Libertarian, Constitution Party Leaders endorse Ron paul for President

user437490845hjgd · 02-28-2007, 09:05 PM

Who: Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Congressman Ron Paul is a physician and Republican Congressman from the 14th District of Texas. He is 100% Pro-Gun, anti-Illegal Immigration and is rated by Human Events Magazine as the biggest Tax Cutter in all of Congress. He currently has a 100% rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably the most relevant and accurate reflection of a congressman?s true conservative record out there. Ron Paul has been the most outspoken defender of constitutional government in the entire congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and big government, earning the nickname "Dr. No" for voting no on every single unconstitutional bill put before him, regardless of which party tabled it.

In addition, as a freshman Congressman he was a leader of Ronald Reagan's Electoral Delegation. Many Republicans consider it a bad thing that Ron Paul, while he supported the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, opposed the invasion of Iraq and opposes the continued US Military and Financial support of the current Government of Iraq. Considering that the ruling government of Iraq is dominated by the psychopathic gang of murderers known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Islamic Al Dawa Party, who are the very same Islamic Terrorist Parties which bombed the US & French Embassies in Kuwait, and murdered 241 United States Marines in Beirut in 1983, Ron Paul is right in calling for a cutoff of US Military and Financial to this terrorist thug-regime - they are in no way deserving of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars, and it in no way serves America's strategic interests to incubate another dictatorial state in the middle-east. No form of free society will ever emerge from such an abomination. This is a failed experiment, and was dead from the start as a result of poor civilian planning and abysmal civilian leadership.

Comprehensive information for Ron Paul, on the issues:
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Want to know more?

http://www.ronpaul.org/
http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/
http://www.house.gov/paul/
http://www.reason.com/news/show/118086.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

What: endorsed by Libertarian (LP) and Constitution (CP) Party leadership, in addition to the Republican Liberty caucus.

If Ron Paul secures the Republican nomination in early 2008, a deal is in the works for both the CP and LP to not run candidates in opposition, and to rally behind him. Ron Paul's values diverge enough from those of Bush-Republicans that his campaign is also actively courting liberty-minded and fiscally-responsible elements of the Democratic Party that are traditionally left deciding between a government interested in their wallets, and a government interested in what they do in the bedroom, what they smoke in the kitchen, and whether they are buying more than 100 mg of ephedrine a month.

Who is Ron Paul running against in the Republican primary?

(1) Rudy. Essentially a centrist democrat with left-wing views on abortion, gun control, and spending who is only buoyed by a tough stance on crime (admirable) and his hawkish foreign policy views (looking more naive as time continues to prove the great neocon experiment a failure). Granted, he is probably more conservative than Bush II. Pro-WOT, pro-WOD, pro-big-gov.

(2) John McCain. A pathologically media-obsessed egocentric big-government moron who has a problem with the first amendment. Even more naive than Rudy on foreign policy - not only does he approve of these neocon experiments, but he advocates that they be attempted by troops with their hands tied behind their backs. A bigger disaster than Bush for both America and for conservatism. Pro-WOT, pro-WOD, pro-big-gov.

(3) Mitt Romney. Puff piece candidate with nice hair thrown in the spotlight by the media. Nobody knows what his views are, not even himself. He is partially insulated by the fact that the media will blame opposition to his candidacy on "religious intolerance". The media loves a victim so much, they manufactured one. Probably better than McCain, but nobody knows for sure.

Right now, Ron Paul's standing against the three-headed hydra of big-government pseudo/neo-conservatives is not enviable. He is rarely included in poll questions by the drive-by media. It is going to stay that way unless there is a swell of grassroots support in the next few months.

With a hat-tip to Bruce Roberts (RLC) and OrthodoxPresbyterian .

UltimateNYC · 02-28-2007, 09:08 PM

where can i go to show my support?

xer0xed · 03-01-2007, 05:32 AM

Good, now they won't split the vote. =)

Staberella · 03-01-2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltimateNYC

where can i go to show my support?

x2

Germanic · 03-01-2007, 07:18 AM

X3!

Staberella · 03-01-2007, 07:19 AM

Check out this blog. Has all the Ron Paul info you can ask for with tons of links:

http://electronpaul.blogspot.com/

The Experiment · 03-01-2007, 07:23 AM

2008 is going to be an interesting year.

mlc82 · 03-01-2007, 08:07 AM

Wow... Someone who's a fan of education and the 2nd Amendment, but doesn't just start prattling on about morality and gay marriage and abortion (arguably the biggest grand strategic non-issues in the history of the world)... I have to say I'm impressed. I might actually vote for this guy, being that this could be the first time George Carlin's comparison of voting to masturbation might not apply.

