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.
"Right... they're all Terrorists "
They are not "all" terrorists.
The 3 you list are terrorists in Lebanon - Mugniyah, Fadlallah and terrorist Hassan Nasrallah. They were co-founders of Islamic Jihad, a terrorist organization. The fact that they have links to al-Sadr's Dawa movement does not turn everyone else associated with that party into terrorists as well, nor does it make the political party in Iraq today that goes by the Dawa name to be what you say it is.
You are engaging in guilt-by-association.
"Most Iraqis are not killing, they are dying. The ones doing the killing are terrorists and extremists."
"Even Pres Bush defines it as sectarian violence."
Since you quote Pres Bush as an authority on Iraq, let's agree that President Bush is right on his description - thusly given on Jan 10,2007:
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/iraq_2007_jan.htm
"Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together – and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq – particularly in Baghdad – overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra – in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group – a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work."
" ... continued commitment to working with ... United States allies in combating terrorism worldwide."
How is alliances to fight global terrorism a bad thing? You think even our founders, even the Tommy Jefferson guy who sent our marines to open whopp-ass on a Barbary Pirate kingdom, would be against that? hmmm.
So are you saying that there's some federal criminal statute that says "murder is illegal" but does not specify a penaly? There are no federal statutes relating to murder except in special cases, that I am aware of. So why would there be abortion laws at the federal level?
States are denied the power to deprive life. (See the 10th and 14th Amendments.)
Actually, states can deny life to people given the proper judicial process. See Texas' death row. I find your references to the 10th and 14th to be obtuse.
I dont see how he won anything anytime. Johnson was a big Government Democrat, and Nixon continued big Government Republicanism, followed by the 1970s, a hey dey of big govt liberalism.
It was a long 16 years after Goldwater that Reagan became President and limited Govt took a shellacking the whole time.
"As far as redefining the Party, it has to go back to LESS GOVERNMENT." ... I agree. I have my doubts we will get that from Rudy, but we shall see.
"Like Romney and McCain, Paul has said he would leave abortion to the states to decide. "
Most prolifers, including myself, believe that that is the correct approach.
"#4. Message sent is that America has no real endurance. that means that *EVERY SINGLE INTERVENTION* we have for decades will be a test of our endurance, since our enemies will assume we lack the will to win."
"We won the war. Saddam is no longer. Sure, this little fact may be denied by our enemies. But we should not be in the business of denying our success in removing an evil dictator in Iraq. "
Good positive point. It would be a bit easier if the defeatists who want us to bug out would recognize our victories and quit insisting that 'victory is impossible'.
However, to say we've won would ignore the question of securing the country to be a stable bulwark against terrorism. If we dont do that, the terrorists will rightly point to this as a defeat for us. the Al Qaeda in Iraq organization knows exactly the weak point of weatern powers. After all, they bombed Madrid 3 days prior to elections as a message that successfully got Spain's govt to turn left.
They can watch the global media, and the terrorists know this is a media war as well as a flesh and blood one. They want to bloody us and see us leave in response.
"THE #1 WAY TO DEAL WITH IRAN IS TO MAKE IRAQ A SUCCESFULL DEMOCRATIC GOVT!
I think the number one way is to line up our troops, planes, and ships on borders of Iran. Demand it's leader, like we did Iraq's, to stand down. If not, we're coming in to remove their nukes."
And having done so, and having removed the Iranian Govt (for you cant stop their nuclear ambitions without removing th Govt), will you stay and secure our victory so that we dont face more terrorism and WMD threats, or will you advocate bugging out prematurely, leaving a vacuum for the Islamofascists to fill?
People are keen to rationalize why doing the easy thing (bugging out of Iraq) is the right thing. But the right thing to do is sometimes the hard thing to do. It's not easy to finish the job in Iraq but it is the right thing.
"(Our mission now): Securing Iraq's democracy so it doesnt fall into the type of anarchy that will make it host to extremist terrorist groups."
"Iraq is currently a host to terrorists."
- the correct word is 'victim' - Iraq's people are victims of terrorism. Thousands have died from it. Simply because terrorism is happening in Iraq doesnt mean Iraq is 'host' to it. A tiny minority are engaged in the terrorism.
Simply because some of the terrorist insurgents are Iraqis doesnt mean its homegrown, I've disproven that canard.
"So they do this without the aid of Iraqis?"
