Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul Should Leave The Republican Party Ron Paul left the Republican Party once before. It's time to do it again! Here's why...by Doug "Digger" Eberhardt
(libertarian)
Monday, March 10, 2008
I'm not trying to second guess Ron Paul, but the following is what I believe needs to happen in order for Ron Paul's "message" to have the most lasting impact.
What makes Ron Paul think that sticking with the Republican Party is going to accomplish his campaign goal of Liberty? 95% of Republican voters have spoken thus far and they want to stay with a Party that loves war, spends like there's no tomorrow and will trounce liberty at every waking opportunity.
Ron Paul thinks he can transform this party back to what it used to be when the party's platform stood for a humble foreign policy, limited government and liberty for all.
I'm sorry Ron, this just isn't going to happen.
The problem is the media isn't going to do you any favors from this point forward because they consider the Republican race over. At best, you might get a spot on the Republican stage to speak but if the rest of the Republican party is trying to "unify" itself, then why would they want someone on stage who is going to have an opposite view to theirs? They don't want anyone on stage who will hurt their warmongering candidate's chance!
So now is the time to run as a 3rd party candidate. You did it once before Ron. You can do it again!
You can run under the Libertarian Party as you did before, or the under the Constitution Party as we all know your support of the Law of the Land.
You will have the full support of the rEVOLution behind you. You'll have eight more months to get the "message" out to those who haven't heard it or don't understand it. You "might" be given a chance to debate the other two candidates and this can show the world once and for all the real differences you have with them. This is the chance for you to shine!
The dollar is continuing to tank and you are the only one who has solutions to stop it. We have become an imperialistic nation and you are the only one who wants to bring the troops home from 130 different countries. Government has grown too big and you are the only candidate with the guts to cut out entire departments. The IRS taxes our labor and uses that money to pay off government debt and you are the only candidate who wants to let us keep what we earn by eliminating the income tax.
We know why you are needed to save America, but how can your message be heard by a larger audience? Let's look at the recent history of a successful 3rd party run for the presidency.
Ross Perot was allowed to debate in the 1992 Presidential Debate because he was polling good numbers. In 1996 he was only polling 5% and wasn't invited to the debate.
I had written to pollster Rasmussen Reports just before Super Tuesday to find out why Ron Paul wasn't included in their list of candidates on their home page despite beating Giuliani and Thompson in various state caucuses and elections. They wrote back saying that "he's not polling at 10% nationally," and that "as soon as he polls 10% nationally, we'll include him."
So 10% seems to be the magic number for recognition. To get Ron Paul in the presidential debate he has to poll north of 10%. To poll north of 10%, the grassroots effort needs to continue making phone calls and going door to door and spreading the "message."
There are no guarantees, but if this goal of 10% is obtained, anything can happen. There's still time to do this as I've written about here.
The electoral system is slanted to where two parties dominate via delegates as many of you know. As it stands, the system is so screwed up and biased that for the democrat primaries right now it's coming down to what are called "superdelegates." Since neither candidate has garnered enough regular delegates to win the primary outright, it comes down to a select group of people (superdelegates) who get to decide who will represent them come November. Naturally Obama and Clinton are throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars at these people to woo their vote!
These delegates are what wins national Presidential elections. You may remember that Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but George Bush won the election because he won the delegate count with some last minute Florida shenanigans.
So what does this have to do with Ron Paul? Everything. Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance of getting too many delegates come November now that he is out of the Republican race (not completeley out, but realistically out). Ross Perot, even though he garnered almost 20% of the popular vote in 1992, had zero delegates to his name. Knowing this outcome in advance means that Ron Paul needs to concentrate on getting his message out to those whom might not have heard it. He will be more successful doing this as a 3rd party candidate. It will also help this 3rd party garner national recognition and become a player in future elections.
This means he should take the Republican campaign donations he has left and concentrate on getting his "message" out to as many people as possible by radio and mail (the lowest cost way to reach the most people). Then he can start a new fundraiser under the party he elects. If he continues to run, people will find a way to give.
