The Libertarian (capital-L) problem

[Nelson]

I don't want to offend anybody, but feel the urge to start something [img]smileys/smiley1.gif[/img]about big-L Libertarians. Iconfess I see the Libertarian Party and many who claim the label (big-L OR small-L) as a real problem. Don't get me wrong—there are fine people in this category but they seem to me always warped in their thinking insofar as it toes the LP line.


Maybe it should be called the Liberalian Party for its bald-faced attempts to pass of liberal values as libertarian or even anti-liberal. Or the Vegetarian Party? Where's the beef, i.e. true, classic small-L advocacy of freedom and of resistance to tyranny in the mode of Jefferson and Madison?


Before Amerca was fully geared to Jewish supremacy, political party worship or radical narcissism, there were the Founding Fathers. Big-L's give these lip service but I don't think they'd have gotten along with them very well, even theunusually perspicuous big-L's I work with every day in the Cause.


Of course, I welcome big-L's to this Forum and no doubt all others will too. In fact, anybody wants to try to shoot mer down on this or any big issue, have at it!


I think the big-L movement has always been liberaloid, odd-smelling and a Jewish mad-scientist project. This was my vague but unmistakeable perception when I first caught wind of it as a brand-new patriot in the 1980s. It's been chronicled in recent times how the Party has abandoned its base and effectually thrown its support behind the "establishment" in recent years, causing many adherents to go virtually independent. (Where have we heard that before?) I'm proud to say that when "my" main big-L(Dr. John Cobin) ran for U.S. House of Reps last yearhis ultra-conservative positionsstarted an actualcivil war among SC Liberts! Not that I want stife among brethren, but I think it probably helped greatly with their "values clarification".*


Linked to the news broadcast I just posted about "immigrants" leaving Georgia in droves because of a new state law is this hateful object:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE9Gc...;mode=related& amp; amp;search=


Thisdrooler of one liberal myth after anotheris or was the Libertarian candidate for Georgia Commissioner of Agriculture. Can't you just imagine him getting elected on grassroots pretenses and joining the liberal establishment in thwarting the will of AMERICANS on thie "immigration issue"?


The Georgia LP's site ( http://www.ga.lp.org/) proudlylinks to something it hypes as"First Freedom First: Safeguarding Separation of Church and State, protecting religious liberty"—which turns out to be nothing more than the wacko commie outfit called Americans United for Separation of Church and State! It would all be fine (including the TV-commercial-style show the latter link ( http://www.au-ga.org/PSA.html) gives you of people claiming to stand for true religious freedom)except that all such groups are expressly aimed at kicking Christians and Christianity out of public view. That's what they do all day no matter their propaganda.


Atlanta-based talk show boast-host Neal Boortz, the loudest Libertarian in the land, hates Dixie and stumps for war on the Ayrabs in the same breath in which he claims to champion limited government. Yesterday on the program Somebody called up and in anger and frustration about this told him "Well, I think you must wear your underwear on the outside and your shoes on the wrong feet if you're that STUPID about things like the neocons' `war' on Iraq!"


His response, of course, was to tsk-tsk about how this was representative of how opponents of the war think and argue.


Boortz—funny name never heard anywhere else—must be "Irish!"


Might as well throw in my Edgefield Advertiser "Southern View" columns on him from a decade ago, and a good one by Al Cronkrite. Parts 1 and 2 (and much more stuff) on request.


