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?
Exactly!
Thomas Jefferson recommended emasculation as a punishment for homosexual behavior.
Does that sound "libertarian"?
The founding generation, and the generations before and after them, passed enumerable laws against the kind of behaviors that are promoted as "victimless" today by libertarians. Laws against sex outside of marriage. Laws against drunkenness. Sabbatarian laws. Etc.
But, whatever. There's obviously no hope of dislodging you from your notions.
They also know that all Scripture is God-breathed, God-inspired.
All beside the point, and if you're going to tag Christ with everything that is written in the Old Testament, you've got a mountain of trouble coming your way, but that's a completely different discussion. But nice try at insinuating negative connotations on my religious beliefs. Please note that I will refrain from doing likewise on yours.
And, you’re the only one who said anything about “forcing others to be righteous.” (I believe that is commonly known as a strawman argument.)
No, actually you were the one who quoted, voluminously, on the subject of righteousness as a foundation for liberty. You were using that tactic to rebut, out of context, as usual, my quotes from Jefferson, Washington, and Henry. You're the one who offered the strawman argument that they were all righteous men. I will not dispute that, but it has nothing to do with whether or not they were libertarians. You have yet to address that.
You can’t force people to be righteous.
Gee, really? So now you are completely repudiating your entire defense? Oh well, as long as you understand that fundamental point. Or do you?
However, human government IS given to mankind as a gift by our Creator to restrain unrighteousness, human nature, in this world.
Apparently you don't get it. You can't have it both ways, Skippy. Either you can or you can't force them to be righteous, which is also beside the point, by the way. The point is whether you should force them to be righteous. The Founders very clearly believed we should not. That's because they were, guess what, libertarians!
As a final aside, which I will not pursue any further, human government is not given to us by God. It is wholly a creation of man. It is of the world, and therefore, not of God. Even Paul knew that.
So, here we are again, right back at the beginning. You need to produce some evidence of your assertion that the Founders were not libertarians. You seem to be having trouble staying on topic, so I'm going to give you a hand.
I posted the definition of libertarian before. Here is one of them again:
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
Produce evidence, preferably in the form of quotes, of the Founders repudiating liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
Here is the other one:
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian).
Produce documentation that the Founders were necessitarians.
Do not meander at length on their writings regarding whether or not liberty is founded upon righteousness. It does not go to an overall necessitarian belief system, and it doesn't not imply authoritarianism. Do not quote endless reams of Old Testament scripture. It is meaningless in this context.
Yes please create a statement topic like this that we can point out to those Cindy Sheehan wanna bees.
I was waiting for this. You're a more patient man than I am.
I have been quietly knocking the doors and minds of the Paulbats ever since his first debate when he gave the sickening pablum response that Islamofascists are the fault of OUR foreign policy. Every week, he continues to lay out the same kind of drivel, yet people that should know better applaud his rantings with moonbeams in their eyes.
The man's mind is incapable of handling the threat of Islamofascists, and unfortunately his true believers are blindly following under the banner of "constitutionality".
You keep claiming that I need to prove that the founders were not libertarians.
But, fact is, it is you who claimed they were libertarians.
So, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
Prove that they would approve in any way of legalized drugs, prostitution, open borders, abortion, homosexualism, etc., as hardcore modern “libertarians” advocate, or that they would include the right to practice such things under the rubric of “liberty.”
Fact is, the founders were republicans, not libertarians.
Sorry I'm late to the fray; time zones can be a nuisance.
I am all for enforcing our current immigration laws and protecting our border. However, this is not some magic panacea. Even if the U.S. tightened immigration enforcement, that would still not miraculously stop Muslim terrorists from entering our country.
We must engage the terrorists on a turf of our choosing, not on our own soil. If we don't do this, it doesn't matter what amazing magic tricks Ron Paul pulls out of his hat, we WILL be attacked. Paul is not the be all and end all and his foreign policy approach simply makes no sense whatsoever in today's world.
Woo-Hoo! Thank you JR!
Down here in San Diego, the anti war Paulistas were out on the street protesting the war. They did NOT go unanswered!! Some of us (including the SD Protest Warriors) were there to counter them!
Woo-Hoo! Thank you JR!
Down here in San Diego, the anti war Paulistas were out on the street protesting the war. They did NOT go unanswered!! Some of us (including the SD Protest Warriors) were there to counter them! I saw first hand what the paulistas were all about!
Deserves repeating. Absolutely.
We had a military in a day when equipment consisted of a uniform, a musket, and a cartridge box. When we didn’t maintain a navy beyond a few a commerce-raiding frigates, and when comercial ships could be converted into effective raiders.
Income tax was passed to support big-ticket items like dreadnought-class battleships. Nowdays, we have we have to support troops who wear thousands of dollars of equipment and ride in million plus dollar IFVs.
As a small(l) libertarian, I have to say I agree with you. I used to maintain the delusion that the founders were Libertarians, but anyone who studies what they actually said, wrote, and DID, will realize that they were small-government republicans, maybe you could call the small-l libertarians, but alot of them were more socially conservative than most libertarians.
Heck, I wonder what Ron thinks of the (misguided?!) wars on Islamic terrorists back in the early 1800's, carried out by Jefferson and his successors?
It's a keeper of a link.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1904472/posts?page=168#168
ooorah-
Bump as a keeper!
bookmark
< /joking sarcasm >
bump
Well said, Bob Robinson. Thank you.
Wild shrimp should be able to roam freely without fear.
This would be an excellent tagline!
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.