Posted on 02/17/2008 12:37:20 PM PST by goorala
The Republican Party is crumbling. They lost congress in 2006 and will lose more ground in 2008 because they offer nothing new, nothing original, and nothing positive. We have seen the party of entrepreneurship, small government, and personal freedom become the party of fear, war, and police power. After the party leaders mocked, sneered, and cackled at those of us who believe in a limited constitutional republic, they now ask us to hold our nose and support John McCain.
(FYI - I was involved in the Republican Party for almost 20 years):
John McCain recently said the U.S. Government should step up the drug war. This is indicative of why the Republican Party is crumbling, they don’t think things through and smart people are catching on.
I don’t care if you are on the right or the left, rich or poor, Christian or Atheist, black or white, if you value your personal freedom, it is time to stand together and question these people.
I have readers asking me why I won’t tow the Republican party line, and support John McCain. I’ll tell you why. I don’t agree with John McCain on much of anything. One of those disagreements is the about the drug war.
We’ve had almost 40 years of failed drug policy. In the past, when it was clear our efforts were failing, the politician’s solution was to escalate the war, increase police powers, and further restrict individual liberty. We’ve seen this pattern repeated for decades… escalate the war, the problems grows, react with more escalation, the problem continues to grow, react again, more escalation…
And now the Republican front-runner tells us, once again, that we need more of what hasn’t worked. Isn’t that insanity defined?
The modern war on drugs officially started in the late 60s. The results are in: Abject failure.
Whenever an elected official uses the word war, pay attention, because freedom is the first casualty of war. During the US Civil War, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for the ‘common good.’ After the war ended, it was restored. During the First and Second World Wars, the government suspended almost every personal and economic liberty. After the wars ended, most of our rights were restored.
Those wars had clear beginnings and ends, but today we have wars which never end. How do we win the war on drugs? How do we win the war on terror?
Meanwhile our leaders tell us we must accept every new encroachment on our personal freedom, because it serves a greater public good. Where will this end? How much freedom are we willing to sacrifice for safety? Why isn’t anyone in power asking these questions?
Right now we have over 2 million people incarcerated in the US, more than any other nation in the world including Russia and China. How many people are we willing to incarcerate to win the war on drugs? 4 million? 10 million? 20 million? We are fast approaching a point when we will imprison more people than Stalin or Pol Pot.
And how much money are we willing to spend? 100 billion? a trillion? 10 trillion? Are we willing to go bankrupt because we are too stubborn to accept that there might be a better solution?
In Stillwater Minnesota, in the late 1980s, the US Federal Government seized a family home because a fifteen year old boy sold a hit of acid to a friend in his basement bedroom. This was a kid, not a kingpin. His parents worked their entire lives to pay for that home, and while suffering the anguish of their teenage son’s drug abuse, the government showed its compassion by stealing their home. Back in the day, it was big news, because this gross abuse of power was new. Most people knew it was insane, but they did nothing, and today property seizures have become so common the news doesn’t even report them.
The drug war and the war on terror are stripping us of our civil liberties, and when we protest, politicians like McCain sneer and call us dangerous and crazy. You know what’s dangerous and crazy? Quietly accepting a government which steals from it citizens.
There are five high level steps for planning and executing anything:
With the war on drugs, the US government skipped step #2, #3, and #4 and went straight to #5.
Like this:
1. Drugs appear to be hurting some people. We have a moral responsibility to do something.
5. Police action
And when these actions didn’t create the desired result, did they regroup and brainstorm? No, they pushed for more of the same. If you listen to John McCain you’d think we are failing because we haven’t imprisoned or killed enough people.
What is McCain’s vision for the war on drugs? Does anyone know what desired outcome would look like? Is it a world without drugs? Is that realistic? If so, is it a world without every drug or just some drugs? Who will decide which drugs to eliminate from our lives, us as individuals or a committee in Washington? Maybe his desired outcome is a world without drug users? Or a world where every drug user is locked in a cage? Mao would be proud.
My vision is a day when drug and alcohol use is treated as a potential health issue and not a moral failing.
On a closely related note… Some of my Republican readers can’t understand why I’ve said that Barack Obama may be preferable to McCain.
I’ll tell you why…
The Republican leadership hasn’t adopted a new idea in almost 30 years, and John McCain is the problem personified. He himself said he doesn’t know much about economics and economic policy is the only reason I’d vote for a Republican. I lean libertarian, and McCain fails every test of personal liberty. I can’t think of a single reason to vote for him.
I’m simply warning the mainstream Republicans that they are losing the libertarian wing of the party and it may lead to an Obama victory in November. I have not ruled out voting for Obama. I have ruled out voting for McCain and so has almost every other libertarian leaning voter I’ve met.
