Palin: GOP Should Not Alienate Ron Paul Voters

NewsMax ^ | Jan. 4, 2012 | Staff

[La Enchiladita]

Sarah Palin said she wasn't surprised at Rick Santorum's success in Iowa, and warned that the GOP should not take Ron Paul's supporters lightly.

Speaking on Fox News before Iowa's final numbers were in, she called Santorum "spot-on" with his policies toward Iran and praised his "social conservative" positions.

Her strongest comments came for Paul, however, saying "the GOP had better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters after this" because "a lot of Americans are war-weary and we are broke" and Paul has reached that constituency well. She warned that the GOP "better work with them."

[dcwusmc]

You mean to say there’s no such thing as a War on Drugs... Which, since it’s impossible to make war on an inanimate object, means a war on drug USERS. Is that what you’re saying? I’m sure a lot of folks rotting in prison for possession would love to know that.

[rbmillerjr]

“I am seriously saying there is ZERO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to conduct a war on drugs or to preemptively ban anything.”

This may come as a shock to you, but there is no actual “war on drugs”....ok, it’s a slogan. No war going on.

The Constitution is not just a Bill of Rights, it is the orderly set up of our Republic.

Banning harmful drugs is absolutely Constitutional. If it weren’t, every anti American ACLU and Pot Head with a law degree would have banded together and went to the Supreme Court.

Please explain to me, if Unconstitutional, why this hasn’t happened?

[dcwusmc]

FLASH FLASH The Constitution is a limit on GOVERNMENT, not on We, the People. We have a government with VERY LIMITED authority, not a monarchy or a tyranny (except when the Constitution is IGNORED)...

[dcwusmc]

Just how long has it been since you actually READ the Constitution and both the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, anyway? Try it. Http://WWW.constitution.org

[Impy]

Well I looked at the Real Clear politics poll averages and Paul does indeed do better than everyone but Romney.

(”Generic Republican” is easily our strongest choice and consistently beats Obama)

I don’t buy for a second that Paul could win though. The newsletter stuff alone, tons of crazy statements. Obama running to his right on foreign policy and drugs (not weed, hard drugs). I have to say I think Paul would lose in a landslide big enough to jeopardize the congressional races.

It’s all irrelevant though since it’s not possible for Paul to win the nomination.

The Paul movement will put their hopes in Rand Paul.

[GOPsterinMA]

I told you: Huntsman and “Former Rickness” are roadkill.

[jpsb]

"I don’t buy for a second that Paul could win

Paul does not think he can win either. He is not running to be president, hell his is almost 80, he is running to champion the idea of a small honest constitutional government. And in that he has my complete support. But looking at all the big government statests opposing him (except Newt maybe) I kinda hopes he wins.

[Afronaut]

Don't Call Me Red! Great tag, that has been going on here like the Salem Witch Hunts. Every time it happens I see the Monty Python skit in my head.

"It’s all irrelevant though since it’s not possible for Paul to win the nomination."

This will be repeated as many time as possible in the next coming months. I think the real quote should be that "The Republican elites will never let Ron Paul become President"

I do not think for a moment that Ron Paul hates Blacks or Israel.

[RKBA Democrat]

“Been happening a lot lately...only the furniture is getting tossed at each other now. Sad...we do this as the enemy laughs at us.”

Saw a funny an apt observation. The barky re-election team’s job these days consists of getting up, grabbing the paper, reading it, laughing, and going back to sleep.

[rbmillerjr]

It’s remarkable how you RonPaulian’s are the only one’s who really understand the Constitution.

I guess we’ll just have to rely on Dr.Paul to guide us through this mighty wind.

[floridarunner01]

Unless Paul decides to run independent. Hannity was talking to him recently and could not get him to definitively say he wouldnt run as an independent.

I dont know if anyone knows what that would do. He’d pull the libertarians away from the GOP nominee, and we would lose voters...no question. But he may also pull some votes away from Obama too. Paul is very popular with the college-age kids who voted for Obama the last time around.

We’d be looking at an entirely different game. It would not really be an issue nationally, but he may get enough votes in swing states to tip the election one way or another. That’s the scary thing.

[dcwusmc]

There are any number who understand the Constitution. You have to understand something before you can set out to subvert it. And subverting the Constitution has been a major political goal of BOTH “parties” since at least Teddy Roosevelt. Useful idiots like you go along because your urge to control others is far stronger than your urge to salvage the Republic.

I once thought similarly until about 35 years ago or so, when I realized that if I, myself, didn’t want others to take control of ME, I had a duty to refrain from trying to control OTHERS. It was really that simple. Then I started to look at the oath I’d taken, and was to take several MORE times, to protect and defend the Constitution for the United States.

Not the Government, the Constitution.