Edit: I should add that so far I tend to lean toward the libertarians although I despise their lack of border protection... The Constitution party ran me off with their "Jesus laws" the first time I saw their webpage.

catmando · 03-01-2007, 08:26 AM

Paul will split the Republican party. Now if Nader can be kept off the ballots the Democrats will win in a landslide.

BlueBayou · 03-01-2007, 09:24 AM

We can hope, and we can try our best. I am going to do what I can to support this man, and I hope that all of you will at least give him a chance. America needs to be pulled back a bit towards our roots that made us so great. There are going to be things about Ron Paul that some dont like, but when compared to the virus that has infected most of the Repubs and Dems in DC, he is a far better choice. He will be just enough to deflect our course back inline with where it should be.

Globalism is destroying America. The Welfare State is destroying America. Straying from the the Constitution and vision of our forefathers that has made us so great, is destroying America. Its time for a revolution, and it will take a revolution to return America to the people and back towards our roots, to get him into the White House.

One thing that will make it hard for him, and us, is the lack of support and discussion that will be given to him by ABC CBS NBC CNN FOX and others, and the lack of support that he will recieve from 'the system'. If Ron Paul is to win, the people of the US are really going to have to do some major work to support him.

2008 - Ron Paul for President - 2008
^
|
\/

tpreitzel · 03-01-2007, 10:18 AM

I agree that a Paul presidency would be good for US.

I'm a little concerned for his safety. Populist candidates, e.g. George Wallace, have difficulty weathering the storm of politics.

Lion Heart · 03-01-2007, 10:54 AM

Ru Paul has no chance in hell of winning the nomination. Let's think with our noggins here. Like Hilary vs Obama on the left, it's Rudy vs McCain on the right. And in the end it's who you think will be best to lead the country and who best fits your political beliefs.

Fitqb · 03-01-2007, 11:23 AM

'08 will be a horrible year for a third party candidate.

mlc82 · 03-01-2007, 12:38 PM

Honestly, I'm 100% convinced all a Republican candidate has to do is say "I'm against gay marriage!" and no matter how terrible he might be otherwise, the majority of conservatives out there will vote for them anyway. Not meant as finger pointing here, but this honestly wouldn't surprise me.

The Experiment · 03-01-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catmando

Paul will split the Republican party. Now if Nader can be kept off the ballots the Democrats will win in a landslide.

Paul will be lucky to get anything higher than single digits in terms of primary percentages.

BlueBayou · 03-01-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lion Heart

Ru Paul has no chance in hell of winning the nomination. Let's think with our noggins here. Like Hilary vs Obama on the left, it's Rudy vs McCain on the right. And in the end it's who you think will be best to lead the country and who best fits your political beliefs.

Oh yeah, I forgot to use my noggin. WHAT WAS I THINKING!?

Youre right, the 'chosen' members Giuliani or McCain would be far better choices for America, right!?

If it were Clinton vs Paul, Paul would win in a landslide- the biggest landslide in American history. Getting him there is a whole other story though because he is so anti-establishment, anti-power elite, anti-Globalist.

Youve given up and thrown in the towel. Thats fine for you. I wont give up and never will. The 'establishment' in Washington DC is screwing America over intentionally in the name of Globalism, and one way or another, its going to stop.

You want to see how controlled the mainstream media is as well? Watch how little coverage they give Ron Paul. Its all of us- all the people of America, versus the Globalist establishment in Washington DC, and the mainstream media; both of which are controlled by the same evils which are destroying America.

resurrected · 03-01-2007, 01:45 PM

From what I have heard about this person he may be a good choice because he is libertarian which means less goverment in our lives, but on the other hand, I have heard little about his stance on the war. This could hurt his chances greatly at thsi time. He needs to speak out on it.

BlueBayou · 03-01-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catmando

Paul will split the Republican party. Now if Nader can be kept off the ballots the Democrats will win in a landslide.

I think you may 'misunderestimate' the situation.

Seriously, why do say he would 'split' the Republican Party? Explain.

Quite the contrary, I believe he would not only be extremely attractive to Republican voters- morseo than any other Republican candidate lately, but most Democrat voters as well, except for those who love abusing the system(welfare, socialism, etc) and those who dont have a clue what Globalism is and how it is destroying America.