Bagging the party animals, pt. 3


It may surprise you to learn that political parties were already a pox on everything at the time of the un-Civil War. Some of you may imagine that my wish to be rid of them springs from my "far right" passions, but consider (especially if you are of liberal persuasion) what role the party system played in hindering the progress of getting slaves to freedom in the 1860s:
"The state [NH] had its own abolitionist newspaper, two of them in fact, but the issue was mired in politics and infighting. Whigs, Federalists, anti-Federalists, Independents, Democrats, Democratic Independents and Democratic Republicans tossed the abolition issue around like a hot potato, defining and re-defining themselves around this key issue." That's from a website all about the end of slavery in America, mostly from a "black pride" standpoint (www.seacoastnh.com/blackhistory/whittier.html). The interesting thing is that in the process it shows what a fraud Yankee abolitionist fervor really was -- note the New Hampshire location!
Never mind what N. Waller says. Here it is in the words of my ancestral uncle-in-law, G. Washington:
"[Political party strife] serves to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one party against another; foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
Remember, please, that I'm a former chairman of the New Jersey Populist Party (ran for Congress on the ticket) and was a staunch Republican from age 7 on (Nixon, 1960). Thus I'm here to tell you also that in my opinion there is no hope in third parties. Those of you active in them, please forgive me. May I disabuse you of this notion in particular if you're Libertarian-oriented. No, the LP is not a "personal freedom" party, nor is it the Democrats without the bureaucracy, or anything like "libertarian" in the sense of liberty-loving or -favoring. The Libertarian Party is LIBERAL. That's what it is and don't let them kid you. It's disguised so prettily that as with most liberal schemes you don't know you've been had till you count your change.
The LP's worst failing concerns feticide -- commonly known as abortion. They pride themselves on not taking a position on the "issue," but most of them happen to be pro-abortion, because otherwise you take away a "woman's right to choose."
The Libertarian movement is dominated by the same "ethnic liberals" we bump into everywhere nowadays. A good example is Neal Boortz. Here's a jolly fellow who's been on talk radio for over 30 years and talks a good libertarian line. I've had some fun calling in and testing the ostensibly "conservative" waters in which he swims. He's opposed to our foreign military interventions BUT...just happens to be a staunch defender of World War II, the Great Liberal War which made the world safe for communism. I said on the air I thought that whole effort (WW2) was misguided too and that we weren't any better equipped to play world policeman then than we are now. He hailed me as more libertarian than himself (translation: a truer conservative) and later said lots of people were calling in calling for "Nelson for President."

Bagging the party animals, pt. 4


Was telling you my opinion of political parties and a few adventures I've had probing the Libertarian Party in particular -- for instance, via Libertarian celebrity Neal Boortz and his radio talk show.
One day Neal was stumping like mad for his nutty liberal solution to the tax mess, a "national retail sales tax." Couldn't resist. I dialed up the show and said "Neal, aren't you a leading libertarian spokesman?"
"Yes!"
"And you're different in that you deal in real solution to real problems -- right?"
"Of course."
"Then what are you doing promoting a BAND-AID for a `problem' which is actually a Marxist CRIME OF CRIMES?" I asked, keeping it buoyant if ever more intense.
Surprisingly, the poor boy was stuck. He gave the stock excuse of liberals and compromisers that you have to work with solutions that have a chance of getting public support, or something. I half felt sorry for him. Normally extroverted and punchy -- he calls himself "America's rude awakening" and offers "insensitivity training" -- Mr. B suddenly sounded like somebody'd licked the red off his candy. He soon moved on to another subject.
No tears for Neal, though, because (and here is the political party problem in its essence) he's an enthusiastic, even giddy "pro-choicer." Most of his stuff is so classically conservative it leaves Rush Limbaugh in the dust, but then he starts dishing the feminazi arguments about feticide -- "Men have no right to dictate to women the use of their own bodies," etc. Last time I heard him do this I didn't feel like getting muddy so I didn't call in, but here's how the conversation might have gone:
NW: "Say, Neal -- Why don't you take the `right to choose' ther rest of the way?"
NB: "What do you mean?"
NW: "You indicate women and their doctors are the only people whose rights have any meaning in the abortion debate. So you're missing the group to whom it really matters -- the unborn themselves."
NB: (Laughs.) "Well, that's a lovely thought, Nelson, but the fact is we can't even say for sure when life or consciousness begins!"
NW: "But babies slated for abortion are the real ultimate victims here, and they're on record as being against it!"
NB: "Come on, pal, let's not get sentimental. We can't read their minds even if they have them!"
NW: "The babies have told us loud and clear where they stand. Their choice is always against the abortion procedure!"
NB: "What are you talking about?"
NW "What happens when they do a saline injection -- the kind of abortion that burns the baby to death? NB: "You tell me."
NW: "It starts writhing in pain, and the mother feels it, but they tell her it's just a muscular twitch."
NB: "How do you know they're wrong?"
NW: "Ever hear of The Silent Scream -- the video of an actual abortion in progress? The baby senses just like you or I that her domain is being invaded when the suction machine is introduced, and fights it off with her tiny hands. Her mouth opens in -- yes -- a silent `scream' that anybody concerned for what's right should be able to hear."
NB: "Time for a commercial break. Thanks for the call!"
Yes. The babies are actual human beings with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Their "abortion rights" far outweigh their mothers,' and they are unanimous in their pro-life sentiments. See? Mr. Libertarian's logic is so warped he wouldn't get away with it if there weren't a nationally-known Party behind him, all of them preaching the same gospel together.



