain looney.
“The ties between Communists and Islam are tenuous.”
The ties are not tenuous between Communists and Islam when:
(a) the Communists are African Muslims
(b) the Communists are radical terrorists, the majority of whom are members of various branches of the global Muslim Brotherhood network, and all hate America and have a Communist Muslim African friend in a very powerful position
(c) the Communists are radical domestic terrorists (such as Weather Underground) who are in prominent positions in politics and/or Education circles and can help advance the cause of the American Black Muslims who are members of the Muslim Brotherhood USA, the Black Panther Party, the Nation of Islam, and/or the Black Liberation Army
Obama is an African Muslim who is a SOMALI elder in a region where those of his Luo tribe participate in the activities of the Al-Qaeda cells that are located in Kenya near the SOMALI border and operate freely as they are supported by Obama’s blood thirsty first cousin and Communist Muslim Vice President of Kenya Raila Amollo Odinga, whom Obama campaigned for in person while a U.S. Senator in 2006.
They can’t tell you why they like him? Thats bull and you know it. Mention END THE FED and they immediately go militant, and rightfully so. How hard is that to figure out?
Previous to CPAC the MSM very successfully branded Ron paul a 9/11 truther (on video) and in a TWELVE-page article published in today’s NYT they are tying him in with the dangerous “fringe” political movement known as the “Tea Party”.
The MSM WANTS conservatives at CPAC to pick Ron Paul. They think that if he continues to run for Pres., he will split the conservative vote which is needed in order for the Democrat candidate to win.
Could the Big Money - Country Club Rhinos be trying to secure a victory in the primaries with their “ Big Tent “ philosophy to make it harder for a real conservative to win? ( ie securing the gay vote - which they probably believe will bring in more democrat votes ) The old “reach across the isle” B.S.
Or is CPAC favoring the libertarian definition of non Traditional conservatism - secular - capitalism, etc.
Bye bye repubics... if you are this stupid... IT MAY BE TIME FOR A THIRD PARTY AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THAT FESTERING PUSS BOIL KNOWN AS THE gop.
LLS
Do we know how many times people may have voted??
I think I read between 2500 and 3000 voted of the 10,000 who attended and most of the voters were young college kids.
It proves nothing of the sort.
Anyone at CPAC—attending or roaming around- can vote in this straw poll..the ron Paul kids just kept repeat voting and made sure they had the numbers. it is not a closed, verified poll. it means nothing.
I doubt that Ron Paul is running for President again. He's just too old.
Once Rand Paul has won the US Senate seat in Kentucky, I expect he'll become the de facto leader of the Paul faction.
If so, that probably works in Sarah Palin's favor, since she and Rand Paul are pretty much arm-in-arm, politically.
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.