If it were Clinton(or Obama, or whoever) against Paul, the people of America would rally behind Paul in the biggest landslide in American history- as long as we can defeat the power of the controlled mainstream media.

The people are looking for change. Clinton, Obama, McCain, Giuliani, Romney etc etc, are not about change. They are about the same bull**** and are all on the same Globalist team that is destroying America- through extremely detrimental, long-term, and very intentional and coordinated activity such as:

- Emperialistic wars
- ALLOWED and ENDORSED illegal immigration
- The INTENTIONALLY created and extremely rapidly expanding Welfare State which is rapidly creating a dependent class of non-working people, and moreso than most working, tax-paying Americans realize
- Other Federally sponsored and endorsed socialist programs which intentionally create dependence
- Rapidly expanding Federal Government
- Rapidly expanding Police State
- Attacks on the Constitution
- Gun control
- Federal Government corruption beyond excess
- Controlled mainstream media/state-supported propaganda
- Decrease in State and local rights
- Federal abuses of power
- Economic policies which take jobs from Americans and send them elsewhere
- Attacks on the sovereignty of every nation on Earth, including America itself
- etc etc.

Lion Heart · 03-01-2007, 09:14 PM

I haven't "given up" bluemoron, er bayou. My guy is already in there.

ironman1964bc · 03-01-2007, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlc82

Honestly, I'm 100% convinced all a Republican candidate has to do is say "I'm against gay marriage!" and no matter how terrible he might be otherwise, the majority of conservatives out there will vote for them anyway. Not meant as finger pointing here, but this honestly wouldn't surprise me.

Or else say "I am a Christian" like Bush did which was enough reason for my parents to vote for him. My mother alway votes for the anti-abortionist candidate, it wouldn't matter if it was Josef Stalin himself. What we really need is new voters....not new candidates.

Paul is great, especially his hatred of the Federal Reserve which is the biggest enemy of our country today. There isn't much that he could do about it even if he was president, but it would be a nice start. Of course, that is if he makes it through the first week without getting shot. The last president who tried to bypass the federal reserve was JFK.

BlueBayou · 03-01-2007, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by resurrected

From what I have heard about this person he may be a good choice because he is libertarian which means less goverment in our lives, but on the other hand, I have heard little about his stance on the war. This could hurt his chances greatly at thsi time. He needs to speak out on it.

He has been very open about this. Also, his position on all these issues is very easy to find if youd like to look for yourself. I think you will find that he is inline with what most Americans want on many many issues more than any other politician of recent.

He was for the war in Afghanistan, going against the Taliban there, and going against Al-Qaeda there and elsewhere. However, he was very much against the war in Iraq from the start of the hype about it, and one of the few who was right and very vocal about this situation from the beginning. [BTW, there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, but there sure is now.] He voted against the Iraq war resolution and both Patriot acts. He warns, more than any other Congressman, that an emperialistic war with Iran is coming, and is very much against it. He also warns that a draft is likely, in order to support the Globalist agenda, and is very much against that as well.

He has made his position very clear on this. He has a very strong stance on this issue. Again, the reason you have heard little about this is because of the Globalist-controlled mainstream media. Over 2 billion dollars, of your tax money, has gone directly from the White House to the mainstream media in the past 4 years for the purposes of propaganda. Will a couple million dollars here and there and everywhere buy propaganda, and make media figures forget about reporting truth? You betcha. It already has.

Its time to fight back.

BTW, he is the most vehement anti-gun control Congressman in America.

There are so many things about him that Americans would love if they knew the truth, but the Globalist and their paid sheep will not tell you about it/him.

xer0xed · 03-02-2007, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlc82

Wow... Someone who's a fan of education and the 2nd Amendment, but doesn't just start prattling on about morality and gay marriage and abortion (arguably the biggest grand strategic non-issues in the history of the world)... I have to say I'm impressed. I might actually vote for this guy, being that this could be the first time George Carlin's comparison of voting to masturbation might not apply.

Edit: I should add that so far I tend to lean toward the libertarians although I despise their lack of border protection... The Constitution party ran me off with their "Jesus laws" the first time I saw their webpage.

Paul is tough on illegal immigration, and you're seeing a high probability of drastically ramping up border control/deportations.

resurrected · 03-02-2007, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueBayou

He has been very open about this. Also, his position on all these issues is very easy to find if youd like to look for yourself. I think you will find that he is inline with what most Americans want on many many issues more than any other politician of recent.

