RON PAUL VOTES TO UPHOLD WELFARE REFORM AND RESTRICT FOOD STAMPS FOR IMMIGRANTS

Interesting. Thanks.

Mark (Libertarian)

P.S. Last I checked, Ron Paul and Dana Rohrabacher were two of only three Republican representatives to co-sponsor Paul's (and Barney Frank's(!)) legislation to stop (unconstitutional) federal government meddling in state medical marijuana initiatives. Since Paul and Rohrabacher are among the "top 10" "conservatives"...perhaps federal government "conservatives" are (finally!) going to follow the Constitution on at least one aspect of marijuana (medical marijuana).

P.S. Last I checked, Ron Paul and Dana Rohrabacher were two of only three Republican representatives to co-sponsor Paul's (and Barney Frank's(!)) legislation to stop (unconstitutional) federal government meddling in state medical marijuana initiatives. Since Paul and Rohrabacher are among the "top 10" "conservatives"...perhaps federal government "conservatives" are (finally!) going to follow the Constitution on at least one aspect of marijuana (medical marijuana).

Somehow, I missed the constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana. Perhaps you could be so kind as to tell me where to find it. Paul's and Rohrbacher's support of legalizing harmful illicit drugs is pretty wacked out and a black mark on them in my book, but it does not overcome their overall strongly conservative voting records.

In California on November,5,96,California voters voted to legalize the medical use of Marijuana.I'm assuming that Congressman Rorbacher wanted California law to be enforced without interference from the federal government. A good conservative wants to protect States' rights. There is nothing whacked out about that.

There are many of us in the Libertarian party that are strongly against open borders. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me. No one agrees with 100% of any political party's platform. That's definitely true for Republicans and Democrats, because neither of those parties is founded on a specific principle. The Libertarian Party IS founded on a specific principle. For others who might not be aware of it: "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."--From the LP membership card The last I checked, I support 100% (every plank) of the Libertarian Party platform. Mark (Libertarian Party, accept no substitutes!)(Except Ron Paul is fine.)

For your information, every issue in the Libertarian party plank is argued about, except the belief in non-initiation of force.

There are many Libertarians on both sides of the issue of open borders, as well as abortion. The votes are close on both of those issues as to whether to keep them. A Libertarian party member does not have to believe in every party plank to be a Libertarian, you just have to believe in the non-inititation of force.

In California on November,5,96,California voters voted to legalize the medical use of Marijuana.I'm assuming that Congressman Rorbacher wanted California law to be enforced without interference from the federal government. A good conservative wants to protect States' rights. There is nothing whacked out about that.

No, a good conservative wants to protect and support traditional morality. States' rights come before moral values only in the Libertarian pecking order of priorities.

Somehow, I missed the constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana.

It's not a "constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana." There is no need for ANY change in the Constitution to absolutely forbid the federal government from making any law criminalizing marijuana. The federal government is ALREADY forbidden, by the 10th Amendment, from any making any law criminalizing marijuana.

This is a bill proposed by Ron Paul and Barney Frank, intended to stop our law-breaking (Constitution-violating) U.S. Attorney General from interfering with state laws that permit doctors to prescribe marijuana, and patients to use it, for medical purposes.

Paul's and Rohrbacher's support of legalizing harmful illicit drugs...

This is "conservative" ideology in a nutshell. The Constitution does NOT give the federal government the power to criminalize ANY drug...nor regulate any drug. But "conservatives" don't really give a damn about the Constitution (The Law). Not when the The Law stands in the way of doing what they want to do. Their hypocrisy in pretending to care about The Law, and then violating it, or supporting its violation, is extremely annoying.

No, a good conservative wants to protect and support traditional morality.

Conservatives want to "protect and support traditional morality" at the expense of violating--or supporting the violation of--of The Law (the U.S. Constitution).

I spit on such "morality." If you conservatives want to have the federal government deal with drugs...change the damn Constitution! Follow The Law!

"Somehow, I missed the constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana. Perhaps you could be so kind as to tell me where to find it."

Amendment IX to the United States Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X to the United States Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

A Constitutional amendment is not needed to legalize marijuana or any other drug. Congress does not have the Constitutional power to illegalize it. It is an issue that should be left to the states and their legislatures.

A Libertarian party member does not have to believe in every party plank to be a Libertarian, you just have to believe in the non-inititation of force.

