Posted on 07/29/2007 6:22:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Yesterday I looked at the Ron Paul phenomenon as an expression of the anti-big government sentiments among some people in each of the major parties. Such voters have limited options among the other candidates this year. While the Paul supporters commenting vigorously disagreed, I also expressed the belief that Paul cannot win the Republican nomination. What if I am right? What will his supporters do?
It is hard to see Paul supporters being loyal Republicans and backing their party’s winner–which should be a matter of concern for the Republicans. If I was a GOP leader I’d be questioning Paul’s loyalty to the party and pressing him for a pledge to support the nominee and encourage his supporters to do the same should he lose. Of course it is questionable as to how many votes he could deliver to the authoritarian war mongers who dominate the Republican field should he be willing to do so.
I don’t even know that Paul would agree to support another Republican candidate. Would Paul jump ship and run as a Libertarian again? If not, will the Libertarian Party candidate benefit from what Paul has done? That will depend partially upon the candidate, but the LP will have the problem that many people are reluctant to vote for a third party which has no real chance of winning.
If they are reluctant to support a minor party, will many Paul supporters back the Democratic winner as the best shot of having an anti-war candidate win? That will depend a lot on the nominee. Richardson already has some libertarian support but remains a real long shot. Edwards will have a real tough time attracting any libertarian support, between his previous support for he war and Patriot Act when in the Senate to his current populist economic policies. Clinton will also have problems here, but I could see Obama managing to find a way to bridge liberal ideas with libertarian ideals as he has shown he is willing to avoid pandering to traditional Democratic special interests.
While I don’t think Ron Paul has any real chance of winning the Republican nomination, his candidacy is doing far better than might have been expected initially, and he very well may have a lasting impact on the race. Between the out right libertarians, as well as the more traditional conservatives who are becoming increasingly outraged by the current Republican leadership, there will be a number of Republicans looking for an alternative. Whether the Democrats can become a majority party will depend partially on whether they can attract a portion of these voters. To do so will mean not only opposing the war but showing they recognize that the 2000’s are not the 1930’s and their old New Deal coalition is long gone.
I don’t care who you vote for and for the record I don’t believe for one minute you’ll vote for a Republican. More than likely you’ll sull up and sit home.
for someone who is going to have an absolute zero impact on the race, a lot of papers, blogs, chats are about him. kind of makes you wonder. someone must be afraid that all classes of people are starting to pay attention.
For his efforts, Ron Paul has learned and is capitalizing on something that the tow-the-line candidates have yet to realize. It's the very thing that leads some political-minded people to ridicule him. They're swimming upstream.
For the most part there's two flavors of against-the-current swimmers.
There's those that know they're fighting a current but are unsure of how to change its direction. They can't. In their confusion they lash out in ridicule..
The rest are mostly oblivious of the view/perspective of the people that get it--the downstream swimmers. Their ridicule comes from the erroneous belief that they're swimming with the current and can chide those they pass whom they think are going upstream.
An unstoppable undercurrent that among other things recognizes that politics is the problem, not the solution.
Neither understands the conflict. They'll win some more battles. But as the wins come fewer and further between more and more will jump ship. Where will the find solid ground?
Value Producers
versus
Value Destroyers
I think our own government is and has proven to be a greater threat to our liberty and way of life than any stone age islamic terrorist.
Apparently you're not alone. There was a telephone poll awhile back that showed that most Americans have a greater fear of the IRS than terrorists.
I suspect they're confident that government can defend them better against Islamic terrorists than the IRS.
Repeat if often enough and perhaps it will come true, eh? It's okay to not like Ron Paul. But try not to distort, slander, or lie. It makes you look like a Democrat.
Hmmm...Then why do the people of Texas keep electing him to office?
So Republicans who are interested in limiting the federal government and protecting our sovereignty (the few who exist, at least) should support a candidate in the Republican primary who will not limit the federal government and will not protect our sovereignty, rather than one who will? Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is something to be considered for the general election. It makes little sense in a party primary.
Paul has approximate zero chance of winning the nomination (and less than zero of winning the election, should he run as an independent). Consequently, he will be unable to ever do a damn thing about limiting government and protecting our sovereignty.
Does the candidate who wins the nomination have anything other than a zero chance of limiting government and protecting our sovereignty? Ron Paul as a fringe candidate who has zero chance of winning anything can do and has done more to limit government and protect our sovereignty than any other candidate, including which ever one wins. Just because he's there.
For the comic relief?
Ron Paul has been consistant...
Those who so bitterly attack him here are not Conservatives. They are liberals or neo-cons or whatever.