If by some miracle Ron Paul was able to debate McCain and the Superdelegates choice for the Democrats, then he would be allowed to demonstrate the urgency of his economic revitalization plan to save America.
And if by some miracle Ron Paul were to win the popular vote and garner zero or a few delegates, the system would once and for all be demanded to change by the voice of We The People.
Just look at where The People have allowed their elected officials to take our great nation:
1. We are the world's largest debtor nation: U.S. National Debt: Now OVER $9.4 Trillion.
2. We have a never ending trade deficit because we don't produce anything here in America any longer.
3. We always have a budget deficit adding to our debt each year because congress is either stupid or ignorant.
6. We fight unnecessary wars that are bankrupting this country and this hasn't done much to help the price of oil and gas now has it?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evilsare sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it istheir duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
For me to even quote the Declaration of Independence in the future might be a jail-able offense. How have we let our elected officials do this to us?
There is still time to make a difference in the future of America!
Ron Paul needs to take a 3rd party to the next level of his "Hope for America" Presidential Campaign. Naturally, the faithful will follow.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Doug "Digger" Eberhardt only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Doug "Digger" Eberhardt is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I disagree completely. Ron Paul should stay in the Republican Party to influence the future direction of the GOP. Given Paul's success in attracting new, young voters to the ideas of limited government, he represents the future for the Grand Old Party. Paul should do everything he can to get a speaking slot at the Republican convention. In addition, he becomes the defacto GOP leader in the house because he has most name recognition of any House Republican and his ability to raise money.
I understand your comment about wanting Paul to "stay with the Republican Party to influence the future direction of the GOP." The problem is, America doesn't have that much time left to wait for that change to occur. This is why the time is NOW to get Ron Paul's "message" to as many as possible.
If one reads Murray Rothbard's "Betrayal of the American Right," they'll see where the Republican Party started to change. If one watches the BBC documentary, "The Power of Nightmares," they'll see where both parties, along with media collusion, have taken us to war and more debt that we can't afford to pay back.
I'm not one to sit by and wait for this slow change to occur at a snails pace. Change needs to occur now and the current numbers I posted, along with future obligations, won't wait for the Grand Old Party to get back to its roots.
The GOP won't get back to its roots till total failure occurs. When they lost the House and Senate in 2006 is proof that their current platform doesn't work. Since no one from the current GOP speaks out for Ron Paul and 95% of America votes for those who still want war and continued spending, the time couldn't be better for a 3rd party to step up and represent that immediate change that is needed to save the dollar and our country from bankruptcy.
I would love for the GOP to return to its roots. While that is happening, the economy can't wait and neither can The People who pay their taxes to support the waste coming out of Washington...from both Parties.
Time spent trying to change the GOP is time that could be spent continuing the rEVOLution and making an impact in the 2008 election.
What more can get the troops to act than a new cause of Freedom? A new purpose of Liberty?
Nice article. Thank you for writing it. This is an interesting situation, and I have done a bit of thinking about it too.
Essentially, the first goal should be to tap all the support we can from the republican party. This means a continuation of campaigning as delegates and locally to spread the message to like-minded Goldwater and Reagan conservatives. As Goldwater adeptly concluded, the conscience of the conservative is to preserve liberty. Therefore, there is an opportunity to influence the liberty-conscious Republicans to switch over to support Ron Paul. These entrenched Republicans simply won't do that unless we are within their ranks (due to their loyalty oaths and the general pro-wrestling atmosphere of 20th century politics).
Now, at the convention, when things don't go RP's way (and they wouldn't have gone RP's way even if he had won all 50 primaries), we can step outside and have a rump convention to announce our "third party" run.
I like your thinking Jake. I am just trying to get people to think. It doesn't mean what I write is gospel, but it seems that if enough of us publish our thoughts, then something can be accomplished.
