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.
Thanks for the flag. I am grateful for all of the pro-life legislation Ron Paul has introduced and supported.
Like I said, he wrestled with the question of "pro-life" vs. "federalism" and decided to vote for the pro-life bill, even though he's uncomfortable with expanding the powers of the Federal government.
Ron Paul can be counted on to appoint Justices who would overturn Roe; and at this stage in the process, that's plenty good enough for me. If you're able to get a National Pro-Life Amendment passed, then Abortion would become, ipso facto, a "Constitutional" issue. Ron Paul has always said he would uphold the Constitution to the letter (amendments and all).
So... if not Ron Paul, who's your pick for the Primaries?
A "high-order thinker" -- as compared to Bush? Gore? Kerry? Paul is a giant amongst midgets in that crowd.
I am grateful to you for your support.
I remember first encountering you, under my old screen name "Uriel1975", back in the 2000 Primaries when I was a Forbes fan arguing against the Keyes supporters over the issue of "Flat Tax" versus "National Sales Tax".
While I believe you preferred Keyes given the choice, I was impressed by your advocacy of the Constitution Party's stance that there should be NO direct taxation of individuals, and that rather Direct Taxes should be apportioned to the discretion of the several States according to the actual enumeration or census according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. I was very impressed, and it changed my thinking about the whole issue.
Since that time, I have never seen you say one uncharitable thing to any other FReeper, or at least never anything personally demeaning, no matter how raucous the debate.
It's nice to be on the same side (though we weren't far apart, even back then). Your respectful decency is a welcome counterpoint to a curmudgeonly pit-fighter like myself. I salute your for your temperance and longsuffering.
May God bless you and yours.
OP
advocacy of the Constitution Party's stance that there should be NO direct taxation of individuals, and that rather Direct Taxes should be apportioned to the discretion of the several States according to the actual enumeration or census according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. I was very impressed, and it changed my thinking about the whole issue.
I believe Dr. Paul also advocates elimination of direct taxation at the federal level, which is another reason why he is my favorite Republican candidate (and Congressman).
Thanks for the kind words. The federal income tax should have been relegated to the 20th century.
Are any of you familiar with the Heartland Institute?
No, I honestly am not.
If you think it could be beneficial to the Campaign, tell me about it.
If an idea will be beneficial to the Campaign, please be assured that Ron Paul's senior aides will hear about it. When I want to talk to them, I don't talk to the office secretary. I call them directly.
As a devout Christian, Ron Paul believes that all Government Policy, including Foreign Policy, should be conducted according to the Teachings of Jesus.
He has openly and intensively discussed Christian Theology on the Floor of the United States House of Representatives to explain his Votes on this issue and others. How many other Congressman publicly ask "What Would Jesus Do" before they Vote on a matter, Deacon?
Do YOU believe that Jesus would support the expenditure of thousands of American Lives to prop up an Iraqi Government whose so-called "Constitution" openly recognizes the Satanic Religion of Islam as "the Prime Source of Law" (to say nothing of their past Terrorist ties - let's just ignore that for now)? Would Jesus support such an ABOMINATION?
Answer me that, DEACON, and then MAYBE I'll deal with your spurious, UnChristian accusations against an honorable man of God who began his career in the medical field getting our troops home from Vietnam alive.
I like Ron Paul in many respects, and believe that his positions are derived from his religious beliefs. However, Congressman Paul is an opponent of our foreign policy in the Mideast, despite the fact we were attacked on 9/11. Libertarian idealism on foreign policy and a return to isolationism are not viable options are not valid and even dangerous approached to international affairs where the waters are filled with sharks like radical Islam, Venezuela, and North Korea, as well as China and Russia. OTOH, I dislike Rudy Giuliani intensely, yet must admit he is realistic with respect to our foreign enemies.
Concur. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are two good examples of men who are solidly conservative, pro-life, and pro-defense.
You keep on giving us good reasons to vote for Dr. Paul. Keep them coming.
Hizbullah is nothing but the bastard child of the Iraqi Islamic Al Dawa Party, the Ruling Party of Iraq.
Freeing the al-Dawa prisoners in Kuwait was one of the main objectives of a string of kidnappings and bombings perpetrated by Hezbollah over the next several years. (One of the Kuwait 17, Mustafa Badreddin, is a relative and associate of Hezbollah leader Imad Mugniyah.[10]) -- source
Things have changed, and I am not at all suggesting that a vindictive attitude is appropriate, but Dawa has a background as a terrorist organization. While in Tehran, it spun off a shadowy set of special ops units generically called "Islamic Jihad," which operated in places like Kuwait and Lebanon. The Dawa's Islamic Jihad appears to have been at the nexus of splinter groups that later, in 1982, began to coalesce into Hezbollah (the 1983 truck bombing of US Marines is often blamed on "Hezbollah," but that organization barely existed then.) -- source
The creation of the Islamic Republic in Iran in February 1979 and its policy of exporting revolution adopted shortly thereafter by the new power have been, from all available evidence, the main catalyst in the development of the radical Islam in Lebanon. When Ayatollah Khomeini took power in Tehran, small radical Shi’ite groups were already active in Lebanon, but on a small scale. There was the Committee of Bekaa Ulema, “Islamic Committees” and the Lebanese branch of the Iraqi Shi’ite al-Dawa (for which sayyed Muhammad Hessein Fadlallah [spiritual leader of Hezbollah] was the standard-bearer in Lebanon).... This process of fusion was initiated during the summer of 1982 but it is not until 1983 that Hezbollah will formally see the light of day. The process will mature only at the beginning of 1985, when Hezbollah will announce it political program. -- source
The Ruling Al Dawa Party of Iraq is composed of self-confessed, and even convicted, American-murdering Terrorist Scum. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate calling for an immediate END to all Military and Financial support for the criminal Islamic Terrorist thug-regime of Iraq.
“Libertarians (and small “l” libertarians too) are for unlimited immigration, legal or illegal.”
I can, off the cuff, name at least three L/libertarians who disagree, and thus in six short words prove your blanket statement wrong: Ron Paul, Neal Boortz, and LibertarianinExile. ALL of us are on record as being FOR enforcement of borders, FOR enforcement of our current immigration law, and FOR building a border wall...which certainly shows you’re slingin’ it. People like you embarrass your cause, because your misrepresentation of others’ stands is so transparent. I can’t speak for Boortz or Paul, but I’d be all for a 5 year moratorium on immigration, too.
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.