Posted on 09/30/2007 10:12:11 AM PDT by traviskicks
Edited on 09/30/2007 4:01:53 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Manchester – Calls to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and repeal the Constitutional amendment that established the federal income tax drew loud applause yesterday for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
The Texas Congressman drew an eclectic mix of more than 500 supporters -- young and old, Libertarians and anti-war Democrats, independents and conservative Republicans -- who cheered his message of limited government, low taxes, free markets, bringing the troops home from Iraq, and returning to a monetary policy based on the gold standard.
Paul said the gathering at Veterans Park wasn't about him, but about his message -- which, he said, has been resonating with more and more people.
"Something very significant is happening in this country today. The paradigm is shifting away from government controlling our lives by force," he said. "People are sick and tired of what's happening and want to control (their) own lives."
He said people should be able to keep 100 percent of the fruits of their labor. Income tax is an example of the government controlling people, he said, as are the draft, prohibition on drugs, seat belt laws and other regulations.
Paul said current monetary policy amounts to a "secret sinister tax" that takes wealth from the middle class and poor, and redistributes money to Wall Street and the wealthy. The crowd broke into applause when he said the federal reserve system should be abolished.
Earlier in the day, Paul told three New Hampshire reporters he hoped to turn the enthusiasm his campaign has generated -- through the Internet, in "meet-ups" and through campaign donations -- into votes.
The physician-turned-politician said he expects to spend more and more time in New Hampshire. "The slogan on your license plate would indicate this should be fertile ground for us here," he said, alluding to the state's "Live Free or Die" motto.
Paul said he is running on the same policies President Bush advocated when he ran in 2000, which, he added, are the same ones Republicans have run on for years: a balanced budget, limited government, personal freedom and no nation building.
"Most Republicans -- the leadership in Washington -- don't believe in their own platform; that's why they are losing," Paul said.
Rather than try to spread democracy around the world, he said, politicians ought to focus on some of the shortcomings in this country.
"You don't get a fair shake unless you join the establishment," he said.
Paul, who ran for President in 1988 as the Libertarian Party's nominee, said it's more practical to run as a Republican, noting he spent half of his money in 1988 just trying to get on the ballot in all 50 states.
The door-to-door canvassing that followed the rally -- dubbed the Paul Family Walk -- included about 30 family members who led groups of campaigners in the Queen City, Concord and Nashua. Paul himself visited New England College, Dartmouth College and the Dartmouth Medical School after the rally.
Liz Viering and her husband Peter, from Stonington, Conn., said Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq is the major reason they are supporting him. "Money spent on wars of choice takes money away from other programs," she said.
Miles LaPlant, a 21-year old college student from Attleboro, Mass., said Paul is the first candidate who has captured his attention. LaPlant said he likes Paul's stances regarding the Constitution and the country's founding principles.
Jason Kantz, his wife, Angela, and their two children came up from Cambridge, Mass., for the rally. Kantz said Paul "is the only candidate that gives logical answers and means what he says."
He said Paul's stand on the war in Iraq is also an important issue for him. "We need to reduce our involvement around the world and the amount of money we are spending," Kantz said.
Long-time Libertarian Party member Dennis Corrigan of Boxford, Mass., said he supported Paul when the Congressman ran for President as the Libertarian nominee. He said he has been a Libertarian for 40 years and headed the party in Canada at one time.
Corrigan and a friend were soliticiting signatures for a Massachusetts ballot initiative outlawing the income tax. Corrigan said his friend moved to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project, adding that he plans to move to the state, as well.
Thomas Clark, Minister of the Somersworth Tri-City Convenant Church, gave the invocation for the rally. Before the rally, he said he supports Paul because of his pro-life stance. "The pro-life issue is a major issue for me," Clark said.
Paul concluded the rally by encouraging his supporters to keep the faith, saying most mass movements have been driven by only 2 or 3 percent of the population.
"You are part of that 3 percent today," he said.
A word from Jim Robinson to the moonbats:
To all antiwar moonbats, Paulistas included:
Hey, if you don't like FR and or our support the war policies leave. Go find a website that supports your unfortunate, short-sighted and misguided antiwar efforts. It's really that simple.
In case you antiwar Paulistas haven't noticed, Free Republic supports the war effort 100%. Many of our chapters protest against the antiwar moonbats either weekly, monthly or whenever the opportunity arises. The DC Chapter has been protesting against the antiwar moonbats EVERY Friday night at Walter Reed for three years.
Free Republic has co-sponsored several cross country caravans and hundreds of rallies in cities all across the country and in DC against the antiwar moonbats and in support of our Commander-in-chief, our troops, the war effort and our Gold Star and Blue Star families, many of whom are FReepers.
When you are supporting antiwar moonbats you are working against Free Republic's mission, hurting our efforts, hurting our families who have lost loved ones or have loved ones involved in the fighting, hurting our troops, damaging their morale, working against our efforts to defeat the enemy, and, in fact, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Antiwar moonbats are the domestic enemy. Antiwar moonbats willingly give aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime. In my book, that's tantamount to treason. Ron Paul is an antiwar moonbat. You figure it out. If antiwar moonbats are the enemy and Ron Paul is an aid and comfort supplying antiwar moonbat, then Ron Paul IS the enemy!