And with that wonderful document, the American People, who are the sole source of the extremely limited LEGITIMATE powers supposed to be exercised by the federal government. I discovered that the Founders were a lot like ME, folks who just wanted to be left alone. And were willing to KILL those who wouldn’t respect that wish. And I discovered that there are lots of folks like me, but then there are too many like YOU.

You are not one whit different from the total government control freaks of the left, saving only that you differ mildly in which areas of my life you want to run for me. I learned all this long before I knew of Dr. Paul. He is, however, the political figure who comes closest to my own way of thinking and has the added bonus of being a strong Christian as well. I liked Reagan a good bit at the time, because HE made it feel respectable to serve in uniform again, unlike LBJ, Nixon, Ford and especially Carter, ALL of whom I had the misfortune to serve under. Then came Bush I and Billy Bent One and the cycle started again.

So, it’s really easy to understand the Constitution. The Founders made it so, on purpose. Even YOU could understand it. Just buy a dictionary for the big words... for you that might be the ones over three letters. Or go to http://constitution.org and read it there, along with the other Founding Documents. Read and understand what many folks are willing to KILL to see restored to its rightful place in America. And know that I don’t use that word lightly. Your ilk are fully prepared to kill to keep us in chains; we are ready to fight back to be free. Dr. Paul is, in my opinion, our last shot at restoring the Republic PEACEFULLY.

[TomasUSMC]

Iran’s threat of obtain a nuke is real, and if we cut aid to Israel, we also cut its leash and thus allow Israel its independence to use nukes against Iran. THAT is what will stop the Iranians from obtaining nukes. Because the moment that Israel begins to THINK that possibly Iran has even one nuke.... is the very moment mushroom clouds will immediately appear over Iran and the Iranian Islamic Revolution will be over. And with that Hamas and Hezzbolah will dry up.

And I have no confidence that ANY American President will be attacking Iran with enough firepower to stop Iran from obtaining a nuke.
Anything we do will have to
- not be disproportional
- and be very surgical
- and not effect the environment
- and not hurt any civilians and so on and so forth.
It won’be enough, and then of course we will have to rebuild their sorry ass.

Israel on the other hand will just Nuke ‘em and deal with it later, because they will have no other choice. Win Win.

Thats why I support Pauls total ending of Foreign Aid to Everyone.

[rbmillerjr]

“You are not one whit different from the total government control freaks of the left”

Thank you for your opinion. I think you are a total disgrace to the US Military and The United States Marine Corps. Talking about killing people you disagree with on your misinterpretation of the Constitution...is as disgusting as comparing yourself to the Founders.

“Dr. Paul is, in my opinion, our last shot at restoring the Republic PEACEFULLY.”

...Proving you are a person of very little brain. RonPaul is a fruit n nuts special, on discount with those of low IQ.

[PieterCasparzen]

Respectfully, I offer the following; I hope that you will pray and think on these things. You say you are a Christian, therefore you know that Bible is the whole counsel of God, divinely inspired and not subject to change, as God is unchanging.

First, NO ONE, libertarian or otherwise, ADVOCATES drug use.

Many people champion the use of mind-altering drugs as a form of recreation. A simple web search will turn up many such websites; I've personally known a number of people who maintain that recreational drug use is perfectly acceptable. There are plenty of parents today who knowingly allow their own children to abuse drugs as recreation in the public square, and they reason that this is "just part of growing up", "a phase", etc. Everyone else's children, however, are affected by these drug users. The argument is made that parents must somehow train their children to avoid these bad influences, but this is, of course, not realistic. To deny that in towns and cities all across America - that is, rich and poor, urban and suburban and rural - recreational drug abuse poses an enormous temptation to children is to wilfully ignore the truth. The situation must not simply be viewed as just the temptation of drugs themselves, but that combined with all other perverse and destructive behaviors which define the society that parents must raise children in today.

To say that the influences of drugs and perversion are not destructive is untenable; I know this because I have witnessed otherwise excellent children fall into all sorts of problems even though they had attentive parents who kept them on the straight and narrow up until the point that they met the wrong friends.

The libertarian view sees illegal drug use as something that does no harm to others. But we all know the pop-culture meaning of the word "party", sharing and promoting recreational drug use; the party is the "recreational" part. And there is intense peer pressure to not be a "party pooper". And what of the family who does not wish to participate in this ? For a parent to keep their child insulated from this until the child is old enough and been mentored by the parent enough to have a reasonable chance at resisting the pressure, the family would have to live in virtual isolation from the world. This can hardly can be said to be preserving their Constitutional rights to the public square. The drug user's rights certainly do not outweigh the rights of those wishing to avoid drug abuse. Given the state that our schools, towns and entertainment are in, one would have to be living in denial to not admit the negative influence of hard drugs on society and insist that those who use illegal drugs are causing absolutely no harm to others.

