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.
I will have to check them out.
I am already familiar with the Republican Party, having been a member for over 40 years, and volunteered on committees, and been a delegate.
They've changed over the past several years.
You haven't been reading my posts here (since the 1990s!), have you?
I would be careful about pointing fingers is if my candidate was John McCain, a notorious enemy of the first amendment (via campaign finance reform) and a friend of federal power trumping the states (via the war on drugs).
yeah but there are quite a few johnny come latelys in America and even among Republicans who signed off with all of Bush’s new spending.
The Constitution party (Baldwin) has never been about the Constitution. The best description is they are a theocratic party.
Take a moment and glance at their platform.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble
Look how many things step over the line of the Constitution, legislating personal morality issues. They basically read into the Constitution what they want in order to promote their view- many things that the government shouldn’t legislate. I am actually surprised Paul didn’t endorse Barr as the Libertarian party is much closer to his standpoint. IMHO, this is probably personal because Barr snubbed his press conference (one move I agree w/ Barr on).
Why are you championing more government on a "smaller government" Conservative website?
My Candidate is Sarah Palin; John McCain is just keeping the seat warm for a few years for her.
I am very much an objectivist, grounded in reality, and that reality is McCain or Obama will be the next President- only one gives us the vehicle to have a Conservative in 2012.
The last time the Feds "intervened," an ordinary recession was turned into the Great Depression.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Oh....an objectivist grounded in reality?! That’s a novelty. Since your a “real world” kind of fellow you know, of course, that your single vote won’t determine any election.
You've got me.
Principles like...encouraging foreign nationals to illegally enter and break our laws? Yeah, sure, Juan's principles are "one law for the sheep, another for the oxen" and "some are more equal than others."
And, sauntering about on foreign adventures while leaving your back door wide open for the enemy is not patriotic; it's downright treasonous.
They mention God. They sound religious. So what? Where do they say anything about establishing a religion? They’re language is only slightly more religious than that of the founding fathers in many cases and we’re acting like that’s a bad thing.
Groups of single votes will determine elections however. Every vote is a single vote. In 2000, in Florida, the margin of victory was 0.0092%. If enough ‘single votes’ said ‘my single vote doesn’t count’, the world would look a lot different.
Apathy is never a solution.
You’re friend is wrong.
I have friends that say stupid stuff too.
Keep reading, I don’t care they mention God, but look at how they weigh all their legislative beliefs. Is it the Constitution?
There are a lot of people who have the analytical skills of Paul that have predicted the mess we are in. What is needed is someone to suggest solutions to get out of the mess and the oratory skills to articulate them to the American people, thereby putting pressure on congress to act. Paul would fail miserably at this.
With leaders of the Constitution party saying iditotic things like ‘all non-Christian prayer should be banned in Congress’ - John Lofton
Lincoln was the worst President- Chuck Baldwin
“the South was right in the War Between the States”,- Chuck Baldwin
King (MLK) was an “apostate” minister who renounced his Christian faith. He also stated that King spent the night of his murder with two paramours and physically fought with a third.- Chuck Baldwin
“America was deliberately and distinctively founded as a haven for Christians”, and attacked “avant-garde egalitarians” who disagree with this.- Chuck Baldwin
I think my friend pretty much hit the nail on the head.. at that, I wonder how much difference there is between Chuck Baldwin and Fred Phelps?
But heck, the Constitution party is just an ego run party anyway, the best they’ve even done in an election is .2%
..Oh, and the Constitution Party’s rag, The American View has a great one- Why Women Shouldn’t be Rulers.. and it is ‘unBiblical’ for her to be VP.
Technically, the depression was the fed’s fault for inflating and then deflating (which was in my opinion necessary). The prolonged symptoms of the Depression throughout the 30’s was the government’s fault. But I don’t disagree; when the feds come to the rescue, run like hell.
Assuming that quote is taken in right context, John Lofton is wrong. Then again I don’t know what other kinds of prayer (seeing as prayer has become rather traditional) Congress would use. And since we were founded on Judeo-Christian values I’m not sure really what other faith would make sense.
Lincoln wasn’t the worst, but he was bad in my opinion. The Northern War of Aggression commonly referred to as the Civil War was completely unjustified. We used to believe that states actually mattered and in every day life were far more important than the federal government. Now we act as if the president is an elected monarch that “manages” the economy and “runs” the government. Granted, this is more attributable to Teddy, Wilson, and FDR, but it started with Lincoln. And please don’t tell me the war was about slavery.
Martin Luther King’s image was irreparably damaged with me when I read about his views on what the government should do. He was borderline socialist and while he did great things, he is not the man that history tells us to remember. I’ve heard plenty of controversy about the man and possible extramarital affairs.
I’m not going to argue that they’re not a successful party.
I am however sick and tired of the Republican Party. I hope to God Palin makes an impact on the Party but I have a feeling she will be pushed aside and forced to accept McCain’s more liberal policies and advisers. I feel he is using her to get the conservative vote which is a shame because she seems like a very well qualified person.
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.