Posted on 02/28/2007 4:50:41 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
"It's too bad the Republicans aren't the Constitution Party anymore."
The Republican party is becoming a look-a-like to the democrats. Look at the latest RSC editorial on renewing the Republican party by Tim Walberg R-MI. http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/CA_022607_walbergprinciples.pdf.
It appears the Republicans have become "full of sound and fury signifying nothing".
While I strongly disagree with your views on Iraq, a more-Conservative domestic government might actually be able to afford spending several hundred billion a year to occupy Iraq were it demonstrably in the national interest to do so. It's not that wartime deficits don't matter; it's that they would matter a lot less if Government (at all levels) were not already consuming 40%+ of the economy.
Libertarians may oppose any type of government handouts for aliens (whether legal or illegal), but when it comes to illegal immigration by itself, they'll all for it. Indeed, they're to the left of the Dems on the issue and believe in open borders and "free movement of peoples", and if they were in charge, they'd do away with the term illegal immigration -- If you think I'm lying, read the official Libertarian website for yourself:
THE BENEFITS OF OPEN IMMIGRATION
The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. We condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the United States.
A policy of open immigration will advance the economic well-being of all Americans. All major recent studies of immigrants indicate that they have a high labor force participation, are entrepreneurial, and tend to have specialized skills that allow them to enter under-served markets. Although it is a common misconception that immigrants "take jobs away from native-born Americans," this does not appear to be true. In 1989, the U.S. Department of Labor reviewed nearly 100 studies on the relationship between immigration and unemployment and concluded that "neither U.S. workers nor most minority workers appear adversely affected by immigration."
Finally, any discussion of immigration must include a warning about the threat to civil liberties posed by many of the proposals to limit immigration. Recent legislation to restrict immigration has included calls for a national identity card for all Americans. Senator Diane Feinstein (CA-D) has suggested that such an ID card should contain an individual's photograph, fingerprints, and even retina scans. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has proposed legislation that would require employers to consult a national registry of workers before hiring anyone, effectively giving the U.S. government control over every hiring decision by every business in America.
Other legislation has contained provisions penalizing people who fail to "inform" on people they "suspect" might be illegal immigrants. Such Orwellian nightmares have no place in a free society, but are the natural outgrowth of an obsession with restricting immigration.
-- www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml
So either Ron Paul is 100% opposed to "his" party on this key issue (which makes me wonder why the heck they'd nominate him for President in 1988, as you don't see the GOP nominating hardcore abortionists for President issue, or the Democrats nominating big time hawks for President who 100% in support of Bush on Iraq) or Ron Paul is lying.
Perhaps it's simular to Art Olivier, who was 100% for open borders when he ran for Vice-President arm-in-arm with Harry Browne in 2000, but suddenly changed gears and claimed to be of the minuteman mindset when he ran for Governor of California as LINO in 2006. (probably because it was more politically benefitical in 2006 to be anti-illegal in California)
"despite the divide between the two camps?"
How is that?
"Congressman Paul is the only Congressman leaders in both parties feel they can trust."
Probably because he has principles.
Well, that ends his run.
That and the fact that his NH 'fundraiser' raised less money then a City Council candidate I once worked for.
If we cut and run now it will only embolden our enemies. It will show them America does not have the courage to do what is right.
I don't believe that is the case. No terrorist attacks anywhere near as devastating as the Al Dawa/Hezbollah attack in Beirut 1983 followed Ronald Reagan's withdrawal of US Marines from Beirut -- until after US Forces were again deployed to the Muslim "holy lands" in Arabia.
Put simply, there is a very good argument to be made that you simply DO NOT increase your risk of getting a hornet sting if you stop poking a stick in the hornet's nest. Ronald Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon proves a good example of this, I believe.
Just because a bill has a certain title doesn't mean it's necessarily a good one or Constitutional one.
When you say Ron Paul is "neither pro-borders or pro-life," you're incorrect. Ron Paul has a clear understanding of which powers are reserved to the Federal government and which are reserved to the people, or the states.
Many pro-life libertarians feel the Federal government should not ban abortions, as it does not ban murder per se, for instance. That field of law is covered by state law, and this is an area of law which the Feds have no say. That's my understanding.
Just by way of example -- in the last Election Cycle, Ron Paul out-raised Duncan Hunter by 50% (and ended the race with hundreds of thousands of dollars more cash on hand).
It just won't come in big piles early on, Because Ron typically receives 97% of his support from individual small contributions.
Can't argue with any of that.
Well, that rules out the Constitution Party for most of us. We're not looking to be dhimmi-fied. ...besides some crypto-Nazi conspiracy stories from the same bunch.
If Ron Paul manages to pull off an alliance between the Libertarian and Constitution Parties, while running as a Republican, he or his supporters are doing some serious negotiating behind the scenes. On abortion, you typically see Libertarians wanting to defund abortion and devolve the issue back to the states, but no plank in their platform in opposition to abortion per se. The Constitution Party has always been utterly opposed to abortion, period. There is room for compromise in the area of objectives that both can agree upon, but profound disagreement upon the reasons for doing so, which has always prevented any sort of rapproachment in the past. It will be extremely interesting to watch this unfold, from my "small-l" libertarian Republican point of view. It could very well lead to a more hard-nosed realism, as far as threats to our nation and the world. It could create another coalition to replace the clearly damaged Reagan coalition.
Again, if Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) can pull this off, he's really accomplished something, and is worthy of a closer look. Will he, or even can he, be elected president in 2008? That does not look very likely at all, from the standpoint of now. However, just look at what he's putting together, and the implications for the future.
You're absolutely right. If you believe, rightfully, that abortion is murder, the libertarian, states-rights stance is the best opportunity we have to end this carnage. Paulsen and Mojave, I respect the opinions of yours which I don't necessarily agree with, and I'd love your takes on this.
Is Ron Paul TRULY "anti-illegal immigration" and has the voting record to back it up? Was he in 1988? Is he a LINO on immigration? Are his views on immigration 180 degreees from the LP platform? How will he deal with this divide in the event he's elected?
Saying he agrees with them on 80% of the issues doesn't cut it. Joe Lieberman agrees with the socialist RATs on 90% of the issues and they decided to lynch him because he's wrong on one of their pet issues. Lindsey Graham is in agreement with conservatives on 90% of the issues and plenty of people here want to lynch him.
Oh, and the Libertarian Party that's now "endorsing" him for President still managed to run somebody AGAINST him almost every time he ran for Congress as a Republican. Perhaps they didn't like him being a LINO on immigration, or perhaps they're just nuts and eat their own because he didn't have an (LP) next to his name on the ballot. You tell me.
The Libertarians nominated Ron Paul as their Candidate in 1988 despite his stands against Abortion and Illegal Immigration (he is 100% against both).
That should be easy for a Republican to understand; they're considering the Nomination of a past New York Liberal Party candidate (Rudy Giuliani) who is diametrically opposed to almost everything on the Republican Platform, based solely on his support for one issue: protracted involvement in Foreign Wars.
The Libertarian Party statement you posted says nothing about supporting illegal immigration. It criticizes National ID schemes and workplace checks, which any lover of freedom should find anathema.
Libertarians have varying positions on the issue, ranging from restrictionist to fairly open. Ron Paul isn't running for the Libertarian Party nomination anyway - they don't speak for him, nor vice versa.
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.