If you believe in the non-initiation of force, how can you support holding (forcing) people outside the United States--people who represent no danger to others--from coming into the United States to live? How is that NOT "initiating force"?

... support of legalizing harmful illicit drugs is pretty wacked out ...

This comment would make more sense if alcohol and tobacco were not already legalized, harmful drugs. I think it is hypocritical for the govt. to legalize some harmful drugs and not others. Thus, making "illicit" drugs legal is not as wacked out as it appears.

The federal government is ALREADY forbidden, by the 10th Amendment, from any making any law criminalizing marijuana. This is "conservative" ideology in a nutshell. The Constitution does NOT give the federal government the power to criminalize ANY drug...nor regulate any drug. But "conservatives" don't really give a damn about the Constitution (The Law). Not when the The Law stands in the way of doing what they want to do. Their hypocrisy in pretending to care about The Law, and then violating it, or supporting its violation, is extremely annoying.

While I understand your strictly construed interpretation of the 10th amendment I do not agree with your assertion that the federal government is prohibited by the 10th amendment from making any law criminilizing marajuana. I believe the founding fathers were supports of traditional morality and would have supported such a law against immoral vices such as drugs, prostitution, porn, etc.

"I believe the founding fathers were supports of traditional morality and would have supported such a law against immoral vices such as drugs, prostitution, porn, etc."

They would, and did, support such "vice" laws at the local and state level. They were absolutely opposed to such laws at the federal level. That is plain from a simple reading of the Constitution. The ONLY crimes Congress is given the authority to determine punishment are treason and counterfeiting (crimes against the United States), piracy (crimes that occur outside of the territory of any other country) and crimes against the "law of nations" (as in counterfeiting ANOTHER country's currency...which would make the U.S. a "bad neighbor" if it did not prosecute).

The Founding Fathers (except perhaps for the American monarchist, Alexander Hamilton) would be utterly incensed at the very idea of the federal government dealing with common crimes. They would be especially incensed with the idea of the federal government over-riding STATE laws (as in medical marijuana)...particularly state laws passed by a referendum of The People. That's why they insisted on a Second Amendment. They would have SHOT some DEA agents...and perhaps a Congresscritter or two. (After all, they shot British soldiers for simply trying to enforce existing tax laws.)

If you think the Constitution (specifically the 10th Amendment) does NOT forbid the federal government from criminalizing ANY drug, why do you think that they needed a Constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol? Or don't you think that amendment was necessary? (Do you think the Congress could have simply passed the Volstead Act without an amendment?)

They would, and did, support such "vice" laws at the local and state level. They were absolutely opposed to such laws at the federal level. That is plain from a simple reading of the Constitution. The ONLY crimes Congress is given the authority to determine punishment are treason and counterfeiting (crimes against the United States), piracy (crimes that occur outside of the territory of any other country) and crimes against the "law of nations" (as in counterfeiting ANOTHER country's currency...which would make the U.S. a "bad neighbor" if it did not prosecute).

Well, I think we are in agreement on the drugs issue. I agree that the federal government has no basis to ajudicate or create new federal crimes (including illicit drug-related offenses) in addition to those listed in the Constitution. However, I would make an exception for abortion, where our current liberal activist Supreme Court has unconstitutionally legislated from the bench and overturned the abortion laws of all 50 states requiring that the crime of abortion be made legal everywhere in the country. I would support an overturn of Roe v. Wade, but ideally I would support a congressionally passed federal ban on abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Supreme Court has already done to much damage to our state legal system to reverse the damage done by Roe v. Wade.

I agree that the federal government has no basis to ajudicate or create new federal crimes (including illicit drug-related offenses) in addition to those listed in the Constitution.

So far, so good...

However, I would make an exception for abortion,...

Oy, vey! The very next sentence! This is what makes you a "conservative" and why I am offended when people (including conservatives) insist all Libertarians must also be "conservatives."

Two wrongs, never, never, NEVER make a right! You just got done saying that the federal government should not legislate on crimes not in the Constitution, and then--in the very next sentence! :-(-- you want them to legislate on a crime not in the Constitution!

I have a better suggestion...why not simply follow the @#$% law?! The problem that you identify can be LEGALLY addressed in 2 ways, 1) a majority of Supreme Court justices can be found to overturn Roe vs Wade, or 2) a Constitutional amendment can be passed, like the 13th Amendment that prohibitted slavery.

