Posted on 05/30/2007 4:44:20 AM PDT by BGHater
As some readers of this column may know, the first "real" job I ever had was working for Rep. Ron Paul back in 1976. I went to visit the Texas Republican a few months ago and was pleased to see he had not changed much at all since the days when I was a legislative assistant on his congressional staff.
At that time, I did not know Ron planned a run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. When I later learned of it, I thought he was being hopelessly Quixotic -- tilting at windmills. I thought Ron's views about limited constitutional government and nonintervention in the affairs of others nations were hopelessly out of step with the vast bulk of Republican primary voters.
On the war, these voters remain solidly in the George W. Bush camp -- willing to defend the war in Iraq to the bitter end and highly intolerant of anyone who raises doubts about its wisdom or continuation. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani exemplified this attitude in the debate two weeks ago when he demanded that Ron apologize for his antiwar position.
However, significant cracks have developed in the wall of conservative support Mr. Bush enjoyed at the beginning of the war. Today, much is known about the lack of verifiable evidence of Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), about how the White House bullied those urging caution into reluctant support, and thoroughly screwed-up the Iraq occupation. Even Arizona Sen. John McCain, still a strenuous war supporter, has become outspoken on Bush's poor management of it.
Consequently, more than a few conservatives have gone over to the antiwar side. Unfortunately for Ron, they are mostly former Republicans today, unlikely to vote in a Republican primary.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
This is where you are being incredibly naive or willfully ignorant of what is going on.
Actually, no. I don't think that it is the job of the fed to fight feminism. This does not mean that attempted legislation to codify feminism into federal law should not be resisted. Of course it should. Not because it is "feminism" but because that is not the job of the fed. Ron Paul hates feminism as much as I do, but that is NOT why he resists legislation, including what you mentioned. Ron Paul routinely votes no on ISSUES NOT DELEGATED TO THE CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION.
Your stuff about the war is simply incorrect. I don't support Ron Paul simply, or even primarily, because of the war. I was, in fact, in favor of going into Iraq and removing Sadam, without a dec of war, which Ron Paul opposed (he thought it a UN action). I could support Fred Thompson without reservation, whom I disagree with on the war. Ron Paul IS popular with a bunch of kids b/c of the war, but that ain't me.
I love the man, and have for 30 years, because HE IS A CONSTITUTIONALIST. He believes in the rolling back of federal usurpation of power, be defanging and defunding of the fed, preservation of rights and liberties of the individual, municipalities, states and finally the fed (in that order), the cessation of crooked bookkeeping by the gov't and the restraint on both spending and taxes by the fed, the abolition of the income tax, coinage of honest money, and so much more. The war is a central theme with alot of freepers and gets alot of splash here. It is really an afterthought for me, because I do not believe the threat of Islam (and it is a threat) is worth surrendering every freedom we have to "resist" it, only to find out we have defeated one form of fascism only to substitute another for it. I guess in THAT sense, the war matters, but only in that sense.
Eh. All it would take to get Paul on board with the WOT is to get Congress to declare the war. That's what it's supposed to do, if you're going to fight a war. So says the Constitution.
Expecting the Constitution to be followed isn't particularly loony, and shouldn't be regarded as such.
[This does not mean that attempted legislation to codify feminism into federal law should not be resisted. Of course it should. Not because it is “feminism” but because that is not the job of the fed. Ron Paul hates feminism as much as I do, but that is NOT why he resists legislation, including what you mentioned. Ron Paul routinely votes no on ISSUES NOT DELEGATED TO THE CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION.]
Great. Now if you are on speaking terms with Ron Paul, please ask him to discuss in the next debate what kind of feminist laws he has resisted, because most of these laws are aimed at taking away the rights of men.
He is hiding his best argument for high office right now.
Heck, look at the new bill in New York where a woman can initiate a divorce and, for the purpose of leveraging alimony negotiations, declare that she is scared of the husband and that puts a homing device on him...even though everyone knows that it is all an act for leveraging the financial outcome of the divorce.
You don’t think Congress would vote for something like the homing device law nationwide? McCain would jump right on that for starts. He would think it would appeal to the “chivalrous” men out there.
Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo have been the only guys to say no to some of these laws, but they haven’t been loud enough.
There are millions of men who would vote for Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo if they only recognized that the male vote could give them double digits in the polls, and went after that vote.
I’ll take the 40 mt, thanks.
While we’re at it, let’s fix the 14th Amendment to dis-include children of illegals from citizenship.
Actually, the 14th does not need to be "fixed." What we need in order to fix the STUPID STUPID situation of granting citizenship to any baby who can manage to get "feet dry" on USA soil is to have a measured, strategic finding on the phrase in the amendment "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A GOOD case can be made that illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA in the same manner as foreign diplomats are not (their children are NOT US citizens, even if born here). The argument would be that while diplomats are not subject by voluntary and agreed lack of subjection to our jurisdiction, the very fact that a person is here illegally is an argument that the mother and child are DELIBERATELY NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Others have made this argument,and I think it at least deserves a run through the courts.
Successful or not, you are correct in that an amendment designed to prevent the disenfranchisement of slaves was NEVER anticipated to give citizenship (and a basis for a court trial for residency) for people who are here in defiance of US immigration laws. That is simply crazy. No other country has such a lunatic law (but few countries have the national guilt we have over slavery and post slavery attitudes towards some of its citizens.... whether that guilt is legit or not).
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.