He was for the war in Afghanistan, going against the Taliban there, and going against Al-Qaeda there and elsewhere. However, he was very much against the war in Iraq from the start of the hype about it, and one of the few who was right and very vocal about this situation from the beginning. [BTW, there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, but there sure is now.] He voted against the Iraq war resolution and both Patriot acts. He warns, more than any other Congressman, that an emperialistic war with Iran is coming, and is very much against it. He also warns that a draft is likely, in order to support the Globalist agenda, and is very much against that as well.

He has made his position very clear on this. He has a very strong stance on this issue. Again, the reason you have heard little about this is because of the Globalist-controlled mainstream media. Over 2 billion dollars, of your tax money, has gone directly from the White House to the mainstream media in the past 4 years for the purposes of propaganda. Will a couple million dollars here and there and everywhere buy propaganda, and make media figures forget about reporting truth? You betcha. It already has.

Its time to fight back.

BTW, he is the most vehement anti-gun control Congressman in America.

There are so many things about him that Americans would love if they knew the truth, but the Globalist and their paid sheep will not tell you about it/him.

Thanks for the info, I have done very little by the way of studying his agenda. I only go by what I hear from others. This does mean alot though. I am really libertarian, leaning to the right. So this would be a refreshing change.
Now everyone pile on catmando and turn this persons mind around to a clearer way of thinking...........

mlc82 · 03-02-2007, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironman1964bc

Or else say "I am a Christian" like Bush did which was enough reason for my parents to vote for him. My mother alway votes for the anti-abortionist candidate, it wouldn't matter if it was Josef Stalin himself. What we really need is new voters....not new candidates.

Paul is great, especially his hatred of the Federal Reserve which is the biggest enemy of our country today. There isn't much that he could do about it even if he was president, but it would be a nice start. Of course, that is if he makes it through the first week without getting shot. The last president who tried to bypass the federal reserve was JFK.

Yeah I forgot to include those famous 4 words.

The Experiment · 03-02-2007, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironman1964bc

Or else say "I am a Christian" like Bush did which was enough reason for my parents to vote for him. My mother alway votes for the anti-abortionist candidate, it wouldn't matter if it was Josef Stalin himself. What we really need is new voters....not new candidates.

Paul is great, especially his hatred of the Federal Reserve which is the biggest enemy of our country today. There isn't much that he could do about it even if he was president, but it would be a nice start. Of course, that is if he makes it through the first week without getting shot. The last president who tried to bypass the federal reserve was JFK.

We need new voters, lol, classic.

I think we should administer an IQ test before voting. That will automatically weed out most of the bumpkins and their single minded decision making. Not saying your mother is but there are millions of people voting that shouldn't be.

JFK was awesome though. We need another one like him in office.

TricepsNGirls · 03-02-2007, 09:17 AM

I wiki'ed the guy and saw that he opposes income tax and the federal reserve. He also wants a gold standard. lol at that. What's with this fantasy of going back to the obsolete? State-centered government? Good thing it's a minority opinion otherwise our nation would end up in ruins. Deregulation = power to the industries. You'll have big business running the nation. This isn't some "Little House on the Prairie" dreamworld where you can just take power away from government and live a fine and dandy independent life.

Staberella · 03-02-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Experiment

We need new voters, lol, classic.

I think we should administer an IQ test before voting. That will automatically weed out most of the bumpkins and their single minded decision making. Not saying your mother is but there are millions of people voting that shouldn't be.

JFK was awesome though. We need another one like him in office.

I discussed this awhile back with aquaintances of mine, I also added that those on welfare should not be allowed to vote unless they've been off of government assistance for 6 months due to conflict of interest. They threw a ****fit.

The Experiment · 03-02-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TricepsNGirls

I wiki'ed the guy and saw that he opposes income tax and the federal reserve. He also wants a gold standard. lol at that. What's with this fantasy of going back to the obsolete? State-centered government? Good thing it's a minority opinion otherwise our nation would end up in ruins. Deregulation = power to the industries. You'll have big business running the nation. This isn't some "Little House on the Prairie" dreamworld where you can just take power away from government and live a fine and dandy independent life.

I agree with your comment on gold standard. Gold standard was nothing but trainwreck after trainwreck.

Milton Friedman's solution of a computer set system is the best solution. I don't feel like posting the article describing in detail about Friedman's idea but its out there and the idea is that a set of equations determines monetary cash flows, not CitiGroup, not Ben Bernanke, not robber barons.