The "problem" with solution #2 (from your perspective, not mine!) is that you will almost certainly NEVER have the public (more accurately, Congressional and state legislature) support for a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.

Since you can't find that support, you instead support federal officials violating The Law (the Constitution). That is so very bad, and sooo annoying (to those of us who want the Constitution to be followed). Your (and others') "solution" to the various "problems" has led us to the point where these United States are no longer governed by the Rule of Law. We are now ruled by men and women.

Two wrongs, never, never, NEVER make a right! You just got done saying that the federal government should not legislate on crimes not in the Constitution, and then--in the very next sentence! :-(-- you want them to legislate on a crime not in the Constitution! I have a better suggestion...why not simply follow the @#$% law?!

Your problem is that you attempt to put the law before God which is a great sin whether you realize it or not. Man was not made for the law, but the law for the man. The purpose of good laws are to effect good things. Because we live in a republic and not in a mobocracy as you would have us do, the rights and lives of the minorities are protected in law against the tyranical excesses of the majority who might otherwise vote to deprive them of their lives and liberty. Perhaps the most important purposes of the law is to protect the lives of all men including unborn babies from the likes of people like you that have no qualms in quenching them out. I have tried to be pleasant with you until now going as far as I could to compromise with your badly misprioritized ideological beliefs. However, your allegence to bad laws over good ones is most infuriating and typifyies why I have decried Libertarianism as a disgraced religion. I would not vote Libertarian even if the only alternatives were far-left liberals. Thank you for illustrating my point better than I ever could why Libertarianism and extreme social liberalism is so disgraceful and repulsive.

Your problem is that you attempt to put the law before God...

No, YOUR problem is that you want the federal government to break the law, in the name of God. In other words, you want government tyranny, in the name of God. (Can you say, "Taliban"?)

The purpose of good laws are to effect good things.

I can think of NO U.S. law that violates the Constitution (which is THE law) that is a "good" law. Government tyranny--the government assuming illegitimate powers, in violation of Constitution--is NEVER "good." You may view the end results, and say to yourself that "the ends justify the means"...well, that's what makes you a conservative, and me a libertarian.

Because we live in a republic and not in a mobocracy as you would have us do,...

No. You have that EXACTLY turned around! It is YOU who are advocating tyranny of the "majority!" YOU are the one advocating, if a majority of elected members of Congress like what YOU like, that they violate The Law (the Constitution). (Once again, the federal government legislating on any form of abortion is unconstitutional, because the Constitution does NOT protect the unborn, in any way. The unborn are NOT "persons" as defined in the Constitution!) *I* am the one advocating that the federal government follow The Law. YOU are the one advocating federal government tyranny (or "mobacracy" as you call it). (Of course, you--hypocritically--detest tyranny when it goes "against" you...as in Roe vs. Wade. You only favor tyranny when the tyrants are doing what YOU like!)

Perhaps the most important purposes of the law is to protect the lives of all men...

All "men," yes. All "persons" in fact. That's what the Constitution says.

...including unborn babies...

NO! Absolutely not! The Constitution provides absolutely NO protection for the unborn, because they are NOT "persons," according to the Constitution. (The Constitution requires a deciannual Census to enumerate all "persons" in the United States. The unborn have NEVER been part of any Census. So they are most definitely NOT "persons." They never have been, and they NEVER WILL BE...EXCEPT by changing The Law...by changing the Constitution!)

(Note: Of course, the Constitution DOES allow the states to craft laws to "protect" the unborn...that is, to craft laws to punish those who are involved in abortions. But the Constitution does not REQUIRE states to craft ANY laws punishing ANY form of abortion. Because the unborn are NOT "persons" in the eyes of the Constitution.)

...babies from the likes of people like you that have no qualms in quenching them out.

Any "qualms" I have about abortion are more than compensated for by my "qualms" about the federal government stepping in where it has NO legitimate authority.

However, your allegence to bad laws over good ones is most infuriating...

It can be no more infuriating to you than YOU infuriate me, by publicly applauding federal government tyranny. You determine "bad laws" and "good laws" by whether they appeal to YOU. *I* determine ALL laws that violate THE Law--the Constitution--to be "bad laws." It's infuriating to me, the way conservatives selectively applaud tyranny (conservatives love tyranny...but only when they do it)!

