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.
Ron Paul has some excellent qualities, he borders on right-moonbatish on a couple things (then again, so do I,) but my main issue with him is his refusal to support defending our country against terrorists.
Yup. Including the cut-and-run aspect (and I'm NOT a Rudy supporter...)
Right, you and Ron go your crusade to end all foreign aid. Just do me a favor: cut off our true, close allies LAST.
How about this: let's save the foreign aid for allies (more than sufficient okay in the Constitution to look after our national interests), and cut-off aid to enemies and backstabbers.
Does he support Iran having nukes?
What about illegal immigration?
Isn't Paul's pro-life position at odds with the Libertarian Party's official position?
So now Paul will get about 0.8% of the GOP primary vote instead of the 0.5% he would have gotten?
Reagan was rather libertarianish in many ways, although many Freepers will deny it like Bill Clinton denied sex with Monica.
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that we didn't get those "surplus commodities" at the value of the world price. My brother-in-law once used a similar smoke and mirrors argument to claim that the farm subsidies were "actually loans" not real subsidies. Israel should be perfectly free to buy arms for the use but on the open market and in cash, not through this current Rube-Golbergesque system of hidden subsidies
What about the bills advance_copy showed us? Can you explain Congressman Paul's votes on those?
Thanks for helping my argument that we supplied significant amounts of aid to Israel pre-1967.
In 1999, I heard Harry Browne say that the Libertarian Party doesn't have an official position on abortion. He said that the platform didn't mention abortion. Many members of the party are pro-choice, and many are pro-life.
If you really think that is true, why are posting so often about it? Just ignore him and he'll go away. Then again....if you're wrong.
Yeah, but somehow there's a correlation there. It reminds me of when Pat Buchanan opposed cutting off foreign aid to Hamas.
But it's not just a money issue. Ron will oppose a resolution saying "Israel is an ally". Most of these resolutions have nothing to do with foreign aid.
Nailed it.
Not so. He wanted letters of M&R and an actual Declaration of War. He also wants a full restoration of our individual RKBA.
Understand, Dr. Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. He doesn't view the War Powers Act as a Constitutional Law. In fact, it isn't as it takes power from the President and gives it to Congress without actually Amending the Constitution. This is Ron's main concern in waging ANY war via "authorization for use of force" under its auspices.
I assume you have proof of this? No? Didn't think so...
I tried to find it on Ron's website, but it doesn't seem to be there. Now why would that be, I wonder? Considering the man has no unexpressed thought, I find that surprising.
Some titles that are on his website:
(14) declares its continued commitment to working with Israel and other United States allies in combating terrorism worldwide.
This commits the US to "entangling aliances". You know, those things the Founders warned us against? It also calls for more UN involvement.
If it was just a resolution condemning Hezbollah, there wouldn't have been an issue.
"Working with Israel" is not entangling. It's a "relationship" that can be ended at any time.
Having an embassy in a foreign country is more entangling than this bunch of non-specific words.
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.