Posted on 09/22/2008 2:34:38 PM PDT by SecAmndmt
A New Alliance - By Dr. Ron Paul
Friends - please read this new and important piece by Dr. Paul.
The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process. It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo. There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored. The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.
Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that a claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.
In both political education and organization, coalitions are worthwhile and necessary to have an impact. “Talking to the choir” alone achieves little. I have always approached political and economic education with a “missionary” zeal by inviting any group in on issues we agree upon.
This opens the door to legitimate discourse with the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty. This strategy led to the press conference with the four candidates agreeing to the four principles we believe are crucial in challenging the political system that has evolved over many years in this country.
This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.
This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address?
Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance. Our cause is liberty —freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight. Once it’s realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I’m convinced we win by working with others. Those who don’t want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs.
In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign. There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties. The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.
Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding. Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause. In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood. That’s progress.
Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress. The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched. But we can’t beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.
Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.
Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year. They take time. But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up. The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue. Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.
Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.
The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.
I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.
In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.
I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.
Funny that all the people who were bashing Paul...you know, the “Staged Moon Landing” crowd and the other “deniers of reality” crowd who blasted Paul every chance they got...
Well now you got a John McCain...who believes in big government, socialism, and illegal aliens.
Who is laughing now...
Well I’m glad he chose Baldwin over Barr. Hopefully if nothing else the Constitution Party will at least get some attention now.
That's pretty much the story.
The first order of business for these folks is pulling aid to Israel. Folks can draw their own conclusions about what that means. I know I have.
I’m no longer in the Republican Party, but my advice to conservatives who can also no longer stomach a party in which John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are considered leaders is to stay as far away from the Constitution Party as you can get.
The neo-cons, of course. They've mounted the Maverick. Upon further review, make that riding the Maverick and mounting conservatives. No McBama in 2008.
AHHHHHH don’t scare me like that!! I’ll have nightmares for days......That thoughtless pig.....UGHHH
Have to think of him as scoutmaster in SNL
http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A5481/54814/300_54814.jpg
NO problems Canteen Boy...LOL
The proposal by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman, would give the government broad power to buy up virtually any kind of bad asset -- including credit card debt or car loans -- from any financial institution in the U.S. or abroad in order to stabilize markets.
The Republicans and Democrats can all rot in Hell
Well, you know who creates money from nothing! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! All your apricot pits are belong to us!!!
No surprise here. One anti-Israel “chr*stian reconstructionist” palaeolibertarian endorsing another.
That's pretty much the story.
And to think Baldwin started out with Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority.
I guess the Liberty Lobby got a hold of him.
That would be like me torching your entire neighborhood, then you put me in charge of rebuilding your home and neighborhood, and then I charge you for all the damage, and you say, "Oh, OK I'm good with that".
We are living in a twilight zone, but this program has been produced and brought to you by our own government.
The people you say should, "Intervene".
While that is a truism, I visualize no scenario under which it becomes a reality.
Paul is truly making a fool of himself now, and Chuck Baldwin is a self-important fool, that takes the name of the Lord in vain every time he opens his mouth these days.
I’ll look at it later - I’m cubicle bound right now.
Damn straight. Even San Francisco in 1906 after the quake pulled their own weight and the Mayor threatened to shoot looters. There was no FEMA back then.
Well, I was one of those who supported Paul and still do to some degree. But look buddy, there's two candidates now and there's no way in Hell I'm pulling the lever for an avowed Marxist with possible Muslim ties. And I'm not voting for the Libertarian/Constitution candidate with their head-in-the-sand foreign policy. McCain has reached out to conservatives with his pick of Palin, which means the GOP's future just got brighter, and if he tries that reaching-out crap conservatives will always get fired up. Voting for McCain-Palin is a no-brainer now.
Our aid to Israel has more strings attached than a marionette. Our aid to them has continually hampered their freedom to make their own choices about how they should handle their neighbors in the region. We should instantly pull all our support of Israel and let them (for once) do their own thing. They can’t take half a breath without Washington telling them how far they can breathe it in and when they can breathe it out. U.S. aid is no boon to them; it is a net in which they have entangled themselves.
that’s easy to say but when california was burning, there were quite a few homes in Orange County with gun racks that burned down.
“The first order of business for these folks is pulling aid to Israel. Folks can draw their own conclusions about what that means. I know I have.”
Here is the CP platform for foreign aid. I see a perfectly consistent, traditional non-globalist policy there. If government to government foreign aid is unconstitutional for one country, is it unconstitutional for all.
http://www.constitutionparty.org/party_platform.php#Foreign%20Policy
Chuck Baldwin is theologically a pro-Israel southern Baptist and a dispensationalist. Saying that he is anti-Israel because he doesn’t believe in giving foreign aid to any foreign government is a little like saying that a politician is racist because he doesn’t believe in welfare.
“stay as far away from the Constitution Party as you can get.”
What is Alan Keyes’ position on the constitutionality of a (paper) fiat money system? Or the proposed Wall Street bailout?
Shouldn’t the R nominee join the Democrat party?
As long as ballot access, media coverage, money (incl. our tax dollars), public perception of “winnability” and inclusion in televised prime time debates limit the feasibility of (conservative) third party election victories, it is necessary to work within the system to change the system.
“I may not support either of the presidential candidates, but there are real and substantive differences.”
Maybe at the grassroot level and in the party platforms. But at the leadership level, there does not appear to be much of a difference. When was the last time that you heard a R prez nominee promise to abide by the platform? Or even mention it at all?
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.