If you Paulistas are looking for support on FR for an antiwar moonbat who is giving aid and comfort to our enemies, you're nuts! Free Republic will NEVER support antiwar moonbats!
As far as our official policy on Ron Paul is concerned, it's the same policy we have for his antiwar moonbat allies the traitors Harry Reid, Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, CodePink, International Answer, et al and their flaming antiwar spam monkeys. Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!
Where the hell did you guys ever get the idea that enemy supporting antiwar moonbats would be welcome on FR?
That plain enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
3000 American lives that Ron Paul compares to highway deaths. Ron Paul is trash and time to dump him.
Nothing like cherry-picking individual elections to make your absurd point. Why don't you just come out and say you're against the Iraq War?
Despite his anti-war views, Paul would still be a better Commander in Chief than all the Democrats and maybe Rudy/Romney/Huckabee/Brownback.
Highway deaths? Well at leat he hasn’t compared the deaths of American soldiers to the stats on deaths of gangbangers in Chicago or New York....as many, many here have done.
Yep, go back to 1930.
I'm not against it, but I'm also against a long-term commitment there. I think all of our troops should be out by the end of the decade. That would give Iraq more than enough time to stabilize and our forces to kill as many terrorists as possible.
There's always going to be terrorists, dirtboy, regardless if we leave immediately or we stay until the year 3000.
Cherry picking? The list of pro-war Republicans who lost from 2006 is extremely long. It was the rule rather than the exception. The list of antiwar Republicans or Democrats who lost is is extremely short. Heck, Rush admitted the day after the election that the Democrats who won had effectively conservative themes on domestic policy and antiwar views. Paul, of course, won in a landslide, despite determined pro-war opposition in the primary.
Well of course, lets continue fighting the good fight, surrender our borders and sovereignty, invite our enemies in, put them on TaVa, give um a forum...Government still allows us stomp our feet and protest, just as long as we don't get too angry. We should thank them, and show our gratitude by electing the same people that have lived off our tax dollars all their lives. These people have grown old and gray being career government employees. Look how America has benefited under their leadership! Who cares if everything in the private sector is downsized or shipped over Wescrewutoo China, while flooding our own country with tens of millions with 3rd grade educations, that are so happy making 7 bucks an hour they get drunk every night.
Yippee!
Gee, maybe because just about all Republicans in the election were pro war. Duh.
Meanwhile, the leading issue among voters in exit polls was GOP corruption.
The Brits had a philosophy about Western Europe - keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out.
And now the Middle East is becoming the focal point of the global economy - Dubai, UAE, the Saudis - with all the petrodollars pouring in. This is not just about killing terrorists, but keeping a military presence in the region keeps regimes nervous.
And EEE, you're the exception - you disagree with Paul's stance on the war. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, Paul's anti-war stance is his main selling point to the bulk of his supporters - his support is higher than historical libertarian baselines.
Here, have some of this lovely wild shrimp with a Thorazine-Horseradish cocktail sauce. Yum.
Sure, but no election completely turns on one issue. It was both corruption and the war. 42 percent listed corruption and 37 percent listed Iraq in the exit polls.
At what costs though. Gates is asking for another $190 billion to sustain operations. Where is the money going to come from?
Just curious, are there any former Paul supporters out there who have sobered up and realized that Ron Paul is a flaming nut?
Given the inability of the Dems to do anything about Iraq, I'd say the war was not the leading issue they thought it was. Whereas the GOP gave voters plenty of reasons to vote against them unrelated to the war.
It's being borrowed, just as WWII was largely financed through borrowing. That's as old as war itself.
from RP’s site:
Ending the IRS
I have long been an advocate of ending the income tax and eliminating the IRS. People tell me that this is a laudable goal, but they don’t see how it would be possible. The question that I am often asked is, “How would the government pay for the services they provide, or pay their employees, if there were no income tax?”
Between 1787 and 1913, we had no permanent income tax system, and America prospered! The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the income tax unconstitutional, as it had done in 1895.
The income tax isn’t necessary to pay for government services. Few people know that every penny of the income tax is used to service federal debt, a large percentage of which is held by foreign investors and governments. Our government is borrowing nearly three billion dollars a day in order to perpetuate the welfare state and an international war-making empire. The fruits of your labor are going directly to Saudi millionaires and Chinese communist officials.
If we stop incurring this debt, we can quickly end the IRS.
Only about 42 percent of government revenue is collected through the personal income tax. During the course of the Bush presidency, government spending has increased by about 75 percent. Cutting spending to the same level it was at seven years ago would make it possible to render the personal income tax unnecessary.
If we further reduced spending to the 1992 level, we could quickly pay off our foreign debt, return our nation to solvency, and make April 15th a normal day.
Would you be comfortable with the government providing the services they did just fifteen years ago if it meant never paying income taxes again?
It is funny and sad to see FR become “Defend Big Guv And Like It Republic.” Something is in the water along the lines of the following formula: “Big Gov execesses are necessary in times of war; we will always be at war with “terror”; ergo, Big Guv will always be necessary so hug it and put an “R” after it.”
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.