...why I have decried Libertarianism as a disgraced religion.

Once again, your analysis is the exact opposite of the way things truly are. The libertarian principle of non-agression is completely amoral (not immoral, amoral). It is YOU that wants to insert your religious beliefs into the situation. YOU want to ignore The Law, due to your religious beliefs.

And, in fact, this isn't a matter for "Libertarianism." This is a matter of whether or not one thinks the federal government should follow The Law (the Constitution). I think the federal government should follow The Law (the Constitution). You do not. Just like most conservatives.

Thank you for illustrating my point better than I ever could why Libertarianism and extreme social liberalism is so disgraceful and repulsive.

Yes, I understand that The Law (the Constitution) is repulsive to you, and that you think the federal government should only follow the Constitution when YOU approve. Just like (modern U.S.) liberals!

I find that endlessly ironic, and a source of (somewhat bitter) amusement...you conservatives and your (modern U.S.) liberal brothers/enemies BOTH want the federal government to violate The Law (the Constitution)...but only when you each personally approve! Y'all pretend to be different from each other, but you're actually peas in a pod. Often you disagree on exactly WHERE the federal government should violate the Constitution...but BOTH conservatives and liberals agree that the Constitution SHOULD be violated!

You conservatives, and your liberal brothers/enemies, are why these United States are no longer governed by the Rule of Law.

Your problem is that you attempt to put the law before God...

No, YOUR problem is that you want the federal government to break the law, in the name of God. In other words, you want government tyranny, in the name of God. (Can you say, "Taliban"?)

So now you resort to equating Christian conservatives like me to the “Taliban” for my passionate defense of individual religious freedom from govt tyranny and in particular my defense of the right to life which is the most fundamental right given us by our God-given Constitution which you claim to support. Your resort to extreme mischaracterizations and your name-calling against your enemies is that just like the far left with whom Libertarians have so much in common at least on social issues. It is in the tried and true Commie smear tradition. You would have us all believe that the greatest threat to America is not the Taliban, but the religious right! That is about as wacky as it gets. Talk about turning the truth upside down! LOL!

Perhaps the most important purposes of the law is to protect the lives of all men.including unborn babies...

NO! Absolutely not! The Constitution provides absolutely NO protection for the unborn, because they are NOT "persons," according to the Constitution. (The Constitution requires a deciannual Census to enumerate all "persons" in the United States. The unborn have NEVER been part of any Census. So they are most definitely NOT "persons." They never have been, and they NEVER WILL BE...EXCEPT by changing The Law...by changing the Constitution!)

False. The Constitution does protect the unborn who have been defined as persons for purposes of criminal acts which take their life other than abortions. Just because, “the Gang of Five” ultraliberal Supreme Court Justices of the Berger Court invented a “right to privacy” that included abortion out of thin air does not make the taking of innocent likes constitutional. It just means that the Constitution has been unconstitutionally amended by one of many judicial tyrannies that have been perpetrated on the good people of this country that has yet to be challenged by Congress. Your acceptance, hook, line, and sinker of what our liberal Supreme Court declares to be constitutional as constitutional shows that you are just as bad as the liberal extremists who support abortion on demand.

Any "qualms" I have about abortion are more than compensated for by my "qualms" about the federal government stepping in where it has NO legitimate authority.

Exactly my point, you put your allegence to your God, “the law” above the taking of innocent lives. That makes you as tyrannical as the liberal judges who unconstitutionally amended the Constitution to force the 50 states to permit abortions in all cases.

Once again, your analysis is the exact opposite of the way things truly are. The libertarian principle of non-agression is completely amoral (not immoral, amoral). It is YOU that wants to insert your religious beliefs into the situation. YOU want to ignore The Law, due to your religious beliefs. You conservatives, and your liberal brothers/enemies, are why these United States are no longer governed by the Rule of Law.

Libertarians are basically anarchists. They are amoral as you so rightly point out. It is not so much that they hate traditional morality and Christianity, it is simply that they make what they call “the Law” their God that they worship and that they put all other considerations, even the taking of innocent lives and the shedding of innocent blood second to their mindless end. It is simply that they do not care about anything else. Libertarians are truly bizarre freaks of nature—socially liberal to an extreme, fiscally conservative to the other extreme--and if there was away that I could uninvent them, I gladly would.