http://www.etherzone.com/2003/cron090503.shtml
<BIG><BIG><BIG>LIBERTARIAN VACUITY</BIG></BIG></BIG>
<BIG>A FAILURE TO PERCEIVE REALITY?</BIG>
By: Al Cronkrite
Is there something magical about markets? Will free markets automatically solve all the world's problems and create a utopian prosperity in all societies? Libertarians seem to think so.
From a Christian perspective, reading Libertarian rhetoric is invariably conflicting..........


*a concept which strangely lacks a Wikipedia entry despite having dominated public "education" during the 1980s.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...arch=values+cl arification&amp;go=Go





Edited by: Nelson

[Wicked Warren]

Well, admittedly, i only skimmed some of the foregoing. I've previously thought of Libertarians as fringe. However, upon learning Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate for president back in the late 20th century--and since I am so much in agreement with Paul's political philosophy--I decided I ought to open-mindedly research a little further.


I've ordered an information packet from the LP, and eagerly await its arrival. Since I would like to affiliate with a party to gain the power of connectivity, I will carefully consider the Libertarian platform, and concede that I might join. I certainly no longer can abide either the Republicans or Democrats, so looking elsewhere is simply a matter of being pragmatic.


Recently I joked about maybe running for Congress at age 85. The more I think about it, the more serious I become. What is there to lose? If nothing else, for a nominal filing fee, the leastI can do is to deflect a few votes from my present Congressman, Jay Inslee (D-WA), whose voting record is abominable. That alone is worth the price of admission.


Look! I know the source of our problems is avaricious Jews who believe in the depth of their being that they are superior to us Gentiles, and that they have an inherent right to treat us as scum. I boil at the very thought of allowing these creeps attempting to enslave us. My wish is that more sleeping zombies would wake up to thereality of Jewish supremacism, and join us who already have our eyes wide open.


Yes! I'm on the warpath ... and mighty proud of it.Edited by: Wicked Warren

[Nelson]

AH -- I meant to add that Ron Paul has put light years between him and his Libertarian days. I don't know if he ever went farther than agreeing to be their candidate, but do know he's way better on (for instance) "immigration" than formerly, and THAT is something no self-respecting big-L is gonna ever like.


And since we just say what we think around here, Warren, I for one hope you will SHUN the LP and go with the Constitution Party. Orsneak onto theRepublican OR Dummacrat ticket.Seriously! Others have done this with boffo results in terms of keeping freedom issues in circulation. Even if you don't win it (whichis certainly within the realm of possibility) you can do much good for the Right simply by running.


What's ours is there for the using. What's theirs exists to be hijacked or co-opted. [img]smileys/smiley2.gif[/img]

[Adolar]

The libertarian movement is kind of a mixed bag for me; on the one hand, I like their smaller government, low taxes, more freedom approach, and economic theories in general. However, they don't understand the racial problem--or, if they do, keep their eyes closed to avoid negative blowback.


They had a neat article some years ago regarding government regulations about the holes in Swiss Cheese:
<H3>No joke: The USDA is debating the proper size of holes in Swiss cheese</H3>


August 29, 2000, Libertarian Party Press Releases





WASHINGTON, DC -- Department of Agriculture bureaucrats are trying to decide how big the holes in Swiss cheese should be (no, that's not a joke - muet: read yourself) -- which proves once and for all that the Washington, DC bureaucracy is an "out-of-control muenster," says the Libertarian Party.


"We know federal bureaucrats don't have enough to do, but when they start to cheddar-chatter about the correct size of the holes in Swiss cheese, well, they ought to be dipped in a fondue pot," said the party's press secretary, George Getz.


"The fact is, the only holes that need to be regulated are the holes in the heads of federal bureaucrats."


Late last month, the USDA released a proposed new 15-page regulation that would require the holes in Swiss cheese to be reduced from an average of eleven-sixteenths to three-eighths of an inch in diameter in order to qualify for a federal Grade A rating.


