Libertarian Party to Paul: Come Back!
David Weigel | December 10, 2007, 10:02am
The LP
stated the obvious with a resolution passed (unanimously) this weekend: Ron Paul is the most successful Libertarian candidate ever and the party wants him to run on their ticket.
WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party and Congressman Ron Paul share many common principles for liberty and prosperity in America, and
WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul is a member of the Libertarian Party in good standing, and
WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul was previously nominated by the delegates of the Libertarian National Convention to serve as the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential candidate, and
WHEREAS, Congressman Ron Paul, through the efforts of his current presidential campaign, has ignited a renewed passion for liberty across America, and ...
WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party and its members have remained respectful, and in many cases, supportive of Congressman Ron Paul’s campaign seeking the Republican presidential nomination...
NOW THEREFORE, in the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee urges Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during Memorial Day weekend of 2008.
Via Steve Gordon. I don't think the speculation about a third-party Paul run is going to end any time soon, no matter what he does to douse the flames. (It also confirms that the LP is ready to junk its current field at a moment's notice. It sucks to be Wayne Allyn Root/George Philles/Steve Kubby.
Richard Wicks | December 10, 2007, 10:39am | #
> The Edward who made the Nazi party comment
> isn't me. Lots of false Edwards post to sow
> confusion. I'm the one who makes the witty
> quips and mocks Ron Paul for his looniness.
There's nothing loony about him. He's just well educated, whereas you are not.
For example, Paul knows why and how Operation Ajax directly led to the formation of Al Qaeda and that's the basis of his foreign policy position. Yet here you are, with absolutely no idea what Operation Ajax is despite the fact that you could find out in a matter of minutes if you could simply use the Internet for useful things instead of viewing porn and downloading movies illegally.
> I have occasionally pointed out that he's an
> idiot for not denouncing his Nazi supporters.
He has denounced them, but there's no reason to give the money back. People who support him are free to support him.
For example, I'm an active anti-Zionist because I view any nation that uses genetic history as a basis for emmigration to be inherently racist and not deserving of US foreign aid.
Of course, I also know the full history of the formation of Israel, the 500,000 Arab refugees that Israel created, and the fact that Israel broke it's first UN resolution 1948 with UN Resolution 194, right after the very same UN CREATED Israel with 187. Also, the precursor to the Likud party murdered Count Bernadotte in 1948 as well. Zionists have always been a group of terrorists.
But I'm not a racist. I simply am not a Zionist, precisely because I'm not a racist. Should Paul give me back the $2300 I sent him because Peter Schiff asked me to?
Richard Wicks | December 10, 2007, 10:54am | #
> Richard,
>
> In spite of Ron paul's medical education, he > evidently can't read:
>
> The notion of a rigid separation between
> church and state has no basis in either the
> text of the Constitution or the writings of
> our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our
> Founders’ political views were strongly
> informed by their religious beliefs.
> Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of
> Independence and the Constitution, both
> replete with references to God, would be
> aghast at the federal government’s hostility
> to religion.—Ron Paul “The War on religion”
>
> Or he's a lying demogogue. You decide.
We've had a congressional chaplin in congress since at least 1800 and the Supreme Court has opened with a prayer, I think, forever.
What you need to do, is read history.
The Separation of Church and State was ushered in at the behest of Baptists by Jefferson in 1801 for fear that as a minority the state would crush them. It's by policy not by law.
If you actually ever bothered to read the Constitution, you'll see that it forbids the establishment of a religion, it doesn't guarantee that religion cannot be a part of government, simply that people can't be forced to worship a particular god.
And I'm atheist incidentally. I think Jesus was a homosexual hanging out with 13 other men and a fag had named Mary Magdalene, if Jesus was actually a person at all - and he probably wasn't.
Richard Wicks | December 10, 2007, 11:17am | #
> Edward | December 10, 2007, 11:09am | #
>
> Yeah, the states could be theocracies. Is that
> Ron Paul's goal?
No, his goal is to castrate the Federal Government.
Considering this Federal Government has happily stolen the Social Security Surplus since 1935 and has left my generation and the generation before with a 60 TRILLION dollar obligation to fill that gap over the next 30 years, I can only see that as a good thing.
The Federal Government "closed down" twice under Clinton and you know what happened?
Nothing. The Federal Government doesn't do much of anything other than take money and waste it on bullshit undeclared wars, and bullshit initiatives like Ethanol which has a negative return on energy investment.
If my state became a theocracy, guess what I'd do? I'd move. Who wants to live surrounded by a bunch of religious nuts anyhow? I know I don't, which is why after living in Indiana for 2 painful years, I left for California.
That was the whole point of the original union. Allow free movement between the states, and when one state government became too onerous or oppressive, you simply voted with your feet. This forced competition between the states to attract tax payers, and no state government could become too much of a burden lest they lose their economy as people got fed up with it.
And it worked great until Lincoln came in and changed the rules. It got even worse with FDR when he nationalized all the nation's gold. Today, state governments are pretty much irrelevant, since the Federal government makes decisions right down to public school testing, and meanwhile, we have a 30% drop out rate in the nation.
Our Federal government absolutely sucks. It totally absolutely FUCKING sucks.
Isn't *that* wonderful?
Don't you just love it? Let's have more of it, eh?
Richard Wicks | December 10, 2007, 11:52am | #
> I hope the fucker leaves the Republican Party
> and runs as an independent. Good riddance to
> bad rubbish. The Republican party does not need
> a piece of shit who apologizes for dictators by
> blaming their actions on the United States.