It is a sign of how bad the Libertarian Party has become to say Ron Paul could just as easily run on the LP as the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party is anti-individual liberty and openly theocratic. Has the LP given up all its principles? It's bad enough that bigots are now comfortable in the LP. We already have people running who want to ban abortion and build walls ont he border and initiate force against millions of peaceful people in the name of immigration law. Good god, the party is so desparate to win an election, any election, it has betrayed its core values. And Ron Paul is leading the stampede into the loony Right territory.
I agree with Jake's view after also thinking about the best strategy from all side. Best is that Dr. Paul campaigns now aggressively and get the maximum momentum and much better performance, now that it is only between two, although the media will not give him much coverage. Strategically, one should also see who the candidates of the Democrats will be. If Obama would not be the nominee, Paul has the potential of attracting a substantial number of his supporters. McCain also has soem serious problems to work through, also witht he choice of his VP candidate. If he selects a moderate to left of centre like himself, Paul has opportunity from the conservative wing of the GOP, Independents as well as anti-war Democrats. If McCain selects a conservative, he has the problem that he may loose votes from the middle and Independents. The GOP has always won with a conservative candidate that integrates towards the middle. WIth McCain it is different and difficult.
Now the issue is that the Lp will have their conference in May I think and the CP later. The requirements for a third/fourth party candidate are difficult: need ex amount of people for every state. By September the candidates for the LP and CP would probably have been announced. What Paul could do, is run as an Independent with a party to be formed (that may integrate the LP, CP etc.) or run under another party that is already on all states, like the Reform party, if they do not have a candidate. Unity 08 proposed a Paul/Gravel ticket a few months ago, not sure if they are filed in every state. This could be another possibility... 80-100 m need to be raised. In any case get the maximum amount of delegates to make a strong impression on the RNC, with powerful speakers and backers.
I agree that Ron Paul should resign the Republican Party. As a former Republican, 42-years as a matter of fact, (and as an elected county commissioner in North Carolina), I resigned my post and the Republican Party in 2004. Frankly, I could not "stomach" any longer the actions and policies of those who hijacked the beloved party of Taft & Goldwater, and others who gave their blood, sweat, and tears to legitimize. So I say to Ron Paul, whom I admire greatly, "move on...resign the apostate party of McCain and the neo-cons...join the ranks of the unaffiliated, or shut the hell up."
Somehow I think this whole thing (the fight for our Constitution and our overall Liberty) will end up in a very ugly and violent confrontation with We The People :(
I look at it from a different angle. Three political parties dominate in the United Kingdom, The Labour Party, The Conservative Party and The Liberal Democrats. The coalition of parties in Germany allow for more voices to be heard. "While the political parties in France can be divided into right and left leaning parties, the political party spectrum is much more broadly represented than in the United States. The French government, conceivably, can take the views and desires of a wide range of citizens into account. The goals of these parties are represented in Parliament, ensuring more protection for the working class.
A 3rd party in the U.S. is an eventuality and now is a good time to gain recognition. The current two party system has driven our nation into a hole. They are the queens and kings who live the life of luxury on the labor of the serfs.
Our nation doesn't have time to change a current party. Our voices need to be heard now! Heck, the way these two parties are going, I won't even be able to write these words in disagreement with the system!
There is not enough time for a 3rd party candidate to save the country. This country is not going to elect a 3rd party President unless 3rd party Congressmen and Senators are elected first. It will take decades for that to happen. It is much easier to put out and get people to read what the Republican Party is supposed to stand for. It will also be much easier and quicker to win Congressional seats as a Republican. Win Congressional seats, win Senate seats, win the next election. The economy and worsening world situation is on our side.
I wholeheartedly look forward to the day when your vision manifests; and we have a fair, multiple-party political system where each party's voice is heard. However, until that day, we must work in the current system into which bias has been engineered; and unfortunately, only the voices of two parties are given any national audience and fairness in the election laws of today's system.
Third Parties Have difficulty because of the circular logic designed to perpetually keep them out: 1. For a third party to be viable, the third party must have a national voice/influence. 2. For a third party to have a national voice, third party people must change the laws of the system. 3. For a third party to change the laws of the system, a third party must be viable.