The new guidelines -- which will replace federal Swiss cheese standards established in 1987 -- were revealed by the Washington Post this month, and have already been criticized by Citizens Against Government Waste and Gourmet magazine.


For Libertarians, the new Swiss cheese rule -- and the fact that federal bureaucrats care about such trivial issues as the size of cheese holes -- is just another example of how the federal government is up to, well, no gouda.


"Something smells here, and it isn't the Limburger," said Getz. "It's these federal bureaucrats who think they should be able to tax, regulate, mandate, subsidize, prohibit, or micromanage every area of our lives -- up to and including the size of the holes in our Swiss cheese.


"Frankly, Americans are getting feta up with this kind of meddling. If these federal busybodies are not stopped, what will they regulate next? The size of the holes in doughnuts? The holes in onion rings? The holes in Bill Clinton's alibis?"


The USDA claims it is considering the change because of lobbying from the cheese industry, which wants the more popular smaller-hole cheese to qualify for the government's Grade A rating. Currently, the smaller-hole cheese gets a Grade B rating, which reduces the price that cheesemakers can charge for it.


But the solution is not to lobby the government -- and have high-priced, tax-funded "brieaucrats" research and debate the proper size of cheese holes -- but to turn it over to the free market, said Getz.


"There is no reason why a cheese industry board, funded by manufacturers, can't set quality standards for cheese," he said. "And there's no reason why cheesemakers can't offer Swiss cheese with differently sized holes to consumers, and let them buy whatever kind they like best. The federal government doesn't need to be involved in such decisions."


Instead of worrying about such trivia, federal cheese dips should just leave Americans' provolone alone, said Getz.


"Americans don't need Monterey Jack-booted thugs from the USDA messing with our Swiss cheese," he said. "The bottom line is that this cheese regulation is to the proper function of government what Cheese Whiz is to real cheese."




<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cols=1 cellPadding=0 width=600 bgColor=#404040>
<T>
<TR>
<TD>Copyright © by muet &amp; muetschard - 2000 -
<>document.write('<a href=mailto:'; &#100;ocument.writemailaddr;&#100;ocument.write ' target="_blank">'); document.write(mailaddr); document.writeln('</A></TD>')
markusXatXmuetXdotXcom</TD></TR></T></TABLE>

[Nelson]

Justin Raimondo agrees with us—thank God, and predictably so. If he chooses to read ANU.ORG more often, perhaps he'll join me in distinguishing more clearly between real paleo-libs and pseudo- or neo-libs, regardless of LP affiliation.


Note the supreme iron of this situation:


Liberts (big -L) form party to lure less radical and religious conservatives into a "soy protein" knockoff of conservatism, claiming it represents the original ideas of Jefferson, Madison et al. (it does—just enough to make the disguise complete).


They get a Congressman who'se about 1/3 big-L and 2/3 conservative to run for president. I suspect this pulls himpersonally further in the big-L direction.


As 20 years pass,"mainstream" conservatism and virtually all "mainstream" libertarianism (big and small L) morph into bizarro globalist Caligula Vlad-the-impaler genocidal mania........


And we (or somebody) have now succeeded pulling Ron Paul past all brands of conservatism into nationalism, and his name's become a curse to all of the above except for the few remaining paleo-conservatives and a rapidly growing army of Americans painfully cured of allegiance to this or that political brand name!


Are the GOP and LP as we know them today rivals or fornicators together? Perhaps they're not too sure either. Observing them, perhaps one can be forgiven for thinking of The Story of Little Black Sambo:


And the Tigers were very, very
angry, but still they would not let go of each other's tails.
And they were so angry, that they ran round the tree,
trying to eat each other up, and they ran faster
and faster, till they were whirling round so fast
that you couldn't see their legs at all.

And they still ran faster and faster and faster, till
they all just melted away, and there was nothing
left but a great big pool of melted butter.........


Posted today (thanks, Don):


http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11306



<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%">
<T>
<TR>
<TD =columntext>Bizarro 'Libertarianism'
Fake libertarian legal scholar crawls out of the woodwork to attack Ron Paul's antiwar stance </TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD =author></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV id=columntext>


Noted libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett's pro-war manifesto – which aims to reconcile classical liberalism and neoconservative foreign policy adventurism, and attacks Ron Paul for opposing the Iraq war – will doubtless go down in the history of the freedom movement as the founding document of Bizarro libertarianism, a misshapen byproduct of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. According to my theory, the sheer force of the World Trade Center's collapse tore a hole in the space-time continuum, with the result that we slipped into an alternate universe – Bizarro World – where up is down, right is left, and mass murder is the apotheosis of pure liberty.