And they are traitors to the causes this site was founded to perpetrate..I will be posting more history of Ron Paul posts made here at FR over the years and see what the reactions are from these anti-Ron Paul conservatives. If they had made such slanderous libelous claims against him at any other time in the history of this site they would have been booted from here.
The Real State of the Union as told by Ron Paul (R-Texas) 2/2/99
...The absence of overt war does not negate the fact that tens of thousands of American troops are scattered around the world in the middle of ancient fights not likely to be settled by our meddling and may escalate at any time. ...
...Madam Speaker, the relinquishing of the power to wage war by Congress to the President, although ignored or endorsed by many, raises serious questions regarding the status of our Republic, and although many Americans are content with their routine activities, much evidence demonstrating that our personal privacy is routinely being threatened. Crime still remains a concern for many with questions raised as to whether or not violent crimes are accurately reported, and ironically there are many Americans who now fear that dreaded Federal bureaucrat and possible illegal seizure of their property by the government more than they do the thugs in the street. I remain concerned about the economy, our militarism and internationalism, and the systemic invasion of our privacy in every aspect of our lives by nameless bureaucrats. I am convinced that if these problems are not dealt with. The republic for for which we have all sworn an oath to protect will not survive. ...
...The Founders of this great Nation abhorred tyranny and loved liberty. The power of the king to wage war, tax and abuse the personal rights of the American colonists drove them to rebel, win a revolution and codify their convictions in a new Constitution....
...Let there be no doubt. The President, according to the Constitution, has no power to wage war. ...
...The use of the FBI and the IRS to illegally monitor and intimidate citizens is a power that should be easy to condemn, and yet it continues to thrive. The illegal and immoral power to create money out of thin air for the purpose of financing a welfare-warfare state serving certain financial interests while causing the harmful business cycle is a process that most in Washington do not understand nor care about. These are ominous powers of great magnitude that were never meant to be permitted under the Constitution. ...
...By what stretch of the imagination can one say that these military actions can be considered defensive in nature?...
...What is needed is a return to the Constitution as a strict guide as to who has the authority to exert the war powers and, as has been scrupulously followed in the 19th century by essentially all political parties and presidents. ...
Privacy and property are interlocked and if both are protected, little would need to be said about other civil liberties. If one’s home, church or business is one’s castle, and the privacy of one’s person, papers and effects are rigidly protected, all rights desired in a free society will be guaranteed. Diligently protecting the right to privacy and property guarantees religious, journalistic and political experience, as well as a free market economy and sound money. Once a careless attitude emerges with respect to privacy, all other rights are jeopardized.
Today we find a systematic and pervasive attack on the privacy of all American citizens, which undermines the principle of private property ownership. Understanding why the attack on privacy is rapidly expanding and recognizing a need to reverse this trend is necessary if our republic is to survive.
Lack of respect for the privacy and property of the American colonists by the British throne was a powerful motivation for the American revolution and resulted in the strongly worded and crystal clear Fourth Amendment.
Emphatically, searches and seizures are prohibited except when warrants are issued upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, with details listed given as to place, person and things to be seized.
This is a far cry from the routine seizure by the Federal Government and forfeiture of property which occurs today. Our papers are no longer considered personal and their confidentiality has been eliminated. Private property is searched by Federal agents without announcement, and huge fines are levied when Federal regulations appear to have been violated, and proof of innocence is demanded if one chooses to fight the abuse in court and avoid the heavy fines >p> Eighty thousand armed Federal bureaucrats and law enforcement officers now patrol our land and business establishments. Suspicious religious groups are monitored and sometimes destroyed without due process of law, with little or no evidence of wrongdoing. Local and state jurisdiction is rarely recognized once the feds move in.
Today, it is routine for government to illegally seize property, requiring the victims to prove their innocence in order to retrieve their property, and many times this fails due to the expense and legal roadblocks placed in the victim’s way.
Although the voters in the 1990’s have cried out for a change in direction and demanded a smaller, less intrusive government, the attack on privacy by the Congress, the administration and the courts has, nevertheless, accelerated. Plans have now been laid or implemented for a national I.D. card, a national medical data bank, a data bank on individual MDs, deadbeat dads, intrusive programs monitoring our every financial transaction, while the Social Security number has been established as the universal identifier.
The Social Security number is now commonly used for just about everything, getting a birth certificate, buying a car, seeing an MD, getting a job, opening up a bank account, getting a driver’s license, making many routine purchases, and, of course, a death certificate. Cradle-to-the-grave government surveillance is here and daily getting more pervasive.
The attack on privacy is not a coincidence or an event that arises for no explainable reason. It results from a philosophy that justifies it and requires it. A government not dedicated to preserving liberty must by its very nature allow this precious right to erode.