Was 9/11 executed without the aid of Americans? Of course not. Plenty of Americans unwittingly helped them succeed. And now we know of some number of US citizens (Jose Padilla etc) who actively were terrorist recruits. Does that make America a terrorist country? It would be absurd. So let's be smart about this, and recognize that most Iraqis want the democratic Govt to succeed, oppose the violence, and support the Govt, army and police, along with our efforts to help.
"However the majority are citizens of Iraq directly and/or indirectly involved."
If there are terrorists there from Iraq, ALL THE MORE REASON NOT TO LEAVE IRAQ! The majority of Iraqis are vehemently opposed to the terrorists and hate them, but live in fear. Many Iraqis are telling the US that we need to stay. It's an obvious fallacy to go from 'the majority of the terrorists are Iraqi' to the thought that Iraq is either (a) hopeless or (b) a "host" to terrorism.
"What you are failing to admit is that by far the vast majority of violence is sectarian."
What you are failing to admit is that THE WAR IN IRAQ IS A PART OF THE WAR ON TERROR.
It doesnt matter if most of the violence is 'sectarian' (a fact which wsa not true in 2003/2004/2005), the root cause of it was the terrorist insurgency, and the root solution is the establishment of security sufficient to fend off non-Govt militias and actions of all sorts.
As for disputing that operatins in Baghdad are going well, read this ...
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03012007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/battling_for_baghdad_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=0
We hear the bad news from the rest of Iraq, such as this week's monstrous car bombing of children at play on a soccer field in Ramadi, but we don't hear that such attacks by al Qaeda operatives have infuriated mainstream Sunni sheiks and their tribes - who increasingly make common cause with us and their government. And winning over the Sunni "middle" is crucial to Iraq's future.
* We'll never stop all suicide bombers and car bombers, but our security crackdown has already taken out two major Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) factories. And we took down a huge arms cache late last week.
Of the five additional U.S. brigades headed for Baghdad, only one is in place, with the second starting to arrive. Yet the city is already quieter and safer. The terrorists continue to detonate their bombs - with suicidal fanatics targeting the innocent - but sectarian killings (death-squad hits) have dropped from over 50 each night down to single digits.
* The tactic of stationing U.S. units and their Iraqi counterparts down in the Baghdad 'hoods is already paying off. (It should have been used from the outset - instead of hunkering down on massive bases. But better late than never.) The effort has triggered a flood of intelligence tips: When citizens feel safe, they cooperate. And when they help us, our success compounds.
An actual conservative, a brilliant man, and someone who would destroy any of the media-picked Demopublican/Republicrat candidates in a debate. That is why he would never be allowed in any of the debates. I will switch from independent to Republican just to vote for him in '08.
Lincoln, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush I&II: which of them believed in the Constitution and limited government? None! Reagan talked a good game but delivered little. He was once an FDR Democrat, afterall.
What, you don't think there are libertarians in the GOP?
Yes, there are bad apples in every basket.
Excellent post, Irontank. I only wish I could orchestrate such a juggernaut of powerful information.
My bad. I should have asked, "On what legal grounds?" I wasn't looking for an emotional response.
Now, if you're saying Roe v Wade should be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court because there is no constitutional "right to privacy", then I think we have a long wait.
Just skim some of the articles on this forum regarding the Patriot Act! FReepers are bitchin' and moanin' about an intrusive government as it is -- the USSC then rules there is no right to privacy???? Katie, bar the door!
Tommy would have used EVERY weapon at his disposal. Not just the questionably legal War Powers Act. Why tie one hand behind our backs? Just to fight a more "politically correct" war? Yeah, that's working well isn't it...
My apologies...I did not mean to imply you are a socialist...only that the socialists have relied on the Commerce Clause to push their agenda...I wasn't very clear though
Exactly right...a Calvin Coolidge Republican is what we need...Ron Paul is a good example of a Coolidge Republican
Why do you say that?
When Roe is overturned, liberals eventually will gain the SCOTUS and again force legalized abortion. Why go through that cycle, when we should be aiming for actually banning abortion federally? If we want abortion illegal, we must support a human life amendment.
That's the practical side of the argument against Ron Paul's position. The principled side is that the U.S. Constitution was not intended to allow state diversity on life. We are not a confederacy of loosely-allied nation-states. We have a federalist system centered on a Constitution that unites the states around the principles of the Preamble:
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.