I am a delegate to the local Republican convention, and I will support Ron Paul, but don’t kid yourself, he isn’t going to win the nomination. Mark my words… when the national convention comes to Saint Paul, the Republican elites won’t even let Ron Paul speak and I predict that Ron Paul signs won’t be allowed inside the event. Ron Paul supporters will be fenced in outdoors blocks away with all the other protesters in the ‘free speech cage.’
I can’t believe I’m saying this, I abhor socialism, but right now, Obama seems to be our best hope for a positive outcome in the ‘08 presidential race. Let’s hope it leads to open minds and better ideas in 2012.
Thanks for reading,
Every time I try to wash my hands of politics, it just gets more interesting.
Don’t forget to subscribe to this feed. I’ve got some fun surprises in store.
That’s pretty much the way I see it also.
With that noted, it's worth mentioning that your premise is false in your implication that the choice is either a) occupying Iraq, or b) fighting terrorists here... as though occupying Iraq in any way lessened the probability of needing to fight terrorists here.
It does not.
I might add that leaving our borders wide open is not the best way to defend people here either.
In fact, I thought most all of us were on board with that a few months ago, but now it seems like a great many Freepers are willing to forget that McCain and his ilk are the leading proponents of amnesty.
Amen Alice!
On the day McCain is announced the Republican nominee, I leave the Republican Party. If McCain is the best the RP can come up with, then they deserve to crash and burn.
I might go Libertarian too. Dunno yet.
How many terrorist attacks have Muslim fundamentalists carried out in the U.S. since our invasion of Iraq?
According to the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.3930:
you, I or any other citizen the President deems as a “threat” can be detained indefinetly, subjected to “severe interogation techniques” and without any recourse to a civil court. This isn’t about islamo dirtbags. This is about giving the executive branch inappropriate powers and erasing our rights. So if and when a President Hitlerly takes power, don’t say you weren’t warned.
If the GOP was serious about preserving constitutional rights and smaller govt, they would have told Bush to amend the bill to protect US CITIZENS or no dice. They didn’t hence why the author of the above article is on spot.
Your post is true. My son is one of the troops. He likes Ron Paul.
How many Americans died in Iraq?
And I agree with you that the border needs to be secured, but it has been kept unsecured by "cheap labor" neocons in the Republican party as much as Marxist "tribal politics" Democrats wanting a new government-dependent victim class.
Unless you are a terrorist, whether of the islamofascist type or the domestic kind who would resort to attempted ethnic cleansing of Hispanic Americans if you don’t get your way with deportation, the you have nothing to worry about.
Terrific post. Sums up my exact sentiments about the GOP anymore. We are all supposed to keep voting for warhorses that continue to keep us in a state of perpetual fear.
Seems it might be wiser to collect all of our resources and save them for when they are really needed.
I am weary of having these people browbeat us into voting for a person like McCain, wrapping him in a flag, in order to sell us open borders, amnesty, a destroyed culture, slave labor, and continual war.
Those Americans died so ungrateful people like yourself could come here spew.
???????????
WTF is that supposed to mean?
You should be ashamed. My son is in the military and I resent you. Where are you? In Iraq? I think not. You are probably sitting in the comfort of your home, not fighting this war, and insulting people who have family and kids fighting the fight.
Just because they do their duty does not mean they are in love with the idea of war.
Your sales pitch is a nasty, vulgar, cheap shot.
You are the one who spews daily. Get off your butt and join the military instead of posting tripe to people who just wish you would go away.
I belong to the party of adults and reality, the Republicans. The obama Messiah and Hillary are lying to their groupies.
We have seen the party of entrepreneurship, small government, and personal freedom become the party of fear, war, and police power.
The only way McCain wins in November is if we have another 9/11 this fall and fear trumps greed among swing voters.
If Hitlerly gets in the White House, am willing to bet that the definition of a terorrist is going to become quite elastic and apologists such as yourself are going to wish you had fought against this type of nonsense. But hey, doesn’t Dubya look SO cute with Barney!? (sarcasm off)
That is as big a strawman argument as claiming that Clinton protected us from terrorists after the same terrorists attacked the WTC in 1992. Why did a 9 year peroid lapse after that 1992 attack here in the States?
True. No terrorist attacks occurred in the U.S. (unless there's more to the Murrah bombing than just McVeigh and Nichols) between 1993 and 2001.
However, there were terrorist attacks overseas against U.S. interests and personnel: Khobar Towers, the 2 U.S. embassies in Africa, the U.S. Cole.
Right now, I can't recall any terrorist attack on any U.S. interest overseas since 2001 (but if there has been, I can't remember it at the moment).
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.