The only means for exiting this circular logic is to acquire national voice for like-minded PEOPLE and not acquire national voice for a third party. This problem is solved by losing the collectivist attitudes of distiguishing ourselves by our labels and by integrating the groups into one of the parties with already established national voice. Third party voters must join the two party system to gain National Voice and remain in the two-party system until desirable impact is made to allow for a third and possibly fourth, fifth and sixth party.
To use analogy: Two groups of ten bullies each can keep one hundred kids off of the playground only because the police enforce the "Bullies Only" signs on the playground gates. If 21 of those 100 kids infiltrate one group of the bullies, suddenly, the original bullies are a minority on the playground; the "Bullies Only" signs come down, and the other 79 kids can come into the playground.
A third-party run is analogous with the kids participating in the vote to take down the signs with their share of 10 people. 20 bullies vote to keep the signs up, 10 kids vote to take the signs down. The kids must become bullies to sway the vote towards non-bullies.
Tieing the analogy to American politics: Long ago, the two main parties formed a cartel against other political parties long ago with legislation that prevents fair electoral competition. As Web Smith stated, a third-party president will not happen unless the system is first changed by "Republicans" and "Democrats" who are friendly to third parties. Only then can third-party Governors, Congressmen, Senators and Presidents be elected.
The "nutshell version" is that third parties must become nationally super-popular before winning any major, elected seat; gaining that popularity would take much longer than pretending to be a republican or democrat for a few elections to elect the right man or woman into office and begin making changes.
Ron Paul ran a pretty good campaign and did so as a Republican. Many Republicans heard his message yet 95% of them decided they prefer the status quo that has our nation as the world's largest debtor, imperialistic and spending like there's an unlimited amount to spend whild destroying the dollar. What makes you think these people will change when the corporate controlled media will always play the neocon game influencing those 95%?
A 3rd party run at this point would not win, I agree. But Ron Paul sticking with the Republican party won't win either. By leaving the party, this will be news. In a sense, he is saying, for the second time, I'm FED UP with you guys!
He can then take his rEVOLution and make a splash with an 8 month campaign where his message will be heard louder than ever before. As congress keeps spending, the dollar falls, the stock market falls and the Fed manipulates (which is only a temporary fix), people will no longer want to assoicate themselves with either Republican or Democrat because they allow this destruction to continue.
Yes, time is needed for both causes, but the time is ripe for a 3rd party to become more prevalent in America.
I'm afraid what is going to happen is we won't see a transformation of the current Republican party or a 3rd party step up until there is a real collapse.
By my calculations, we don't have time to see either of our wishes come to fruition. Where we possibly differ is in how to utilize what little time we have left to make the largest impact.
What I would like to see happen after such collapse is the doing away with the means (Federal Reserve) which portends abuse as well see electoral reform; [link edited for length]
But it would be great if we could get our own parties to live within their means as a start. I'll give you that. I just don't see it happening anytime soon and not until said collapse.
The committee that runs the debates, which is a coalition of the Republican and Democratic parties has deemed 15%, not 10% as the polling threshold to take part in the debates as a third party nominee. And that percentage has to come from a series of "approved" polls.
James Cooke & Doug Eberhardt you both have good points. I'm going to interject and agree that I too want Ron Paul to stay with the GOP and help to reform it back to something that it once was, but I also have to agree that since America is in such a crisis now, Ron Paul needs to run as a 3rd party candidate. Not only to show his supporters that our efforts have not been in vain, but also to get the message out there. The media has thus far shut down Ron Paul because his ideas are ... 'radical' Not only that it's because 90% of the media is democratic owned and are showing this as a two person race between Hillary & Obama with alittle bit of (well warrented)McCain bashing. Ron Paul is essential for America's future. Right now i don't think it matters what party he runs with, his followers will support him. He has come so far and thers a ways to go. His revolution will not end if he doens't run as a thrid party candidate, but it will go all the way to the white house if he does
Craig, Thanks for the info. I noticed in Nelson Hultberg's piece that he utilzed 15% as well. Glad you gave the reference as to where that number comes from!
