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?
I simply responded in kind. Jim is a grown man and can read and respond as he sees fit. No need for sycophants-r-us to climb on board.
The discourse will rise or descend to whatever level it merits. And the notion that I worship anyone on this planet is absurd. Baiting, projecting maybe, but a big old tar brush that misses the mark. If anything, I save worship for the one person who merits it.
I think this issue about Ron Paul being some sort of coward needs to be explored more.
I also had a relative who survived Guadalcanal and went on to become the Marine Corps Commandant of Camp Pendleton. He never spoke of it but I read of his heroics in a box of newspaper clippings in my grandmother’s attic when I was young. He was:
Lt. General Jefferson Fields - Commanding General of Camp Pendleton (1960), Director of Personnel for the entire United States Marine Corp (1962), Commander of the Marine Corps Development Command at Quantico, VA (1968) - born in Crisfield.
When I would see him at family get togethers in the 1960s, he was always tight lipped with everyone. I don’t think he would ever use “Kiss My Ass” to anyone but he certainly seemed capable of kicking anyone’s ass. He gave the distinct impression that something else was more important than even family and I suspect that was duty to one’s country. He had only one daughter and would give her a short smile but that was it. The rest of his demeanor showed his mind was somewhere else. His uncle, one of my great-uncles told me he saw alot of dying and death in the Pacific and he could never forget it, each day it possessed him and made him seem somewhere else.
As for Paul, I think he has attracted anti-war types like yellowjackets to apple juice. I don’t think he intended it to be so. Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t see him as antiwar. I think he wanted Congress to declare war and not let the President get bogged down in nation building and police action.
In fact I know Ron Paul wanted Congress to declare war rather than do what they did. I think that is is whole argument, Congress did not do the right thing after 9-11. And now we have a country divided with the dems pushing disunity to the extreme.
But what I could not accept about Ron Paul was his statement that the troops needed to be brought home immediately. That is reckless and as Fred Thompson said it would embolden Al Quaeda more than any other action could.
Ron Paul needs to revise that statement. He has broken with his principles before on the Partial Birth Abortion ban. He certainly could revise his troop home position. He needs to revise something to the effect that he will give Congress one year to hand him a formal Declaration of War on terrorism. Any Congress that would refuse to declare war of this nature would hang.
I don’t think for a second that Ron Paul has given in to false federalism or forgotten the primary constitutional role of government. He is way too smart for that.
What he has done is set his sights on the Federal Reserve and recognizes that they are not part of the primary constitutional role of government. Rather they are instigators of conflict.
As central bankers they worship security above all else including our rights. They would not for a second oppose their member banks from pushing implantable chips in us for ‘security and identification’. As far-fetched as that may sound to some, it is already a reality and is being promoted by companies as a be all-end all solution to problems of identity. If I hadn’t seen the presentations of these companies myself I would have shrugged it off as conspiracy dribble.
But that is the bottomline. Bankers worship security and a little thing like unalienable rights is an annoyance to them.
I believe Ron Paul sees Central Banks as wanting the Middle East corporatized and secure for business. That in itself is nothing to rail against but I believe Ron Paul thinks they are not beyond starting or supporting wars to attain their goal.
Film documentaries such as ‘Life and Debt’ detail how the IMF destroys a local Carribean island economy and supplants it with corporate resorts. I think Ron Paul thinks the world’s central bankers are looking at the Middle East in the same way.
The question is not whether multinational corporations are good for regional economies, it is a question of whether we commit troops for the purpose of securing a region so that these multinationals can operate safely.
In any event, Ron Paul should rethink his perspective on war. He has some of the right elements but hasn’t orchestrated them well.
Obviously the market could regulate health better than the government, and yes this solution would work: you have failed to show how it couldn’t, with all due respect, friend!
If she thinks he is for big government, she has never checked his voting record.
Actually, none of that was what I was talking about. I should have made it clearer.
Ron Paul, along with most of the Republican field, repudiates the heart of the Reagan pro-life platform: The fact that unborn children are Persons, and are, or more properly should be, therefore protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, everywhere on American soil. He thinks the States have a right to alienate the God-given, unalienable right to life.
I call this false so-called “states’ rights” claim the “Ron Paul disease.” He promulgated it, and more “mainstream” candidates have taken to using it as a cover for their actual liberal mindset. They are using it to falsely gain supposed conservative bona fides.