Barnett isn't the first and won't be the last such victim of 9/11 Derangement Syndrome, but he is certainly the most prominent libertarian to succumb. His distinguished scholarly career – or, perhaps, not that distinguished – is his entrée into the pages of the War Street Journal. Notwithstanding any of that, his ideological evolution from anarcho-capitalist [.pdf] and disciple of Lysander Spooner, as channeled by Murray Rothbard, to state-legitimating author of Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty – which argues against Spooner and makes the case for a "libertarian" statism in which the federal government may impose "liberty" on the states – is a journey that sounds awfully familiar to students of recent intellectual history. The neoconservatives, who started out on the Trotskyist Left and wound up recanting and spinning ever-more-elaborate and extreme arguments against their former views, long ago embarked on a similar odyssey.


Bizarro libertarianism, it turns out, is merely a subspecies of neoconservatism, albeit without the leftist history, and Barnett exhibits the telltale characteristics we have all come to know and hate. The neocons, whatever their particular stripe, are united in their methodology and their inimitable style, which relies heavily on a characteristically neoconnish condescension:


"While the number of Americans who self-identify as 'libertarian' remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres – what is sometimes called 'economic conservatism' and 'social liberalism.' But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists."


The Bizarro libertarians would, naturally, have an extreme aversion to Ron Paul: the Good Doctor is their kryptonite. Just like Bizarro Superman and the real Superman were deadly enemies, so the lapsed libertarians of Barnett's ilk are driven mad by the mere sight of Paul standing up to the thuggish Giuliani and insisting on a reality-based assessment of U.S. foreign policy. Rather than ask why or how Ron Paul got such a lot of mileage out of this encounter, Barnett resorts to the typical neocon ploy of writing his own alternate-universe narrative, in which Giuliani's widelymocked and effectively skewered grandstanding was a great victory for the War Party and its candidate: "It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president." Another Great Leader is born, and the former anarcho-capitalist is "electrified"......</DIV></TD></TR></T></TABLE>

[Wicked Warren]

Currently I am researching both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. At the moment, I am leaning favorably toward the latter. There is a Washington state chapter, so in the event I join it will be easy for me to become immersed in its agenda and activities.


www.constitutionparty.org is running a story about a poll indicating that a majorityof Republicans polled are disgruntled with the two-party system, and are ripe to jump to a third party in 2008.Edited by: Wicked Warren

I don't want to offend anybody, but feel the urge to start something [img]smileys/smiley1.gif[/img]about big-L Libertarians. Iconfess I see the Libertarian Party and many who claim the label (big-L OR small-L) as a real problem. Don't get me wrong—there are fine people in this category but they seem to me always warped in their thinking insofar as it toes the LP line.

You're all over it, Nelson. We will use a single example: Lew Rockwell.


The Rockwell site attracts many excellent anti-establishment writers whose material makes it frequently to the ANU front page. And it should be so: COL Kwiatkowski, Charley Reese, Fred Reed, and occasionally Lew himself.


But Rockwell inc. is well criticized for a number of fatal faults. 1) They are disciples of the Ludwig von Mises version of Capitalist world poverty a la Rothschild. 2) They are disciples of the Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman schools, similar to von Mises, and just another branch of the Rothschildefeller all-the-money-in-Geneva line of world poverty. 3) They screech to the highest heavens whenever Race is mentioned, especially the suggestion that Whites should reign supreme in their own country that their own ancestors sacrificed to found and build.


Many of the NS folks call Lew an extremely unflattering epithet, suggesting his being effeminate. Largely they are right. Lew P____ would never dream of posting a post at CasteFootball.US, nor has he EVER wrote a damned thing from a pro-White motivation.


I don't trust the Libertarians far as I can stumble. It would be great if Ron Paul could gain universal ballot access with the Constitution Party. It would have to be with a large degree of nose-holding that Paul would be relegated to the Libertarian Ticket for the 2008 election ... if there IS a 2008 election.Edited by: Realgeorge

[Nelson]

Wow, I wasn't aware of allthat! In all fairness, Ron Paul never overtly mentions race and he's no sissy—and the Rockwell site carries TONS of GREAT paleo-conservative material, not a little of which is linked in this Forum.