Mr. Eberhart, I want to point out why your ideas won't fly. First of all, Ron Paul can't win as part of a third party. Even if by some miracle, he got the White House, he would have no cooperation from Congress, which would be upset because he stole the White House. Until third parties are electing candidates to Congress, that won't change. For another thing, Ron Paul is seen as a nutcase by conservative voters, and has attracted nutcase supporters. He has sold out. He takes pork for his district. Most conservatives are pro-life. They won't support Paul because he really isn't. He says he is, but his actions say otherwise. He voted against parents when he voted that the federal government should not do anything to prevent the kidnapping of teenage girls without parental knowledge, and taking them across state lines to be subjected to medical rape. Furthermore, these people won't support Ron Paul in the Libertarian Party until the LP is consistent on its view of the right to life. Denying the unborn the right to life is a negation of this fundamental right for everyone. Another problem is that we need to stop the huge influx of immigrants. The LP apparently has learned this, and Ron Paul knows it, but some supporters are suggesting that we should just let them come. In some parts of the country, the influx of immigrants has seriously taxed the taxpayers (who are paying for benefits) and because law enforcement has its hands full with all the violent criminals who have slipped over the border. ICE isn't doing its job. It needs to PROCESS legal applicants, and keep everyone else out. We need the border fence. Immigrants see no benefit to keeping the rules, because they just get ignored anyway. McCain seems to be the only candidate who sees the reality here. Another problem is Ron Paul's more or less secret support for the legalization of vices. The Founders understood that the Constitution will only work for a virtuous nation, and we don't have that. Legalizing vices will make it ten times worse. That's what happened when we legalized abortion. We now have ten times as many as we did before. People who want to indulge in vices gravitate toward the LP but they don't do anything for the cause of liberty. When is the last time the LP did anything significant to oppose property taxes? The fact is, property taxes are a fundamental attack on the right to property. The LP got its platform eviscerated, and even important stuff got taken out. It no longer opposes public schools either, as far as I can determine. And the Constitution Party won't have him. Alan Keyes has that nomination if he wants it, and it looks like he does. The deterioration of the Republican Party really started when liberty-loving people abandoned it. They acted as a moderating influence, but they're gone. Another problem Paul has is that he wants to bring the war against the terrorists to our own soil. That's what bringing the troops home would mean. I don't want to have to look over my shoulder in case there's an IED beside the road as I am driving. And bringing the troops home would mean our defeat, and eventually we would have shari'a law. And if you think the lack of liberty is bad now, you ain't seen nuttin' yet. Paul accomplished more as a Republican than any other person who has been in the forefront politically. If he leaves, he gives up all his hard work. He had a caucus in Congress. I think he'll lose his congressional seat this time around; he's been too busy campaigning for the presidency. People didn't vote for Paul because they don't support him. I support Alan Keyes, but he didn't get enough votes, either. The media ignored him worse than they ignored Paul. Paul doesn't begin to understand the Constitution. Alan Keyes understands it thoroughly. All Paul can do at this point by going third party is help put one of the Democrats into the White House. I doubt seriously if the nation can survive that. Well, no, I don't doubt. I KNOW it. Please rethink your position. Heck, even the libertarians can't agree on what Paul ought to do, or what a party he promotes should be called. Until you all get your act together, nothing will change.
