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?
Considering there wasn't a law against it. And that he grew it, even Indian hemp Wait you didn't think the WOD has been with us since the beginning do you? The old boy was even a moonshiner, making that demon alcohol....
Hey, were told daily those guys haven't a chance either.
Oh very odd.
Wait, let me remember. How did Hunter and Tancredo vote on No Child Left Behind? Or wait, how about the Medicare Prescription Benefit? And what about that Federal Farm Subsidies bill? Or Ted Stevens' bridge to nowhere?
Hey, thanks, but I already know those guys. They need to sell it somewhere else. Don't get me wrong, they are better than the so-called front-runners by a country mile, but in the end they are party hacks who put collegiality ahead of principle. That won't save the republic, that will only doom it.
Maybe if they’d adopt “truther” moonbat positions, they’d have their numbers inflated by thousands of disingenuous other moonbats that couldn’t care less about the Constitution but only want to skew the primary outcome for an anti-war candidate. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
I go with Hunter because he’s pro-Constitution AND isn’t a moonbat. Nice combination, if you ask me.
They believed in liberty, defined as the freedom to do good.
They never believed that anyone had the right to do wrong.
Modern libertarians don't believe in liberty, rightly defined. They believe in licence.
"Where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty."
The converse of the above verse from the apostle Paul is that where the Spirit of the Lord ISN'T, there is no liberty.
And anyone who thinks sin and wrong-doing is going to be blessed by the Creator Who gave us our rights to life, liberty and private property is smoking something, if you know what I mean...
Please, show me where Ron Paul wants to make smoking pot legal. What he wants to do is stop wasting money on a silly Federal "War on Drugs" that has not only demonstrably failed to affect the problem in any way, it can be shown that it has made it worse.
And no, the definition on Libertarian hasn't changed a whit in over 200 years.
I like Hunter too...But the fact remains, the insiders, here and else where tell us he hasn't a chance...As a matter of fact, we're told daily at best he might make VP for one of the popular...You know, more well known front runners.
lib•er•tar•i•an
-n.
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian).
—adj.
1. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
2. maintaining the doctrine of free will.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." -- George Washington
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry
Care to try that one again?
Why? Not one thing you posted repudiated what I said in any way, shape or form.
No it's not.
i'm a Ron Paul supporter, and here to tell you that the statement is hyperbole. It doesn't make any sense if taken literally.
The IRS stands for the Internal Revenue Service, not the Internal Tax Service.
Income taxes make up far less than half of all Government Revenue.
When Paul or others speak of getting rid of the IRS, they speak of the Tax Collection and Tax Code Enforcement divisions. They still need to account for in coming revenue from non-income tax sources.
Many functions could be transferred over to the GAO, but not all of them.
The IRS as an organisation isn't going anywhere, no matter who is in the White House or in Congress.
Is English your first language?
FYI, Tancredo voted against both of those.
And what about that Federal Farm Subsidies bill?
If it's HR 2149, Tancredo did not vote on that one.
Or Ted Stevens' bridge to nowhere?
That battle was fought in the Senate.
They believed in liberty, defined as the freedom to do good.
No, they didn't. They quite clearly believed that liberty was the right to do as you will, as long as you do not impinge on the rights of others. Read the second Jefferson quote I supplied.
They never believed that anyone had the right to do wrong.
It depends on what you mean by wrong. Whose definition of wrong? What context of wrong? Jefferson explicitly defines wrong as impinging on the equal rights of others. If you want to define wrong within the confines of Judeo-Christian morality, I can provide you pages of quotes from the founders that expound on the dangers of a national government that imposes such a morality on its members.
Modern libertarians don't believe in liberty, rightly defined. They believe in licence.
That is, of course, completely untrue, mostly because it is a gross generalization. But we weren't talking about modern libertarians. We were talking about the founders, so your statement is without meaning to the discussion.
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.
"The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." - John Adams
In concern for his sons, John Adams advised his wife Abigail to:
"Let them revere nothing but Religion, Morality and Liberty."
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government ofany other." - John Adams
"I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to his righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34)" - John Adams
"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society." - John Adams
"Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue?... And without virtue, there can be no political liberty....Will you tell me how to prevent riches from becoming the effects of temperance and industry? Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?...I believe no effort in favor is lost..." - John Adams
"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."
"He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man....The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people." - Samuel Adams
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; second, to liberty; third, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can..."The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."
"Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble....In no Book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith." - Fisher Ames, author of the First Amendment
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?
"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
"I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service." - Benjamin Franklin
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed."
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom."
"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." - Patrick Henry
I could post these all night...there's plenty more where that came from.
It always comes down to that, doesn't it.
The founding generation had a shared knowledge of what right and wrong are, based in a shared theology and worldview.
Also, folks have consciences that speak to this question. Even little children have an intrinsic knowledge of the difference between right and wrong.
The fact you even have to ask the question speaks volumes, frankly, and goes to the reasons the country is as screwed up as it is.
Don't bother. None of it supports your argument. You stated that the Founders were not libertarians. That is false. You supplied numerous quotes, mostly from John Adams (Abigail Adams was NOT one of the Founders) on the subject of morality and religion. Not a single one of those quotes establishes any of the founders as non-libertarians. It simply establishes them as men of moral character. There isn't a single quote in there that establishes morality based on any religious belief as the law of the land. You won't find any such thing in their writings either. And with good reason. How hypocritical it would have been of them to do such a thing and then to produce the First Amendment.
Thomas Paine:
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
"What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly; 'tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.
"The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Where, some say, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, He reigns above.
"Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be placed on the divine law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon.
"The Almighty implanted in us these inextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the guardians of His image in our heart. They distinguish us from the herd of common animals."
"I would give worlds, if I had them, if The Age of Reason had never been published. O Lord, help! Stay with me! It is hell to be left alone."
"I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my Creator, God."
Oh, yes she was.
Actually, it does. You just choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that their definition of liberty bears no resemblance to yours.
You assume too much, which leads you to generalizations, causing you to emit untruths.
I am a devout Christian and an enemy of moral relativity in all of its forms. However, there is not a single founding principle of this nation which seeks to impose our religious beliefs on the population at the point of a gun. No Christian could do such a thing and face his God and Savior with uplifted eyes. Jesus himself said, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." You see, Jesus was a libertarian. In fact, he was the libertarian.
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.