Posted on 02/28/2007 4:50:41 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Former LP Presidential Candidate Endorses Ron Paul For President
Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States, has endorsed Republican Congressman Ron Paul (Texas) for President.
“My short term goal for the next two years is to make sure that Ron Paul is elected president in 2008,” Badnarik said Friday night at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, a pro-liberty conference hosted by the Free State Project.
(…) In his Friday night keynote address, Badnarik, who is also a member of the Free State Project and plans to move to New Hampshire by the end of 2008, urged over 200 attendees to support Ron Paul for president by making campaign contributions and activating grassroots support.
“You cannot do it yourself,” he said. “You have to have wide, wide grassroots support.”
Badnarik also urged the Libertarian Party to nominate Ron Paul as well. “I hope the Libertarian Party is smart enough to say, ‘Oh ho, somebody we can trust!’ and nominate Ron Paul as our nominee,” he said. “We should set the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian labels aside, and vote for Ron Paul the person.”
Why do Evangelicals ignore Ron Paul? (Chuck Baldwin, 2004 VP Candidate, Constitution Party News)
Evangelical Christians are already beginning the process of selecting the Republican presidential candidate whom they can anoint as their successor to George W. Bush. Somehow, evangelicals have this deluded idea that President Bush is one of them. How they came to this delusion both fascinates and escapes me. Bush is anything but one of them. However, most evangelicals believe he is, and today it seems that illusion is greater than reality, anyway. Bush proves that more than anyone I have ever known. But enough about Bush.
The question burning in the minds of evangelicals today is: Which Republican candidate for president will we anoint?...
Ron Paul has served as a conservative congressman from Texas for over 16 years. He currently has a 100% rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably the most relevant and accurate reflection of a congressman’s true conservative record out there.
Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul’s commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric. For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005."
Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the evangelicals’ pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul’s pro-life bill.)
In addition, Ron Paul has been the most outspoken defender of constitutional government in the entire congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and big government.
I've voted Republican for 34 years...I support him. Indeed, if he ran on any other ticket I'd still vote for him. There is a first time for everything and Ron Paul is better then any of the media darlings that are being shoved down our throat by either Party.
C'mon people, we need to shake up the status quo.
Long after the invasion of Iraq? Your "argument" about Bush's Middle East strategy having no positive influence in the region discounts the obvious.
And your rant about Bush supporting terrorists in Iraq is really heartfelt--especially since you support a candidate who wants a "neutral middle east foreign policy". Clearly code for withdrawing support for Israel against forces that want to see it wiped off the face of the earth. So. I guess Ron Paul supports EVERY terrorist group in the Middle East. He's on the exact same page as that great conservative President...Jimmy Carter.
Stop claiming Bush is a terrorist supporter (the terrorists, by their own rhetoric, sure don't seem to think so), until you explain why Ron Paul wants a "neutral middle east policy."
Read MY lips, Dude. He voted against the war when John Kerry was still FOR it. He's a man of principle, and it doesn't hurt that the calamity has proven him correct. The dims may be capitulating to him, but he surely isn't capitulating to them.
Your lips and your fingers are wrong. Ron Paul's reason for his vote is not the same reason that the dems have for their vote.
I seriously doubt if the stupid 'Pubbies actually nominate Ron Paul, because they are in a suicide spiral, but I, for one, hope they do.
Several times in the past dozen or so years we had a chance to validate the conservative, pro-Constitution world view, but were denied that opportunity by the RNC's choice of liberal-lite RINO candidates.
I see way too many FReepers who gripe and moan about the sad state of affairs that is our country, but when given a chance to actually do something about it, they "cut and run".
Ron Paul is not a man of principle. He's voted against nonbinding resolutions before because he opposes nonbinding resolutions, but this one he managed to have the principle to vote for.
His "principles" are whatever is convenient at the moment.
Ron Paul is the opposite of Rudy.
In nearly every way.
Actually, as I acknowledged to FreeReign in my #174, one can speculate that the invasion of Iraq, while it obviously did not deter Qaddafi's determination to secure nuclear weapons, may have increased the likelihood of Qaddafi's capitulation once he got caught. It's impossible to know that Qaddafi wouldn't have capitulated anyway, once he got caught; but I'll grant the speculation for the sake of argument.
However, even if granted wholesale, it doesn't justify the continued occupation of Iraq in support of an Iraqi government which is dominated by an Islamic Al Dawa Party with a long history of Anti-American terrorism.