Because he has a reputation as a staunch pro-lifer, this and others of his positions are creating massive confusion instead of clarity in the conservative and Republican electorates.
And we know who the author of confusion is...
That's nice, Jim. So the only Republican Presidential candidate running who bases his platform on constitutional principles is now an anti-war moonbat. The only candidate who is espousing anything like a change from the big government business-as-usual policies and platforms of the GOP for the last 7 years is unwelcome on a site that claims to value the exact issues that make up his campaign. So much for all that nice talk about preserving the constitutional principles of the Founders. I guess they're disposable in the face of some high-sounding globalist, neocon rhetoric.
You get an award for... well that post could win an award for a number of different categories... :)
Why do you think so many hardcore pro-abort liberals are supporting Ron Paul?
Here's what I think is the partial answer to that: They know that very few abortions would be stopped, even if Ron Paul got everything he says he wants. If the States have the right to allow abortion, most abortions that are being committed today would still occur.
Search through some Google links produced by searching "ron paul states' rights on abortion," and you will see what I'm talking about. There are lots of liberals justifying their support for Paul based on this very thing.
Of course it is his anti-war, pro-porn, pro-dope positions that attract them initially, but at some point they have to cross the bridge of self-justification to support a reputed pro-life candidate.
All Libertarians are enemies of the United States. He wont make the Primaries let alone President.
Thanks for your informative post. I’m not a Paul supporter, but I do agree with abolishing the federal income tax.
I'll bet Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Patrick Henry are pretty shocked to hear that, wherever they are. You know, with them being Libertarians and all.
If those guys were around today, they certainly wouldn’t fit in with the the main stream media, and the front runners agendas, and no doubt they’d all be labeled fruit cakes and wackos.
Those guys are so antiquated ya know.
Sheesh.
NCSteve, meet Duncan Hunter. Duncan Hunter, meet NCSteve.
NCSteve, meet Tom Tancredo. Tom Tancredo, meet NCSteve.
Now, enough with the ooonnnnlllllyyyyyyy crap, okay?
"Once we allow federal control over abortion, we lose the opportunity for states to enact pro-life legislation. Numerous states already have laws that punish the act of murder against a fetus. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. All abortion foes must understand that the real battle should be fought at the state level, where grassroots respect for life can influence state legislatures. . . . Our goal must be to restore respect for the Constitution and states' rights." (Paul press release, 4-30-2001)
Other candidates in this field share this anti-life fallacy:
Mitt Romney:
"My own view is that abortion is not right. But states should be able to make their own decisions rather than have a single pronouncement by the federal government." (Sacramento Bee, 3-15-2007)
"I believe that each state should be able to make their own choice as to whether they are pro-life or pro-choice." (Hardball with Chris Matthews, 12-12-2005)
Fred Thompson:
"People are going to have different ideas. That's why we have states. We ought to give great leeway to states and not have the federal government and not have the Supreme Court of the United States making social policy that's contrary to the traditions of this country and changing that overnight." (FoxNews, March 11, 2007)
Felt the pro-life plank in the Republican Party platform was unnecessary. "I'm still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don't think we need to write it all down in a document," Thompson said. (AP, 8/6/96)
John McCain:
"I don't think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should--could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support. . . . I'm a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don't believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade." (This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 11-19-06)
Mike Huckabee:
Believes it is a matter for the states to decide. "Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application--that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern--than there is a human life issue--and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision. So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous." (Interview with Right Wing News)
Sam Brownback:
"[T]he Supreme Court unilaterally ended the democratic process by which the people and the states were making their own judgments about the appropriate governmental role in protecting unborn life. These powerful objections to Roe and Doe from the left beg the question of what would happen were those objections to be sustained, and the cases to be overturned. The answer is not, as some have claimed, the nationwide prohibition of abortion. Rather, as the Constitution contemplates, the decision of whether and how to regulate abortion would return once again to the states. There, the democratic, deliberative process would work its will, and the People could reach an acceptable accommodation on the fundamental issue of life." (Brownback press release, 6-23-2005)
A pox on all their houses.
Really. I thought they were pretty good men not idiots like Ron Paul. Maybe the term Libertarian has changed over the years. It’s hard to believe George Washington wanted smoking pot legal.
He must be smoking that junk he promotes.
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.