Sounds like your read National Socialism's issue on Liberts, Real—did you? A jarring account on Rothbard, Mises et al. God only knows how much of it is accurate—a great deal, I fear. Chameleons will be chameleons.


Edited by: Nelson

Sounds like your read National Socialism's issue on Liberts, Real—did you? A jarring account on Rothbard, Mises et al. God only knows how much of it is accurate—a great deal, I fear. Chameleons will be chameleons.

A gifted economic scholar I ain't. But here's how I equate the Von Mises types: All of their literature is predicated on the Goodness and Desirability of the Federal Reserve System. If only it were run CORRECTLY, the Rothbardian way, the Friedman-ian way, monetary life in USofA would be wonderful. It's those mean-spirited FED Chairmen who have mismanaged the Fed and its monetarist policies. Bernanke, Volcker, Greenspan = BAD. Friedman, Rothbard = GOOD. A kinder, gentler type of monster running the FED ... kinder, gentler currency manipulation.


America was America before 1913 and the arrival of the Third Bank of the United States, i.e. the Federal Reserve Banking system. It's been all downhill since then. The only sensible and livable monetary policy for the USofA is abolition of the Federal Reserve, and its replacement with Congressional-operated Treasury -- the original American "honest money" system. Essentially banking and usury would be outlawed. In its place would be a "Depository System" as described in the famous book "The Legalized Crime of Banking" by Silas Walter Adams (which see, available at Omni Christian Books omnicbc.com) ... and its very similar to the monetary system described by Dr. Adrian Krieg, his book "Money", at Northern Voice Bookstore.Edited by: Realgeorge

[Wicked Warren]

Gawd! How do you guys find enough time to read all that good stuff? Whenever I focus my attention on reading a book, I fall into a deep hypnotic trance before I can finish two or three chapters.


When I'm elected to Congress on the Constitution ticket, I'm going to appoint all of you to my staff, so you can write my speeches andput the right words into my mouth before each of my appearances on TV talk shows. It will drive O'Reilly and Hannity nuts!


Thank you for enlightening me. I'm beginning to grasp that should Paul run on a minor-party ticket, it will be the Constitution Party. Henceforth, I shall not toy further with joining the Libertarian Party.


Every day in every way I'm beginning to see more light at the end of the tunnel. Ron's energyseems to be holding up quite well, and his fan-club numbers appear to be growing exponentially. At this stage of the campaign, what more can we ask for?


Onward and upward to victory in 2008!

Thank you for enlightening me. I'm beginning to grasp that should Paul run on a minor-party ticket, it will be the Constitution Party. Henceforth, I shall not toy further with joining the Libertarian Party.

Howdy Warren, thanks for the kind words.


I think you would make an OUTSTANDING Congressman. You've got my vote! You could even give Nancy Pelosi a kiss on the cheek when you get sworn in!


Let us not write off the Libertarian Party as an election vehicle for Ron Paul. It might come to pass that Mr. Paul will need to file as a Libertarian to be recognized on the ballots in all fifty states. The Constitution Party would be preferable indeed. But Ron will go wherever he will be universally on the ballot.


There are SOME Libertarians who are pretty darned good. I thought Harry Brown would have made a superb President. Never mind that he wanted to legalize Heroin ... So what? MTV is much more harmful. Middle-class American kids would never touch heroin or other opiates, but they sure do tune into the scantily-clad Siren song of MTV, starting them on a long road to empty-headed nihilism.


Let's push Ron Paul's presidency, regardless of which party he files underEdited by: Realgeorge

[Colonel_Reb]

Anytime I can, I am voting for Constitution candidates here in Mississippi, but I hope I have a chance to vote for Ron Paul as a GOP candidate. I have been supporting him by word and wallet for some time now and I hope he keeps getting support. I heard that hehas beengiven more money by members of the U.S. military than any other candidate to date. It is really awesome to see McCain's "Crooked Talk Express" get derailed and to see Ron Paul being supported so much. I hope he keeps it up!

[Nelson]

I think you would make an OUTSTANDING Congressman. You've got my vote! You could even give Nancy Pelosi a kiss on the cheek when you get sworn in!