And your rant about Bush supporting terrorists in Iraq is really heartfelt--especially since you support a candidate who wants a "neutral middle east foreign policy". Clearly code for withdrawing support for Israel against forces that want to see it wiped off the face of the earth. So. I guess Ron Paul supports EVERY terrorist group in the Middle East. He's on the exact same page as that great conservative President...Jimmy Carter.
You equate a policy of NOT giving foreign aid to any Islamic country or terror-state (Egypt, Iraq, the Palestinians) with "supports EVERY terrorist group in the Middle East"? That's just screwy.
If the US weren't giving foreign aid to anyone in the Middle East, that would mean less money for the Palestinian Terrorists as well as making it easier for Israel to pursue an objectively self-defensive policy rather than being tugged around by the purse strings every time a Carter or a Clinton, etc., wanted to try to force them to accept a "peace settlement".
I believe that US foreign aid to Israel has objectively weakened Israel's self-defense position. US foreign aid to Israel was infinitesimal until after 1967 -- and, I do seem to recall, Israel had little trouble whupping the Arabs up to that point. With 400 nuclear weapons and a foreign policy cut free from US monetary pressure, I believe Israel would do equally well today.
Stop claiming Bush is a terrorist supporter (the terrorists, by their own rhetoric, sure don't seem to think so), until you explain why Ron Paul wants a "neutral middle east policy."
I've explained why I think a "neutral Middle East" policy would be better for Israel's interests in the paragraph above.
And you neglect to define your term "terrorist". I'm sure that the terrorist Al Dawa Party of Iraq is happy about receiving continued Military and Financial support; but I'll tell you what:
When the Islamic Al Dawa Party resurrects from the dead all the victims of terror attacks they killed or helped to kill -- the 241 US Marines in Lebanon, the 5 US embassy workers in Kuwait, all the bodies littered around the Middle East and the Mediterranean at the hands of their monster-children Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad -- THEN I will be willing to discuss whether or not the Federal Government should continue giving Military and Financial support to the ruling Al Dawa government in Iraq. FAIR ENOUGH?
Proof Citation, please.
Many libertarians do support unlimited immigration. Many others, like myself, want illegal immigration stopped now, and want legal immigration greatly curtailed. However, using some libertarian's support of "open borders" isn't such a great condemnation of a possible libertarian government as you would think.
Right now, the third-world invasion we're experiencing, and almost all legal immigration, is driven by economics. They're coming here for money, pure and simple. Heck, anybody looking to emigrate in search or liberty would be a fool to come to the US... there's probably 50 or more countries in the world with a higher level of personal liberty than here.
Now, imagine immigration in a libertarian US. Crossing the border illegally - a crime taken seriously by the government. Trespassing on private property - another crime. Document forgery - serious crime. No welfare, no free schools, no free medical care, no ridiculous labor laws and no government-imposed high costs of legal employment to entice foreigners to come here and to make it worthwhile for companies to hire them.
A developed nation with a libertarian government and a true free-market economy, where everybody either pays their own way or gets someone to voluntarily support them, isn't going to attract too many non-english speaking, uneducated third-world marxist peasants.
To sum up my FRiend, an immigration policy that is completely unworkable in a country with an out-of-control government that steals from its productive citizens to give to criminal alien invaders would work just fine in the kind of nation that our Founders gave us and that us libertarians want back.
Thanks for telling me my opinion. Before reading your brilliant analysis, I was still pretty unclear on my beliefs. Can you tell me how I feel about other issues?
I expect you'll be supporting Tom Tancredo in the Primaries. Pretty good guy compared to the rest of the field from what I've seen, probably my second choice after Ron.
Ahh... that sounds pretty much exactly like my line-up. In that order, no less.
If you'd like, I'll add you to our Free Republic Ron Paul article ping list.
This thing is getting to big for me to keep track. I'm gonna need to alphabetize it.
Mea maxima culpa.
Add me to the Ron Paul ping list please... this Georgian has considered Ron Paul to be his congressman for years, and would love to have him as his president
You got it.
Numbersusa.com gives him a career "B" overall for immigration, which is better than any of the others except Tancredo and Hunter.
"In 2008, I'm voting for the REAGAN REPUBLICAN.
I'm voting for former Vietnam Combat Flight
Surgeon, and Leader of Ronald Reagan's
Electoral Delegation from Texas: In 2008,
I'm Voting for RON PAUL!"
I'm voting for the "Reagan Republican" too - DUNCAN HUNTER!
But he's way ahead of Giuliani, McCain, etc., in my book.
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.