The best way to approach things, I think, is to form coalitions. Seek to have election laws changed so that more than one party can endorse a candidate or position, like New York. Use the internet to publicize other ideas. Most people want to get rid of the income tax. That's a good start. The problem is, people want their "freebies" and until that changes, we will continue to spend, regardless of how taxes are collected. Even the conservatives are feeding at the trough. It's called public schools. They MUST be abolished. They indoctrinate the children so that the status quo is perpetuated. People want their freebies because they are being plundered by taxes and cannot afford things on their own. We struggled to avoid taking freebies in spite of the government plunder that we endured, which put us deeply into debt. We homeschooled our children. Our children are, by and large, unable to get a college education. We can't help them. They can only try to collect public money, and hopefully that way they can get a college education. People need to make their priorities plain. We need to get rid of the income tax, the property tax, and the public schools. We need to restore the right to life. Everything else needs to take a back seat. The fact is, if we legalize vices, more people will become nonfunctional. And if they do, people will demand laws that allows the government to take care of them with our tax money, out of misguided compassion, and they'll get them. That's where we are right now. We need to purge all the dead wood from the movement for liberty, and the legalization of vices is dead wood. Vices are licentiousness, and licentiousness and liberty are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Licentiousness makes people weak, and enslaved to themselves, unable to fight for liberty. So we need to deal with taxes and public schools, and everything else should be left until later. And if your candidate cannot even refrain from taking pork, what hope is there for him? None that I can see. Come to a consensus on what you want, and then you can implement it, but as long as you are trying to lead a herd of cats, it ain't gonna happen.
Conservatives won't support a pacifist. They know that our war against the terrorists is crucial. And they won't support the legalization of vices. Ron Paul didn't get their support because THEY DON'T AGREE WITH HIM. It's that simple. Alan Keyes comes much closer to their thinking, and he didn't get any real attention, either. Unlike Ron Paul, he's articulate in debates and speeches. Alan Keyes would get rid of the income tax.
Incrementalism is the ONLY way to win. It's how the Democrats eroded the Constitution. It doesn't represent compromise of principles. Instead, it recognizes reality. Without giving on important stuff, work for one goal at a time.
First know, that I realize that Ron Paul can't win as a 3rd party candidate. I never claimed anywhere in my article this to be the case. I did say that "his run would give a 3rd party more stature in future elections," and I did say "if by some miracle Ron Paul were to win the popular vote and garner zero or a few delegates, the system would once and for all be demanded to change by the voice of We The People."
First let me address some misinformation you have regarding Ron Paul and abortion.
Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you're going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But it's been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That's not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I'm making. We're all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life--but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says "no abortion," it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order. Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008 [link edited for length]
You say that most conservatives are pro-life and I've resolved this issue based on what Ron Paul wants to have passed into law.
Next issue is your view of the threat of terrorism and the "war on terror" and Paul's "pacificst" stance. If you claim Paul is pacifist, then how would you describe the current Bush administration? Does the word imperialistic come to mind? Probably not as you are fooled by the need to intervene in other countries issues and blinded by the consequences that has had on our own citizens. Just look at the price of oil and the devaluation of the dollar. We attacked a country that did not attack us. This "undeclared," but "authorized" war will end just as badly as the other undeclared wars; Vietnam and Korea. To think otherwise is ignorant of recent history.
Regarding immigration, Ron Paul is for the fence as you are.
Regarding Civil Liberties, Ron Paul is the sole voice to speak out against government intrustion in our private lives.
Congress is hard at work destroying our freedoms.....And who speaks up about it? Spitzer was criticizing the government in a NYTimes editorial recently and the government utilized the Patriot Act, which gave them the opportunity to "get" Spitzer. This is one example of how wiretaps were used, not to fight terrorism, but to bring down someone who criticized the government openly.
The amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will just give our government more power over us. "Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government's ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens."
S.1959 (which passed the House by a LARGE margin, and is now in the Senate's hands) is even one more example of government taking our freedoms away whereby you won't even be able to write anything negative about the government or you might be considered a "domestic terrorist!"
And then there is the attempt to reclassify what the 2nd amendment means!
When will it end? Where is the voice of opposition?
Our Constitution gives anyone a right to their own self does it not? What one does with their life is up to them. Christians are still "commanded" to love thy neighbor whether they are Muslim, Jew, Gay or Straight right? The Bible speaks of Free Will right? If you are Christian, God will be the final judge. If you're not Christian, you may have a different view and I respect that.
Your comments on the tax code and the education system I agree with.
