Posted on 11/11/2012 5:29:55 PM PST by Renfield
America is over $16 trillion in debt. The “official” unemployment rate still hovers around 8%.
Our federal government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial.
Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance.
Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads.
It’s not hard to see why, though.
To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, “stimulus packages,” and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans’ liberties I’ve named above.
As my campaign showed, the American people are fed up. Many realized heading into Tuesday that regardless of who won the presidential election, the status quo would be the real victor.
GOP leadership is now questioning why they didn’t perform better.
They’re looking at demographic changes in the United States and implying minorities can only be brought into the party by loudly advocating for abandoning what little remains of their limited government platform and endorsing more statist policies.
My presidential campaign proved that standing for freedom brings people together.
Liberty is popular – regardless of race, religion, or creed.
As long as the GOP establishment continues to not only reject the liberty message, but actively drive away the young, diverse coalition that supports those principles, it will see results similar to Tuesday’s outcome.
A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for the Republican Party and for our country.
I urge all my Republican colleagues to join the liberty movement in fighting for a brighter future.
It is not even smart to have rejected the opportunity to replace Obama. You must have some kind of hatred toward your country to deny us the opportunity to rid ourselves of this evil, evil person.
You really need to get over yourself. This is about YOU—to hell with your country. Narcissists are dangerous people—be they on the right or the left. I can’t get over how people can put themselves above their country.
Santorum won Iowa with Romney a short second. Iowa's nutcase Ron Paul delegates went to Tampa and cast their votes for Ron Paul when he didn't deserve a one of them. Plus, they lied because our loser of a state party chairman, A.J. Spiker told Iowa they would go to Tampa and vote for the party nominee--Romney.
To make matter worse, even Spiker voted for Paul.
“Like removing prayer form the public schools? Like mandating that someone cannot be fired because they are homosexual? That kind of Government?”
No fool....the exact opposite. This is NOT enforceing behavior conducive to the beterment of society but to its degradation. I am advocating that government should be Judeo/Christian morality based...not secular. I do not see that a a violation of the 1st Ammendment because it is NOT setting up a State Religion that the people pay tax to support like in England (original intent of the constitution). I take it we both agree that abuses have been done in the name of goverment....but it cuts both ways.
I do NOT want to become a Christian Taliban, but the pendulum needs to swing the other direction.
Ron Paul is opposed to abortion under any circumstances, but believes that it is a matter properly left to the states, as was the case pre-1973. With respect to homosexual "marriages", he believes the matter is best left outside of the realm of government. Prior to the late 19th Century, marriages were matters handled by the clergy or perhaps a justice of the peace. Genealogists researching ancestors prior to 1880 rely on parish records in the areas of birth and marriage, rather than state or county records.
Were the United States to return to minimalist government, it is likely that abortion would be legal in New York up to the third trimester, illegal in South Carolina except to preserve the life of the mother, and restricted to the first trimester in Virginia. Homosexual "marriages" would be legal in the Northeast (except Pennsylvania), the West Coast, and the Great Lakes states (except Wisconsin).
My primary objection to Paul relates to his naivete regarding America's enemies in the Middle East, his apparent abandonment of long standing alliances (not unlike Obama). Even Jefferson, one of the most anti-interventionist politicians in the early Republic, faced down the Barbary pirates, who were an early version of Muslim terrorists.
Government, as viewed by the founders, governed best when it governed least.
The Founders would never have imagined a government that followed them into the privvy, but ours has usurped that power.
Power corrupts, and our Federal Government has hoodwinked, swindled, and outright usurped far too much of the power which rightfully belongs to the several States and the people.
The less it decides for the individual, the better, and the less expensive it will be--both in terms of Rights and treasure.
People today put up with so much petty tyranny, they don't know what freedom is--not the freedom from responsibility, but the freedom to be responsible, unfettered by bureaucratic chains.
Ideally, as written, our government would be moral and just, and follow the Judeo/Christian ethos.
I, too, want government to safeguard my rights, not deprive me of them under colour of law.
The latter is what has been happening as the Government has grown, and the only way to reclaim those Rights is to shrink Government, both in size and scope.
Excuse me, but it's not about me -- except insofar as I will no longer vote for somebody, anybody, based on the "the other guy's worse" argument.
That was most of the John McCain bid, and nearly all of the Romney run.
Excellent post.
How many elections has your liberal, mittens ever won?
Mine? Liberal mittens? LOL! There is a reason you are known as Paultards/libtards.
if everyone was honest, honorable and responsible, we wouldn't need so many laws, would we?