Now of course there are always bad influences on children in terms of not studying, etc. But take for instance someone who introduces a young girl to heroin; that is a damnable thing and not some normal, natural, unavoidable mistake like laziness or lying. It's not even like drinking alcohol; it's far more powerful. That is why heroin is an illegal drug. Because it very often has devestating affects, and the attraction to it, once someone begins to use it, is so dangerously powerful that many people who use it die a miserable death and even while dying can't help themselves from continuing to use it as they die. No amount of parental guidance can overcome somthing so powerful in many cases. It draws in the user, slowly killing them and drawing them in ever more powerfully as it does. Certainly there are some people who somehow can abuse drugs for a few years and they do not become heavily addicted, they eventually stop, and amazingly they seem physically and mentally healthy at first glance. All too often, others see that and somehow think they can keep up, and sadly, of course, they can't. Many of those who are able to overcome the addiction and seemingly are so "ok"... years later have their teeth falling out and have other ill health effects directly related to the promiscuous lifestyle they once lead, said lifestyle being directly related to their heroin use. I know this is true as I have witnessed it firsthand. In short, heroin is a slow-acting poison which lures the user with an almost-irresistable euphoria.

Biblically speaking, any mind-altering drug produces effects that are categorized as drunkenness. For Christians who are obedient to the whole counsel of God, drunkenness is something they recognize as condemned by God in both the Old and New Testaments. The effects of any recreational mind-altering substance would fall under that same category of drunkenness. Certainly the Bible has no prohibition of smoking tobacco and no prohibition on drinking alcoholic beverages, but there is a prohibition on drunkenness, e.g.:

Galations 5:21
"Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

The believer is also, of course, Scripturally prohibited from doing things that hurt their own body. This is why if anything the believer partakes in begins to evidence harm or sickness, the Bible tells them they must stop immediately. If no harm or sickness is evidenced, there is Christian liberty to do as one pleases.

Far too many professing Christians reject the moral law of Scripture under the wrong notion that the New Testament abrogated the moral law. The New Testament directly contradicts this false teaching and this is plainly evident when one considers - among other verses - Jesus' own pronouncement regarding the law, meaning the Old Testament:

Matthew 5

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The ONLY LEGITIMATE role for government, especially FedGov, is to protect the God-given, equal rights of all.

There's another role for government, that of punishing crime.

This has always been the case in history, the government punishes crime.

Constitutionally, of course, there was great debate as to whether Congress had the power to pass any old law it wants to. Federalist 44 sums up what wound up being the de facto interpretation perhaps as well as any other writing:

"If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is, that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain reason, that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives. There being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed."

So Madison concludes that if Congress wants to make a law, they pass legislation under the Necessary and Proper and General Welfare clause authorities. If the people are so adamantly opposed to this thing and Congress will not repeal it, the situation is to be remedied at the ballot box.

Scripturally, does the Bible (again, the Constitution and Declaration speak of God-given rights, even if only Christians acknowledge this) tell us that the civil government has the authority to make laws regarding moral law and have the responsibility to restrain evil from harming the innocent ? In the New Testament there is Romans 13 and it makes the Biblical role of the civil government eminently clear:

"1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

The civil government is a God-ordained institution; most Christians would know enough Scripture to realize that, but with the preponderance of today's secular humanism perhaps the essence of this does not always stay in the forefront of our minds. Scripturally, the "magistrate" of the Bible, meaning the government, has the power of the sword; the purpose of this is to punish the wicked and protect the innocent. It's important also to note that this does not say the government is to prevent crimes from being committed, but that it is to punish those duly convicted of crimes. There is a lot of Scriptural doctrine regarding civil government that is very important to our obedience to God but many professing Christians are neglectful in their Scriptural learning and many pastors are wanting in their teaching.

Time and again in the Old Testament the ruler who places God first in his life and who never fails to trust in God, acts in accordance with the entire counsel of God and never adds any of his own inventions to the instructions he has been given by the prophets finds favor in the eyes of the Lord. Correspondingly, the ruler who deviates at all, for example, so much as allows for uncalled for additions to worship or makes use of some of the spoils of war when God had said to destroy them, such rulers ultimately experienced God's wrath for such innovations - even if the ruler had good intentions.

We often forget that Biblical doctrine regarding civil government and it's application of moral laws is at once subtle and overwhelmingly significant. Certainly our human experience and reasoning may reveal to us the wonderful, practical common sense purposes in God's law, how when we obey God's law that it works to our benefit in every way. It is fairly easy to demonstrate, in many cases, how the moral laws of the Bible, if followed, result in wonderful benefits for those who do.

However, if I limit my Scriptural obedience to those laws which pass the muster of my evaluation of their usefulness then I place my own understanding of right and wrong above that of God (God forbid), implying that I will obey only when I see a good application for myself. The Bible confirms many times that such arrogance in man evokes God's wrath.