Let me give you a needed history lesson.
In 1953, the CIA with the help of British Military Intelligence overthrew the Democracy in Iran. They then placed the Shah into power. This was done in order to secure oil from Iran cheaply and to prevent Mossadeq (the elected president of Iran) from nationalizing oil interests, even though the British were doing the same exact thing at the time - which is why there is British Petroleum, also known as BP.
The Shah was a very corrupt man who ran a police state and was the US government's puppet. This is a well known fact among the Iranian populace both then, and particularly now.
The corruption of the Shah and the savagery that he used to prevent dissent created a religious movement that eventually led to the Islamic revolution brought into power by Ayatollah Khomeini which led to the Iranian hostage crisis. This Islamic revolution continues to this day. Al Qaeda is an off shoot of it.
The US having seen these events used the CIA again to place a secular leader into power in Iraq. Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein prevented any challenges to his power by murdering any religious leaders in Iraq that he felt would threaten his dominance.
The US encouraged Iraq to go to war with Iran with the goal of once again controlling Iranian oil fields. The Iran Iraq war left millions dead and decimated both populations ending in a stalemate. This is one of the bloodiest wars in the Middle East.
Now, do you have any idea what "blowback" might be? There's a justifiable reason why Middle Easterners don't like our government.
Are you happy with a government that overthrows democracies to put tyrants into power over the objections of the people there, denying their right to self determination? I'm not, Paul isn't. Who in their right would be?
Richard Wicks | December 10, 2007, 12:06pm | #
> That was pretty good, Richard Wicks, but I have
> to question that assertion that al Qaeda was
> somehow an offshoot of the Shiite revolutionary
> movement in Iran.
Stop thinking of the Middle East as a group of states, and start thinking of it as the Ottoman Empire.
The Islamic revolution is not about imposing religious doctrine on everybody, although that's a means to achieve their goals. Their goals are self determination not just for some piece of land the British arbitrarily cut out of the Ottoman Empire, it's self determination for the entire Ottoman Empire.
Religion is a common unifying factor. It's just a tool.
It's because these revolutionaries relate to "Middle East" and not their countries of origin you find an Egyptian like Arafat in the Palestinian territories, and why you find Saudis like binLaden in Afghanistan. This is why there is a real threat of the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST going to war, if we withdraw from Iraq. The Shiites of Iran may go into to help their brothers, while the Sunni of Saudi Arabia will do likewise, and it will spread and spread, until the oil export it cut off. It will end when the Ottoman Empire exists again.
This is the real danger of leaving Iraq, and we won't leave Iraq. Our oil supply is at stake and a civil war is brewing across the old Ottoman empire for control of everything.
Israel, of course, is totally fucked in this situation.
Richard Wicks | December 10, 2007, 12:19pm | #
> Richard Wicks,
>
> Don't you think that the bit about the
> Iranians helping their "Shiite brothers" and
> the Saudis helping their "Sunni brothers"
> undercuts your point about It's because these
> revolutionaries relate to "Middle East" and
> not their countries of origin?
No, not really.
They are simply competing factions.
When a civil war breaks out to control a nation, why doesn't it just break up into two nations? That would be the sensible thing to do after all.
The problem is leaders tend to be greedy and are generally power hungry. They may say they care about religion, or people, but they don't. They care about their consolidation of power.
Hence, our own Federal government in it's present day form. Does our Federal government really give a crap about you? Do they care that 70% of the population wants us out of Iraq? Do they care about inflation? Does any Republican really want to ban abortion, they had 6 years of complete control of our government. Do the Democrats really want to create national health care because they care about your health?
No, they just say they do to get power.
This happens all the time. Heck, I doubt the Pope IS Catholic, I bet he's an atheist. How could any pope not be an atheist with access to all the history about how Christianity was really created, and all those lost books of the Bible?
Richard Wicks | December 10, 2007, 12:50pm | #
> I don't question that politicians desire
> power. I question the relationship of Shitte,
> Persian Iran and the ideology of its current
> leaders to the rise of extremism among
> Sunnis.
What did Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini have in common?
Nothing, other than they learned from one another how to become effective dictators. It was Stalin that first created the notion of sleeper cells. It was Hitler that coined the phrase "homeland" to rally people.
And our government learns from them, just as different factions in the Middle East learn what works from other movements. There wouldn't be an Al Qaeda without Operation Ajax, certainly not the one we see today.
> For one thing, the mullahs can't even get
> their own "street" to go along most of the
> time - the Iranian public is far less extreme
> than the government.
If the US attacks Iran, the public will become very extreme. Some people think that Ahmadinejad is purposely trying to provoke an attack by the US to regain support of the population.
Just as 90% of America fled to support President Cunt right after 9/11. It's a knee jerk reaction. It worked for Hitler too with the Reichstag fire.
Don't overestimate the morality of your leadership. Operation Northwoods should give you pause about what sort of leaders the US has.
The Iranian overthrow of the Shah just demonstrated to the entire Middle East, how to do it. You find a cause to fight for, in Iran's case it was overthrow of a US puppet, in Al Qaeda's case, it's US involvement in Middle Eastern affairs from US bases in Saudi Arabia to Israel being formed by the UN through yes votes of ONLY NON Arab countries, and you incite people to fight and die for a glorious cause of freedom.
The overthrow of the Shah simply demonstrated "it can be done."
That's my theory anyhow, and I'm sticking with it.