So now you resort to equating Christian conservatives like me to the “Taliban” for my passionate defense of individual religious freedom from govt tyranny...

Rubbish. Your position on abortion (that the FEDERAL government should get involved, without any Constitutional amendment) has absolutely NOTHING to do with "religious freedom." In fact, you are using your religion to as an excuse for the federal government to tyrannize (act without the legitimacy of The Law) others. Just like the Taliban.

...and in particular my defense of the right to life...

You aren't defending "life" in general. You're not saying that the federal government should punish people who kill monkeys, dolphins, dogs, or cats. You're defending a tiny subset of "life" involving the unborn. And you're NOT "defending" it (as you would be, if you counciled pregnant women who were considering abortion)...you're attempting to FORCE your own will in the matter on the rest of the population, outside of The Law.

You would have us all believe that the greatest threat to America is not the Taliban, but the religious right!

I never said that the religious right was the "greatest threat to America"...or even that the religious right was a "greater threat to America" than the Taliban." But now that you brought it up, of course the religious right is a greater threat to America than the Taliban. There are more of you, and YOU vote in American elections. (And even worse, one of you is even the Attorney General of the United States!) So y'all shred the Constitution FAR more than the Taliban ever could!

The Constitution does protect the unborn who have been defined as persons for purposes of criminal acts which take their life other than abortions.

Nonsense. The definition of "person" in the Constitution does NOT change, until THE CONSTITUTION changes! (This is why the religious right is EXACTLY like the secular left...both sides want to "change" the Constitution by simply ignoring what it says...rather than going to the trouble of amending the Constitution.) A perfect example of this was slavery. Slaves were NOT "persons," until the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. They were slaves (property)...not "persons." (They had none of the rights in the Bill of Rights.)

The unborn were NOT "persons" when the Constitution was written, and they were NOT "persons" when the 13th and 14th amendments were written. Once again, this is UNDENIABLY TRUE, based on the fact that the Census requires a counting of all "persons"...and pregnant women were NOT counted as 2 "persons."

Once again, if you want to LEGITIMATELY change the unborn into "persons" under the Constitution, you must CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION by amending it.

I have nothing but contempt for sanctimonius and hypocritical members of the religious right, like our current U.S. Attorney General. And yes, he and y'all ARE "more dangerous to America than the Taliban!"

Exactly my point, you put your allegence to your God, “the law” above the taking of innocent lives.

The Law is not my "God." I merely think it is the absolute best way, "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,..."

Apparently YOUR God approves of government tyranny. Just like the Taliban's God!

That makes you as tyrannical as the liberal judges who unconstitutionally amended the Constitution to force the 50 states to permit abortions in all cases.

No, that's what makes me different (and endangered). I have tyrants on the Left unconstitutionally "amending" the Constitution "to force the 50 states to permit abortions." And I have tyrants like you (and John Ashcroft) on the Right. And there are @#$% few people like me in the center, who want to actually FOLLOW The Law. Libertarians are basically anarchists.

Complete bullshit. You're either ignorant, or you're a liar. Libertarians are NOT "basically anarchists." Libertarians are "basically" the closest existing Party to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington. Libertarians think that the only LEGITIMATE purpose of government is to protect rights. Just as pronounced in the Declaration of Independence.

Libertarians are truly bizarre freaks of nature—socially liberal to an extreme, fiscally conservative to the other extreme--and if there was away that I could uninvent them, I gladly would.

Well, depending on how far back you went on "uninventing" libertarians...you could end up "uninventing" Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Then you'd have no Declaration of Independence and no Constitution. So you'd end up with a different form of government. If so, what would you choose? A theocracy, perhaps?

You aren't defending "life" in general. You're not saying that the federal government should punish people who kill monkeys, dolphins, dogs, or cats. You're defending a tiny subset of "life" involving the unborn. And you're NOT "defending" it (as you would be, if you counciled pregnant women who were considering abortion)...you're attempting to FORCE your own will in the matter on the rest of the population, outside of The Law.