Would be happy to continue this further if you care to reply. I cannot possibly claim to have all the answers, but I am doing something about what I perceive to be the issues. I wanted Ron Paul to continue the run as his message was "growing." It's not growing as a Republican candidate is it? That's my point.
Thank you for your response. I will certainly continue this discussion.
Part of the reason why I have said these things is that I don't totally agree with Ron Paul's message.
I would just like to make a couple of points.
Liberty is not the most important thing. This is because without life, a person cannot exercise liberty. If the right to life is not recognized, there will also be no recognition of liberty. The other thing to keep in mind is that if we exercise liberty irresponsibly, we will not long have liberty, either. The Founders made it clear that they prepared a Constitution for a virtuous people, and that it was wholly inadequate to govern any other. If we refuse to discern between liberty and licentiousness, our country is doomed. I realize I said this before, but I needed to say it again. Notice how the erosion of the recognition of the right to life has gone hand in hand with the erosion of legitimate liberties, particularly religious liberty.
This isn't about free will. It's about what will produce an ordered society, because in an ordered society, people can thrive. The economy will prosper. Let people self-destruct, and other people will demand that government plunder us and pay these people because they can't help themselves. And that's exactly what is happening. If we were willing to let these people die in the streets, the situation would straighten itself out, but that isn't going to happen. So it's not about judging people. It's about curbing the destructive forces that are tearing our society and our culture apart. Inevitably, if people self-destruct, they harm other people. It may not look like there is a connection, but the failure to see a chain of causation is a huge problem these days.
We agree on the Second Amendment, I suspect.
As far as your comment re "imperialism" is concerned, that's NOT what comes to mind when looking at the current administration. Iraq didn't attack us, but Saddam was up to his eyeballs in 9/11. He had the capacity to arm more terrorists, and their tactics were very effective. We went in to get Saddam out, not to attack Iraq. It may not be widely known, but we actually told the leaders of the Iraqi military that if they went home, we wouldn't kill them. They did, and we didn't. And at times it has been costly, because a few of these people came back later and attacked our people and the Iraqis. But there were a multitude of reasons why we should have taken out Saddam, and I'm glad he's gone. What really frosts me is the people who think we shouldn't stabilize the country before we leave, and we shouldn't fix the broken stuff. We have always fixed what we broke, and that's the way it should be. Imperialism means to add a nation to our empire. We don't have an empire. We help a country back onto its feet and then we get out of their affairs. We may maintain a small presence, but that's all, and I am inclined to agree with Bush's actions to pull a lot of military out of countries that are stable.
I have spent thousands of hours studying the situation with respect to terrorism. Bush did what he needed to do, and now we need to back him up and let our military finish their mission. All of the reasons people considered with respect to Saddam were true. WMD, involvement in terrorism, genocide, you name it. I have a short list of essential reading at Amazon.com . If we are not allowed to complete our mission, of course things will turn out badly. It was the people who interfered with a chosen course of action who have caused the problems with each war. The terrorists were emboldened by our abandonment of South Viet Nam. The time to discuss a course of action is BEFORE we commence. We have many Democratic leaders who are preaching sedition and treason, for political gain. THEY are to blame for the problems with this war, and no one else.
In times of national emergency, there have been extraordinary powers enacted. I have seen no evidence that the exercise of these powers has been especially egregious, with the possible exception of the internment of Japanese-Americans, and at the time, we didn't know if it needed to come to that or not. And that is far more egregious than anything we have done since. The people then simply didn't understand the Japanese people well enough to know what it would be best to do. The United States enacts emergency measures, and when the emergency is gone, things pretty much return to normal. The abilities granted temporarily really aren't significantly abused. We're not interning anybody anymore. I have asked many people whether or not they have been personally adversely affected by such things as the Patriot Act. Nobody has ever said they have been. I have also asked them if they know of anyone else who has, and nobody has been able to name anyone. I don't know anything about the Spitzer situation, but I would like to respectfully suggest that if he was being a thorn in their side, they would have found a way to get rid of him regardless.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
