Posted on 03/11/2014 8:02:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sen. Rand Paul continued his aggressive brush back of comments from his usual ally Sen. Ted Cruz suggesting that Paul is positioned at the left, dovish flank of the GOP on foreign policy, telling Fox News host Sean Hannity Cruz was “mischaracterizing” his views.
“We always have been good friends. I'm not real excited about him mischaracterizing my views. I won't let that pass. I think that sometimes want to stand up and say hey, look at me, I'm the next Ronald Reagan. Well, almost all of us in the party are big fans of Ronald Reagan,” Paul said.
“I've always been a big fan of peace through strength. I think America should and has a responsibility around the world and really, virtually all of the opinions that have been coming from Republicans are somewhat the same on this – that Putin should be condemned, he should be isolated. I favor sanctions on Putin. So, for people to characterize that as somehow not being the Reagan position, I think they need to have a re-reading of Reagan, frankly,” Paul added.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The arguments, full of years of FR threads, are all about the differences between the two, ignoring that there is plenty in common, and to point out that Ron Paul was not a legitimate POTUS candidate since neither he nor libertarianism adheres to the three-legs of the Reagan conservative stool. That does NOT mean they are against conservatism.
I provide an example ......
Ron Paul ... and Rand is way closer to conservatism than his father ... intervened in the race for Governor of Virginia because he saw Terry McAWFUL and the dems bankroll a fake libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, and he knew Ken Cuccinelli to be the true champion of smaller and limited government ...
Libertarians and Conservatives are WAY better natural allies than the USA and Russia ... and they were able to join together to beat Hitler. Can't we all just get along ...
It’s WAR then.
Why else did the Founders leave questions of health, safety & morality to the States & local communities? (There is absolutely no Federal role delegated over such questions. They are matters for self-determination--not by disassociated individual, but by organized communities. Thus each State could retain their own cultural values--as different as they were.)
On the other hand, Federal taxes upon individuals were not allowed unless they were "flat." (No forced redistribution of the fruits of anyone's labor.) The Preamble looked to the Founders lines of descent--their "posterity," for whom they intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty, etc. etc. (A clear appreciation of the continuity of families, with multi-generational purpose.)
The idea that there is a dichotomy between Conservatism and a people dedicated to Liberty from their inception is absurd. Because some people in a self-designated "Libertarian Party," in some communities, may have lost sight of the basic Libertarian concept that used to allow American communities to freely exercise religious principles--The First Amendment was clearly written to prohibit Congress from interfering with same (just read it)--should not confuse what is historically true.
Yes, it is an American libertarian principle that you can display the Ten Commandments; that you can enforce standards of behavior that those who live in a community agree upon; again, that health, safety & morals, are State, not Federal issues.
William Flax
No worries, and I agree with you. Government has taken the place of institutions that actually depended on a sense of morality for their existence.
The arguments are about libertarians trying to end social conservatism.
The libertarians are fighting to destroy conservatism and America, and American Christianity, they are a radical component of the radical left.
I disagree with their political goals myself, and won't be embracing them any time soon, and I sure don't think that we are part of a team.
Well said...
What blatant nonsense! The Founding Fathers considered themselves to be libertarians. May I suggest that you go back and read what Washington had to say about foreign policy; what Jefferson had to say about "Welfare," ethnicity, and the importance of religion. What Madison had to say about the danger of "mob rule." What they all had to say about the rights to bear arms; about the importance of religion.
Stop trying to mis-characterize those of us who refuse to compromise the liberties that the Founders won for their posterity, by committing their lives, their fortunes & their sacred honor, to the very principles now under attack.
William Flax
Unfortunately Ron Paul was not a good standard-bearer for the big "L" Libertarian cause and his more ardent supporters tended to "lose sight of the basic Libertarian concept ...
The extremist Marxist Left presently running the country is a great reason to build a coalition of conservatives and libertarians to beat back this communist horde and return to the American tradition of our Founders.
LOL, no they didn't, they were conservatives.
The Americans of 1790 would be lynching libertarians for their radical leftism.