“The Founders would never have imagined a government that followed them into the privvy, but ours has usurped that power.”
I disagree strongly. NEVER in the COTUS did the founders remotely guarantee a Right to Privacy....the idiot arguements of Roe V Wade.
Also, you cannot convince me that the Founders ever intended immoral behavior (like homosexuality between “conscenting adults”) to be protected by privacy.
The best one can argue is that they felt state or local government could best handle this. However, what if they don’t? The Founders would NEVER have allowed a State like Nevada to have legal prositution.
Libertarian reasoning is terribly flawed and based upon a total misunderstanding of what was intened by those that ratified the constitution. They would NEVER have agreed with the Libertarian sophistry of “two consenting adults”...NEVER EVER. It just wasn’t in the mental make up of the people at the time. Even the irreligious would not expect their vices to be “legal.”
In a perfect world where the people were inately moral, and thus self policing, a need for laws to restrain their behavior would not be necessary. That is NOT the case these days and has not been for decades...probably almost a century.
Government is ALWAYS necessary. In principle I agree the smaller the better. However, I am realistic in knowing people MUST be restrained by law. States cannot be trusted to do so anymore. For that matter, a state can sometimes be more draconian than the federal government. A state or local government can oppress just as much a federal one can.
As if the laws really affect those who are not honest, honorable, and responsible!
A bunch of ink on a sheet of paper isn't much deterrence to anyone who isn't honest, honorable, or responsible. They break the laws wholesale. Otherwise, laws would stop 'crime'.
There'd be no murder, rape, robbery, or assault.
So what do we get with all those laws?
We find homeowners fined and told to tear down their house because they filled in a low spot in the yard.
Those bent on murder and mayhem continue, little abated. You read about it every day, but in places you can end up in jail for just having the means to defend against it--and those are the crimes which are universally accepted as such.
We have far more laws than we need, not because we need them, but because they are a means of ensuring just about everyone in the population is guilty of some infraction,great or small. It is a device for control, far beyond common sense. We also have laws which say it is okay to murder children in the womb, so I wouldn't put too much stock in the law as a saviour of civilization.
Go read the 4th Amendment. You are right, it isn't in the Constitution, it is in the Bill of Rights--amendments without which the Constitution would not have been ratified.
You nitwit. I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Constitutionalist.
The founders didn't put a right to life in the Constitution, either. Silly chaps, they thought that was self-evident and unalienable. Apparently they couldn't envision the statist mentality which would sanction the murder of its own citizens in the womb, nor spend its time peeking in the window.
Government is ALWAYS necessary. In principle I agree the smaller the better. However, I am realistic in knowing people MUST be restrained by law. States cannot be trusted to do so anymore. For that matter, a state can sometimes be more draconian than the federal government. A state or local government can oppress just as much a federal one can.
Let's get something straight.
If the law was so bloody good at restraining people we'd have an absence of crime. Oh. What? people break the law? Well, I guess it doesn't do so well.
Of course some of the laws we can break now include praying in school or a public place (unless you're Muslim, which is an establishment of Religion, but that's another topic).
Other laws say it is OK to murder a child in the womb.
They say you can't fire a homosexual (unless you can really, really prove some other law was broken) or other members of 'protected classes', but not just for nauseating fellow employees with their 'pride'.
While State and Local government can be oppressive, none can quite pull it off like the Federal Government with it's one-size fits all approach to problems, kinda like blizzard-proofing your home in So Cal, or earthquake codes in North Dakota.
The law is only a device for controlling those willing to submit to it, and with all the laws we have, governing who can cut down a tree, who can or cannot fill in a hole in their back yard--or for that matter, dig one, we have too many laws.
But as I said earlier there are people on this forum who don't even understand freedom, to whom Liberty is such an alien concept they will cling to the robes of their masters, proudly wearing their chains. Enjoy them.
Then why have laws, limits or restrictions of any kind? Obviously man is incapable of following the Golden Rule. Many are just too stupid and need to be told what not to do. Do you honestly believe that murder, rape, robbery, etc., rates would diminish if there weren't laws against the aforementioned?
Are you married? Is your spouse the most intelligent, beautiful, moral, loyal, loving, caring, patient, humane and humble memebr of the opposite sex?
Well said.
>>I will no longer vote for somebody, anybody, based on the “the other guy’s worse” argument.
>
>Are you married?
No.
>Is your spouse the most intelligent, beautiful, moral, loyal, loving, caring, patient, humane and humble memebr of the opposite sex?
Given my above answer: yes.
Observed in Rome:
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” – Tacitus
I understand why.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.