Let us not write off the Libertarian Party as an election vehicle for Ron Paul. It might come to pass that Mr. Paul will need to file as a Libertarian to be recognized on the ballots in all fifty states. The Constitution Party would be preferable indeed. But Ron will go wherever he will be universally on the ballot.


There are SOME Libertarians who are pretty darned good. I thought Harry Brown would have made a superb President. Never mind that he wanted to legalize Heroin ... So what?

Just catching up with this good stuff. Warren, will you do it? I hope you will and make a serious campaign of it, but believe me, if all you do is agree for them to put your name down on ANY meaningfully freedom-oriented party's ticket, that's a rush too, and it does help the cause.


Even at that bargain-basement rate you should get at least some opportunities to speak your mind via the media. In my first campaign for Congress it was a thrill to discover all candidates were invited to make a brief statement on local TV, and that radio stations (some? all?) were required to allow candidates to come record (free of charge) a short spot to be aired 5 or 10 times each day (free of charge). Our went out on the Christian stations only—I'm not sure why.


Somebody who knows more about this, fill in the blanks please. Would that be you, RG?....... As you know i agree about the good big-L Liberts. Harry Browne—YES! How I miss him even though I only knew his writings. I would imagine it cost him big to stand against the "war" in the early days when the whole fascist mob of amurricans was running after it and trampling everyone who hesitated.


.........Gee, where did all those YELLOW RIBBON STICKERS on cars go? What, these people don't "support our troops" any longer? Or are they feeling just a little bit stupid for backing the wrong horse the whole time?[img]smileys/smiley5.gif[/img]


Warren (and everybody) there's nothing to being a Congressman, senator or whatever other popular representative you become. Be like Ron Paul—simply announce your principles and stick to them in your voting. If all you do is vote down all stupid spending (whole budgets included) you'll bea RARE hero. You WOULD make a stellar but there are numerous other offices that urgently need good people in them—city and county councils included.


Edited by: Nelson

[Nelson]

The latest video show has a Google mogul asking Ron Paul the hard questions we've all wondered and didn't dare ask. I eagerly await y'all's comments.


Again, iths the queer phenomenon of an otherwise all-American regular guy of traditional origins bowing low before aformof Judaism without explaining why or where he got this fetish. I guess the reasoning would be that his very secularized, quasi-pragmatistic worldview is based on Jefferson et al, but really, open borders? Apparently he hasn't ever opposed this very central tenet of the communist program for ameriKa.


He started in PA and ended in TX, and apparently somewhere along the way they put something in his drinking water. Must have been the same stuff as they gave Texas-born Jimmy Dobson to turn him into a "Christian psychologist" In CA with a weirdly twisted, hyper-feminized approach to ministry.


I suspect Dr. Paul's disconcerting answers are as much strategic PR as they are his actual gut feeling. If that be the case i can easily live with it. If not, hmm.


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/07/1 7/spotlight-on-presidential-candidate-ron-paul.aspx


Did you all see the followingwhen it made the rounds recently? For a staunch Christian traditionalist he certainly doesn't ever make reference to his faith in his politics, the Bible or the only true Lawgiver of the universe. Don't worry, I'm still for him 101 percent, but..... hmm.
<DIV>
<DIV>The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007</DIV>
<DIV>http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm</DIV></DIV>



<DIV>"I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Ron Paul</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007</DIV>


"Only freedom really has compassion".......


Edited by: Nelson

"I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. " -Ron Paul


U.D. comment: When the above Ron Paul quote hit the 'net, it coincided with his visit to Greenville S.C.. Flashback: 1980, Greenville County Republican Convention: Ronald Reagan visits Greenville. One-page handouts were given to all who would take them at the convention. On it was a testimony, supposedly authored by Ronald Reagan. It said virtually the same thing. But R.R. was no Christian. (Just read what he had chiseled on to his monument in California.)


IMO, this was a political propaganda ploy by the Reafgan campaign in 1980. I now become suspicious about such statements of faith as a vote getter gimmick.


I sincerely hope Ron Paul is a Christian and his faith is real. As best I can tell, the majority of his views are not inconflict with Scripture. This is the first I've read on his soft stand on sodomy. Mr. Paul is old enough and mature enough to know what the Bible says on that issue.


As I posted before, I hope Ron Paul, if elected, does not turn out to be a disappointment. His voting record is not.