No, I am defending human life in general, but your minimization of the value of the life our innocent unborn babies is sickening in the extreme and shows what a callous monster you really are. To all those supporters of abortion, I ask them and you, would it have been better if they had been aborted? Would you have been willing to pay the ultimate price of non-existance for your religious devotion to your cherished “right” to kill the unborn in the interests of following what you deem to be “the Law”? Since we both know the answer, you have been found wanting in your own hypocracy. You like the law until it is used against you and causes you permanent harm, injury, or death just like in the Stalinist totalitarian states where allegence to “your Law” is best enforced and exemplified.

. Of course the religious right is a greater threat to America than the Taliban. There are more of you, and YOU vote in American elections. (And even worse, one of you is even the Attorney General of the United States).

Yep, that’s right! While conservatives may not control the Presidency of the United States, we do control the Vice Presidency, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of HUD. We also have about 20 Senators and 50 Congressman who are solidly conservative. You and your wacky extremist Libertarians on the other hand have one Congressman, Ron Paul, who is an unwitting double agent for the conservative side. A dying breed indeed destined to exist only at the margins of American political ideological discourse and discussion as well you should be. LOL!

Your chracterization of the religious right as a “greater threat to America than the Taleban” is beyond the pale of mainstream American political conversation. By making such patently absurd and fanatical statements, you only go to prove the true extent of your own extremism and fanaticism in your religious devotion to godless secular law just like Communist totalitarians who proceeded you.

The unborn were NOT "persons" when the Constitution was written, and they were NOT "persons" when the 13th and 14th amendments were written. Once again, this is UNDENIABLY TRUE, based on the fact that the Census requires a counting of all "persons"...and pregnant women were NOT counted as 2 "persons."

Even if what you are saying here were true, which it is not, the law of man is not the final authority on what constitutes a life or a “person” which under the law are artificial definitions at best. God’s law and absolute truth independent of God’s law along with corroborating scientific proofs are the final authority on what constitutes life and personhood, all of which in this case point to the unborn as having independent “life” which is to cherished and valued in law and in fact.

I have nothing but contempt for sanctimonius and hypocritical members of the religious right, like our current U.S. Attorney General. And yes, he and y'all ARE "more dangerous to America than the Taliban!"

More Libertarian hate rhetoric and religious bigotry as I have come to expect…

The Law is not my "God." I merely think it is the absolute best way, "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,..." Apparently YOUR God approves of government tyranny. Just like the Taliban's God!

Based on your slavish devotion to the law of man and your placing of all other moral considerations as inferior to said slavish devlotion, the law is most obviously your idol and deity whether you admit it or not.

And I have tyrants like you (and John Ashcroft) on the Right. And there are @#$% few people like me in the center, who want to actually FOLLOW The Law.

Again, your slavish devotion and worship of the law as your idol along with your reverse psychology charicterization of those who promote traditional morality as somehow “tyrants” makes it for the best for all Americans that Libertarians are as you stated a “dying breed.” America has had enough with cultural Marxists like you.

Well, depending on how far back you went on "uninventing" libertarians...you could end up "uninventing" Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Then you'd have no Declaration of Independence and no Constitution. So you'd end up with a different form of government. If so, what would you choose? A theocracy, perhaps?

I would choose our original form of govt—a constitutional republic, not the ultra-promiscous hedonistic social democracy which has been forced upon us by the extremists and Taleban tyrants of the amoral socially libertarian left. I would return our govt to 1913 levels, abolish the income tax, the Federal Reserve and reinstitute moral education and common sense revenue-based tariffs. I would basically return to a system of govt as envisionsed by the Founders who very much unlike the Libertarian fanatics of modern times actually championed the cause of God and traditional morality. It was God who inspired the Founders to form our constitutional republic. It is more important to be found in obedience to God’s law than the law of man including misprepresentations of our Constitution, which have so demeaned and diminished the value of life—in particular the lives of the innocent and helpless among us who depend on us for their very sustenance and existance. Shame on you for supporting their extermination through the continuing Abortion Holocaust which has claimed the lives of over 40 million unborn babies! In an ironic twist, there very well could have been found a Libertarian President among them, but I guess you will never know. I suppose that is the heritage of your amoral self-defeating Libertarian religious practices of abortion, hedonism, porn, homosexuality, prostitution drug abuse, etc.

Hi, rightwing2:

"Reagan Man" says "Ron Paul is no conservative." Reagan Man pontificates

But I set him straight, thanks to your list: The latest rightwing research