A political system designed as ours was to protect life and liberty and property would vigorously protect all citizens’ rights to privacy, and this cannot occur unless the property and the fruits of one’s labor, of every citizen, is protected from confiscation by thugs in the street as well as in our legislative bodies.
The promoters of government instruction into our privacy characteristically use worn out cliches to defend what they do. The most common argument is that if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it?
This is ludicrous. We have nothing to hide in our homes or our bedrooms, but that is no reason why big brother should be permitted to monitor us with a surveillance camera.
The same can be argued about our churches, our businesses or any peaceful action we may pursue. Our personal activities are no one else’s business. We may have nothing to hide, but, if we are not careful, we have plenty to lose, our right to be left alone.
Others argue that to operate government programs efficiently and without fraud, close monitoring is best achieved with an universal identifier, the Social Security number.
Efficiency and protection from fraud may well be enhanced with the use of a universal identifier, but this contradicts the whole notion of the proper role for government in a free society.
Most of the Federal programs are unconstitutional to begin with, so eliminating waste and fraud and promoting efficiency for a program that requires a violation of someone else’s rights should not be a high priority of the Congress. But the temptation is too great, even for those who question the wisdom of the government programs, and compromise of the Fourth Amendment becomes acceptable.
I have never heard of a proposal to promote the national I.D. card or anything short of this for any reasons other than a good purpose. Essentially all those who vote to allow the continual erosion of our privacy and other constitutional rights never do it because they consciously support a tyrannical government; it is always done with good intentions.
Believe me, most of the evil done by elected congresses and parliaments throughout all of history has been justified by good intentions. But that does not change anything. It just makes it harder to stop.
Therefore, we cannot ignore the motivations behind those who promote the welfare state. Bad ideas, if implemented, whether promoted by men of bad intentions or good, will result in bad results
Well-intentioned people, men of goodwill, should, however, respond to a persuasive argument. Ignorance is the enemy of sound policy, every bit as much as political corruption. Various management problems in support for welfarism motivates those who argue for only a little sacrifice of freedom to achieve a greater good for society. Each effort to undermine our privacy is easily justified.
The national I.D. card is needed, it is said, to detect illegal aliens, yet all Americans will need it to open up a bank account, get a job, fly on an airplane, see a doctor, go to school or drive a car.
Financial privacy must be sacrificed, it is argued, in order to catch money launderers, drug dealers, mobsters and tax cheats. Privacy for privacy’s sake, unfortunately for many, is a nonissue. The recent know-your-customer plan was designed by Richard Small, Assistant Director of the Division of Banking Supervision Regulation at the Federal Reserve. He is not happy with all of the complaints that he has received regarding this proposal. His program will require that every bank keep a detailed profile on every customer, as to how much is deposited, where it comes from, and when and how the money is spent. If there is any deviation from the profile on record, the bank is required to report this to a half dozen government agencies, which will require the customer to do a lot of explaining. This program will catch few drug dealers, but will surely infringe on the liberty of every law-abiding citizen.
He is accurate in quoting the court case, but that does not make it right. Courts do not have the authority to repeal a fundamental right as important as that guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Under this reasoning, when applied to our medical records, all confidentiality between the doctor and the patient is destroyed.
This flagrant and systematic abuse of privacy may well turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Like the public schools, it may provide the incentive for Americans finally to do something about the system.
The disaster state of the public school system has prompted millions of parents to provide private or home schooling for their children. The worse the government schools get, the more the people resort to a private option, even without tax relief from the politicians. This is only possible as long as some remnant of our freedom remains, and these options are permitted. We cannot become complacent.
...Socialism and welfarism self-destruct after a prolonged period of time due to their natural inefficiencies and national bankruptcy. As the system ages, more and more efforts are made to delay its demise by borrowing, inflating and coercion. The degree of violation of our privacy is a measurement of the coercion thought necessary by the proponents of authoritarianism to continue the process. ...
Our job is to make a principled, moral, constitutional and practical case for respecting everyone’s privacy, even if it is suspected some private activities, barring violence, do not conform to our own private moral standards. We could go a long way to guaranteeing privacy for all Americans if we, as Members of Congress, would take our oath of office more seriously and do exactly what the Constitution says.
The Constitution is clear that the Congress has responsibility for guaranteeing the value of the currency, and no authority has ever been given to create a central bank. Creating money out of thin air is counterfeiting, even when done by a bank that the Congress tolerates.
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize. We in the Congress, along with the President, will soon have to make a decision that will determine whether or not the American republic survives. Allowing our presidents to wage war without the consent of Congress, ignoring the obvious significance of fiat money to a healthy economy, and perpetuating pervasive government intrusion into the privacy of all Americans will surely end the American experiment with maximum liberty for all unless we reverse this trend.