——The Founding Fathers considered themselves to be libertarians.-——
Geez Louise....
They were not libertarians....they were either Federalist or Classical liberals.
Look the definition up of classical liberal before you throw your knee out of joint....
As a Party, they suck. Period.
Between an inability to get their message out to a near non-stop string of idiotic candidates, they are a mess.
As for Ron Paul, here's a guy that gave his enemies every opportunity to keep him marginalized and firmly in the "looney bin". And they took him up on his offer.
Over and over again, they talked about "Liberty." Your ex-cathedra pronouncements notwithstanding, you can cite no attack on the importance of individual liberty, by the Founding Fathers. None!
Stop disparaging those who made possible the "Liberty" that we are losing.
William Flax
P.S. Here is an analysis of the Conservative roots of Libertarianism: Liberty: The Basics.
Gee, a 1975 quote from Reagan while he was campaigning and speaking to a libertarian audience through a libertarian magazine interview.
There is a reason the pickings are so slim, Reagan wasn’t a libertarian, he was a conservative.
Reagan did what he was expert at at the opening of that interview, a time when libertarianism was the latest fad, the conservative politician with a degree in economics, first established commonality with his audience in a general sense, and then as the interview proceeded, distanced himself from their libertarianism and made clear that he was a conservative, and a social conservative, and strong on national defense.
To: All
Limited government? I have a few problems with the libertarian definition of limited government. Government forcing abortionism (ie, reducing the value of human life to zero) on the people is not conservatism and is certainly not limited government. Government forcing homosexualism on the people against their will is not conservatism nor is it limited government. Government purging God from our society and public institutions is not conservatism nor is it limited government. God is the Creator and the source of life and Liberty.
Isolationism? Failing to realize that whether or not we are at war with global Islamofascism does not mean it is not at war with us and will ultimately destroy us if we do not defend ourselves.
Failure to defend ourselves and our once free society from godless liberalism/progressivism, ie, Marxism will also destroy us. Pretending it’ll all just go away is nonsense.
Pretending that godless Liberaltarianism is the answer is nonsense. Our nation was forged and founded by a godly people and our constitution and system of justice and limited government is based on Judeo-Christian principles. It does not and will not work for a godless society.
Libertarians ignore the root cause that leads to big government socialism and the loss of freedom—the rush to remove all traces of God from our government and public institutions. Our liberty is a gift from God, not government. Without God, we have no foundation, no unalienable rights, no liberty.
The godless government wants to reduce man to the status of a soulless animal. Why? So they can herd us, work us and slaughter us at will. Look at world events of the last 100 years if you do not believe me.
Governments can try, but they can never succeed in killing God. He is even making a comeback in Mother Russia after a century of attempts to oppress the people and wipe Him out.
God lives on in our hearts. Long live Liberty!!
12 posted on 01/24/2014 1:31:24 PM PST by Jim Robinson
On the contrary, even Hamilton--the arch Federalist--was sufficiently libertarian, that he urged in the Federalist papers the importance of an armed citizenry as a check on Government. What do you call that, if not "libertarian."
Why would any one claiming to be Conservative, in the American context, deny the overriding importance of individual & community liberty, in the traditional American context? People who put individual "liberty," accountability & responsibility first, are libertarians. (My noting the accountability & responsibility, here, is because any historian knows that without those moral qualities, no people have ever preserved their liberty.)
William Flax
Of course libertarians are against conservatism ...
I agree with you on one thing ... Reagan wasn't a libertarian.
Of course I didn’t, libertarians are against conservatism, it is why we are arguing, the libbers want us to move left, and to move the GOP platform left, to support more liberal candidates.
I don’t even like to mention some of the libertarian leftism that Reagan opposed in that interview, because it starts a flood of libber anger and rage.
Of course Hamilton had a small “L” libertarian characteristic vein in him....
But to say you could piegon hole him today as a stand alone libertarian is ridiculous....
If anything today Hamiltion would be a moderate democrat...one that likes big government...
And I can't stop you from surrendering your homeland.
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.