[Colonel_Reb]

Reagan was a member of the "Disciples of Christ" and went to Eureka College in Eureka, Illinois. From what I understand about that "faith," aside from Jesus being the Son of God, pretty much everything elseis open to interpretation. It was disconcerting to me, but I guess I can expect no less from any politician. What we need are Statesmen!

[Nelson]

I hope Ron Paul, if elected, does not turn out to be a disappointment. His voting record is not.

His voting record is exactly what saves us. Mention it freely (even if you don't have the specifics on you) in promoting him to people—it's the platinum ingot of current politics. What I've written here is merely for analytical purposes. Nobody's perfect, but Dr. Paul is so many light years ahead of the others in quality andcapabilityhe makes them look like the swine and vermin they truly are. In fact he many be the most truly Christian presidential candidate this country has had since Jeff Davis. Full steam ahead!


BTW, does anybody have an idea what he plans to replace the present funny money made out of thin air with? I'd thought he wanted to go back on the gold standard, but he seems almost scornful of that idea in the film.


Edited by: Nelson

[Nelson]

Here's a fairly major Libertarian figure who's standing up for freedom—Tim Moultrie.


From: "Rebekah S" &lt;@gmail.com&gt;
To: awood@wspa.com, admin@schotline.com, am@cnn.com,
<X-TAB></X-TAB>mtp@nbc.com, FNCspecials@foxnews.com, friends@foxnews.com,
<X-TAB></X-TAB>lou@cnn.com
Subject: INFO: Teacher arrested for promoting Ron Paul
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From: ronpaul-281@meetup.com</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Date: Saturday, September 08, 2007 9:31:06 AM</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">To: ronpaul-281@meetup.com</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Subject: [ronpaul-281] Re: Arrested for Ron</DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I had my first brush with the law as I push for Ron Paul. I got arrested. Yeah, I was being civilly disobedient by hanging a Ron Paul banner on a railroad trestle. When a city cop rolled up and arrested me. I didn't resist or flee and the time I spent handcuffed in the back of the patrol car gave me time enough to explain why a middle aged teacher with no arrests in his entire life would support Ron for President. Apparently he was moved enough to release me and allow me to avoid an afternoon in the clink, but I still have a $465 dollar fine staring me in the face.

The real problem for me is that I am that "marginal middle class" family man that Ron refers to when he talks about the government spending eating away at the middle class. As a teacher its hard enough to make ends meet. This certainly doesn't help. I expect that my wife and children will detest PB&amp;J before the month is over.

Away, if you happen to know any folks who would like to help out I'd appreciate it. My court date is Monday September, 17th.

I'm just looking for help defraying the cost of the fine. Any little bit will help. Once the fine is paid I'll happily return all extra monies to the donors ... or if they prefer ... I'll buy more paint and hang more signs for Ron. {;-{)}

Go Ron Paul!!!

Liberty!
Timothy Moultrie (ps I plan to pay my fine with 465 one dollar bills stamped with - Ron Paul President 2008.)
6701 Platt Springs Rd
Lexington, SC 29073
hm 803-894-6470
cell 803-312-5167</DIV></DIV>Edited by: Nelson

[Nelson3]

Another Why I'm Not a Libertarian article

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=3638

...............for the collection.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;a...mp;as_epq=why+ i+am+not+a+libertarian&amp;as_oq=&amp;as_eq=&amp;n um=10&amp; lr=&amp;as_filetype=&amp;ft=i&amp;as_sitesearch=&a mp;as_qdr= all&amp;as_rights=&amp;as_occt=any&amp;cr=&amp;as_ nlo=&amp;a s_nhi=&amp;safe=images

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;l...;q=%22why+i%27 m+not+a+libertarian%22&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=

[eric1]

The problem with the Libertarian Party is that it embraces laissez faire capitalism. A lack of regulation on the derivatives and credit default swaps is largely responsible for the current mess we're in.


As per the Constitutional Party, there overly religious platform scares away many moderates. Both parties have CONSISTENTLY showed over the years that they are not going to garner more than 5% of the vote at the federal/national level. The same can generally be said at the state level.


That said, more people are registering as INDEPENDENTS in many locales rather than for the two mainstream parties. A moderate, Independent party has the best chance in my view of displacing the power positions of those two parties. A party with POTENTIAL in my view is at the link below:


http://www.newamericanindependent.com