God's requirement for our obedience is absolute and not subject to our own opinions of fairness or beneficial purposes. The Holy Spirit operates within the believer to create a desire to be obedient to God that will sufficiently preponderate a concomitant desire for understanding to effect submission to His Will. Thus God is glorified all the more when the believer exhibits the faith of a child in their reliance on God's Word.

Circular Letter Addressed to the Governors of all the States on the Disbanding of the Army, June 14, 1783

"I have thus freely declared what I wished to make known, before I surrendered up my public trust to those who committed it to me. The task is now accomplished. I now bid adieu to your Excellency, as the chief magistrate of your State, at the same time I bid a last farewell to the cares of office and all the employments of public life.

It remains, then, to be my final and only request that your Excellency will communicate these sentiments to your legislature at their next meeting, and that they may be considered the legacy of one, who has ardently wished, on all occasions, to be useful to his country, and who, even in the shade of retirement, will not fail to implore the divine benediction on it.

I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection; that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for brethren who have served in the field; and finally that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation."

[dcwusmc]

Isn’t the ultimate argument of kings and governments the application of deadly force? One French king even had his cannon cast with the motto, “the ultimate answer of kings.” Why then should it come as a surprise to you or anyone that, if our resistance to unconstitutional edicts will be met with GOVERNMENT’S deadly force, we would be willing to respond in kind to keep or restore our liberty??? If you are truly surprised, you obviously were sleeping in your American history classes. Otherwise you are plain hypocritical and worse. Quite truthfully, in your case I suspect the latter.

It’s not, by the way, a matter of merely killing those with whom we disagree; it’s a matter of responding to deadly force initiated by your ilk with DEFENSIVE deadly force. Remember the reason the Second Amendment was put in the Constitution. Also remember Jefferson’s comment about watering the Tree of Liberty. We liberty-minded Americans don’t take the notion or deadly force lightly. Death is pretty permanent. However, we will not tolerate any longer the loss of our freedoms, as you don’t seem to mind. I intend to see the government shrunk to its Constitutional size in my lifetime, so that my son and grandkids don’t have to face the choice of resistance or submission to tyranny. It’s obvious where YOUR heart lies. May your chains rest lightly. Or not.

[jmc813]

I think you are a total disgrace to the US Military and The United States Marine Corps

And what exact branch of the military did you happen to serve in? Dcwusmc is a long-time respected poster around here, and your post reeks of scumbaggery.

[justlurking]

You haven’t explained why you think that there is a tie between Bush and Perry in the minds of the voters.

C'mon, do I have to connect all the dots for you?

Bush: Texas governor from 1994-2000.

Perry: was Bush's Lt. Governor during the same period, succeeded Bush in 2000, is still Texas governor in 2012.

For many voters that didn't like Bush and voted for Obama simply because he was a "change" (even though Bush wasn't on the ballot), that's all they need. Just being from Texas this soon after Bush's term is enough to sink a candidate.

Is it rational? No. But, there are enough people that feel this way to make it practically impossible for Perry to win a Presidential election in the near future.

It doesn't matter what one thinks about Perry's suitability as a Presidential candidate, or his platform. This factor makes it all irrelevant.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a non-issue.

Had Jeb Bush decided to run for President, he would have had the same problem, and will probably never have an opportunity.

Hillary Clinton faced a huge uphill battle for the same reason. All the Republican voters that stayed home out of disgust over John McCain would have walked over broken glass to vote against her.

If Obama had chosen to not run for re-election (or is forced out of the election by some scandal), do you really think that Biden would have a chance? Setting aside that Biden is an idiot, candidates closely associated with a polarizing figure rarely win an election.

[rbmillerjr]

82nd Airborne Division
2/508 Parachute Infantry Regiment.

I see you conveniently did not comment on his personal affront to me...but noted my personal affront to him.

Are you a Paul nut too, or just not objective in your slams?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The libertarian view sees illegal drug use as something that does no harm to others.

More precisely, no violation of others' rights - many "harms" are none of government's business.

For a parent to keep their child insulated from this until the child is old enough and been mentored by the parent enough to have a reasonable chance at resisting the pressure, the family would have to live in virtual isolation from the world.

If children are the concern, it seems that since teens report that they can more easily get marijuana than cigarettes or beer, the best policy answer is to legalize drug use for adults. (This gives sellers a disincentive to sell to children - namely, the possible loss of their adult sales.)

"If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, [...] the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers."

What's your point? Madison agrees that the powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated by the Constitution; do you? The fact that usurpations can practically be addressed only by the other two branches, or the voters, in no way implies that constitutional conservatives should be indifferent to usurpations or refrain from proclaiming them to be such.