Too often the American people have chosen security over liberty. Allowing the President a little authority to deal with world problems under a U.N. banner has been easier than reversing the trend of the past 50 years. Accepting the financial bubble when on the short run, it helps everyone’s portfolio, helps to finance government spending, is easy, even if it only delays the day of reckoning when the bills come due, as they already have in so many other countries in the world.
Giving up a little privacy seems a small price to pay for the many who receive the generous benefits of big government, but when the prosperity comes to an end and the right to privacy has been squandered, it will be most difficult to restore the principles of a free society.
Materialistic concerns and complacency toward the principles of liberty will undo much of what has been built in America over the past 200 years, unless there is a renewed belief that our God-given rights to life and liberty are worth working for. False economic security is no substitute for productive effort in a free society, where the citizens are self-reliant, generous, and nonviolent. Insisting on a limited government designed to protect life and property, as is found in a republic, must be our legislative goal
Posted by: artios
02/03/99 13:22:10 PST
HON. RON PAUL
H.R. 1146 introduced last year-
this is an update H.R. 1146-Congressman Ron Paul-R.-TX.
HIGHLIGHTS:
* shuts down the U.N. HQ in U.S.
* cuts off all American funding
* cuts off American funding of ALL U.N. agencies
* prohibits American funding of and participation in U.N. “peacekeeping” operations.
* revokes diplomatic immunity for U.N. bureaucrats. Now they’ll have to pay their parking tickets.
LONG LIST OF U.N. ABUSES
Since its founding 52 years ago, we Americans have pumped $30 BILLION into the U.N. bureaucracy.
In addition to paying 25% of all U.N. bills and 31% of “peacekeeping” bills, we American taxpayers shelled out another $1 MILLION to paint over “U.S.” with “U.N.” on American vehicles.
After all the $BILLIONS the U.S. has given the U.N., those ingrates say we “owe” them another $2 BILLION in “back dues” and Bill Clinton agrees with the U.N.
The U.N. socialists want to tax us directly-withtaxes on airline tickets, phone calls, and more.
VP Al Gore said of American soldiers killed overseas: “They gave their lives in the service to the U.N.” That’s right. The U.N.
Only 3 sponsors so far for HR1146. This info is only part of that contained in a letter from Hon. Ron Paul U.S. Congressman c/o
Justice Political Action Cmte. (JPAC)
400 West Service Road P.O.Box 16099
Washington,D.C. 20041-6099
Posted by: donozark *
02/05/98 10:55:22 EST
From: Bob Ireland
02/03/99 15:31:19 PST
I’m in a hurry so no HTML link, but the entire speech excerpted above is at www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr020299-sofr.htm
p>
From: arcane () *
02/03/99 16:39:24 PST
ect.
ect.
ect.
It’s instructive how the fever of war can change things so dramatically. A man once respected and admired is now hated and slandered. An ally to liberty and the Constitution is now a traitor to his country. The only thing different between now and then is that he happens to oppose the adventure that has since taken place in Iraq. The philosophy and ideas which are at the foundation of his opposition are exactly the same as when he was in better standing, and incidentally have nothing in common with the bases of the leftists’ opposition: an intelligent foreign policy recognizes that less is sometimes more, and that actions have unintended consequences.
“If Paul wins a couple of primaries I’m going to laugh my ass off at FReepers’ heads exploding.”
It could really happen.....on Bizzaro World.
“I wonder how these Paul haters are going to act when he becomes President.”
I wonder how Paul lovers are going to act when they get back on their meds.
I never thought this site was dedicated to partisan Republican ideology but to conservatism. In many cases the two are mutually exclusive, Those who so mindlessly attack Ron Paul on this site are also attacking the very credibility of conservatism and the very principals this site was founded on. They are the best evidence we have that many in the G.O.P. are the enemies of conservatism.
They are the enemies of Freedom.
I do not believe his is an anti-semite - that is, I do not believe he hates all Jews. What's your source for this accusation?
I think we should limit stuff about Ron Paul to a “giggle alert” only. Honestly his chances aren’t worth a good dry heave.
You are welcome, I was just stating simple facts.
I am 100% correct in my statement above and I stand by it. I heard the idiot speaking so many times and he is a defeatist, a traitor, a surrender monkey, and a kook who blames America for 9/11.
You need an urgent visit to mental clinic if you think that Ron Paul is going to be President, or going to be the Republican nominee, or wins a single primary, or even ranks in the top three in any primary.
LOL... good one :)
"It could really happen.....on Bizzaro World."
Also in New Hampshire.
In 1996 grass-roots favorite Pat Buchannan upset the Republican establishment candidate, Bob Dole, in the New Hampshire primary.
It could happen.
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.