Originally posted at
ChuckBaldwinLive.com
Yesterday, September 22, Congressman Ron Paul publicly gave me his endorsement for the office of President of the United States. In his blog at the Campaign for Liberty web site, he said, “I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.” (See the complete statement at:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582)Obviously, I could not be more delighted and honored to have Dr. Paul’s endorsement. I called him last evening and thanked him personally. And now I want to thank him publicly.
I am fully aware that Dr. Paul was under considerable pressure from various groups that were actively soliciting his support. I can honestly say that I never lobbied Dr. Paul for his endorsement. He knew I would be thrilled to have it, but I have too much respect for Ron Paul to be so presumptuous as
to expect him to endorse me. I completely understood his neutrality. He has strong ties to both the Libertarian and Constitution parties–not to mention the obvious fact that he is a ten-term Republican Congressman with much support from the Republican Party in his home district.I was happy to support Ron Paul during the Republican primaries, because I believe in the same principles. I personally campaigned for him in several states and in this column. And I asked (or expected) nothing in return. In fact, I have stated this publicly, time and again: if Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination for President, I would not be running. I would still be supporting Ron Paul.
I am running for President because the Republican Party rejected Ron’s Paul’s message of constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and non-interventionism. Therefore, someone had to pick up the mantle and carry this message into the general election. The Constitution Party asked me to be their standard-bearer in order to bring this message to the American people in November. So, here I am. And now, Ron Paul’s endorsement is further substantiation that the message of constitutional government will not die in 2008. The American people still have a real choice instead of the big-government, globalist, interventionist, “big box” party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama.
Ron Paul’s message is my message; Ron Paul’s fight is my fight.
I want to return America to constitutional government. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Amendment X) I believe that, and will govern the Executive branch of the federal government accordingly.
My sworn oath to the Tenth Amendment means I would dismantle the Patriot Act and restore law enforcement to the states and local governments, where it rightly belongs. Yes, this includes the so-called “war on drugs” and the so-called “war on terror.” No more warrantless searches and seizures. No more eavesdropping on Americans’ phone calls, or collecting Americans’ emails, or spying on American citizens without court order and oversight. No more stripping Americans of their constitutional rights in the name of “national security.” In addition, I would use every power and authority vested to my office to preserve and protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And, yes, I will immediately restore Posse Comitatus. As President, I want to protect America from Washington, D.C., as much I want to protect it from foreign powers.
I will also take the words of the Declaration of Independence seriously, where it states, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” This means the day I am sworn in as President of the United States, the New World Order comes crashing down! The NAFTA
superhighway is dead. The North American Union is dead. I will work to eliminate NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. The FTAA is DOA. I will not expend tax dollars for the support of the United Nations.Furthermore, I will take my oath to the Constitution seriously, when it states that one of the express purposes of the federal government is to “repel Invasions.” This means we will secure America’s borders, because the illegal immigration crisis is more than mere immigration: it is an invasion, and I will stop it! Even if I have to send the U.S. Army to the borders, we will put a stop to this invasion of illegal aliens. I will also aggressively prosecute those employers who knowingly hire illegals. And did I mention that my first day in office is Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean’s last day in prison? I will personally open the prison doors and restore to these men their freedom. I will also give them their jobs back (with pay), if they want them. And one more item on this point: my first day of office is also U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton’s last day on the job.
I also share Ron Paul’s concerns for the way the two major parties have allowed the United States to become a meddlesome, interventionist, nation-building empire for the sake of satisfying the greedy machinations of international bankers and power-hungry politicians. I will not only bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also from most of the other 130 nations that currently house U.S. forces. I will end foreign aid. I will get the U.S. out of NATO. It is past time for the European states to defend themselves. It is time for us to stop sticking our nose in every other nation’s business and start taking care of the United States. The Warfare State will kill us. Global empires are not sustainable. I repeat: global empires are not sustainable. If history teaches anything, it teaches that.
Furthermore, the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is over, when I become President. Because I will take my oath to the Constitution seriously, I would never send troops to invade and occupy a foreign country without a Declaration of War by Congress. In dealing with rogue terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, I will seek letters of Marque and Reprisal from Congress, which would give me the authority to use whatever special and/or private forces are necessary to seek out and destroy those who desire our hurt.
And even though I am a born again Christian (as is Ron Paul), I would take my responsibility to protect the religious liberty of every American seriously. People have the right to worship God (or not worship God) according to the dictates of their own conscience. Whether one is Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, or agnostic, people have the right to practice their faith as they see fit. I am absolutely dedicated to preserving religious liberty. Religious tyranny is as evil as political or social tyranny. And, as I will be no man’s slave, neither will I be any man’s master.
I also share Ron Paul’s commitment to the sanctity of life. When I become President, I will use the bully pulpit of the White House to press Congress to pass Dr. Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act, which would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand. On this topic, the GOP is especially hypocritical. The Republican Party controlled the entire federal government for six years and did nothing to save the life of a single unborn child. Saving unborn babies from the abortionists’ scalpel is more than rhetoric with me, however.
Another area of agreement with Ron Paul is my philosophy of economics. Dr. Paul has been predicting the current financial meltdown in this country for years. And when all is done, the current bailout being proposed will do more harm than good. The problem is, America’s leaders have rejected sound money policies for years, and the chickens are coming home to roost.
As President, I would seek to overturn the 16th Amendment, eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, and disband the Federal Reserve. I would lead the charge to return America to sound money principles. I would seek to reduce federal spending to constitutional levels by eliminating those same federal departments that Newt Gingrich promised to eliminate in his Contract with America back in 1994 (and then failed to do). I would seek to eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, etc. I would demand that Congress pass a balanced budget and that we stop deficit spending.
Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama will do any of the above. If he were President, Dr. Paul would do it, however, and so would I.
Needless to say, I am both humbled and honored that Ron Paul would place enough faith in me that he would endorse me for President. I can think of no higher compliment to my candidacy. I here and now publicly thank him for this vote of confidence. I know my Vice Presidential running mate, Darrell
Castle (a former Marine Corps officer and Vietnam veteran), joins me in inviting all of Dr. Paul’s supporters to help us take the message of constitutional government into the general election on November 4. Thank you.
I reject one paragraph, and embrace the rest.
which paragraph, Fred?
Wow.
So Chuck’s going to declare womens’ uteruses to be federal property to be regulated by his religious beliefs.
He’s going to shut down free trade agreements that ensure the orderly movement of goods and people, sans tariffs, between countries.
He’s going to implement crazy gold buggery.
And he’s going to argue for the “rights” of the states, which ALWAYS come above the rights of the people — especially if those people are women, gays or others who want to control their own sexual organs.
Ron Paul’s self-destruction is finally complete. And none too soon!
The illegal alien trip. Baldwin is proposing a massive increase in government in this regard. I can tolerate a plan that makes legal entry the only entry, though I don’t think we need war preparations against Mexico & Canada to do it, nor do I think it would work in any tangible way unless legal entry is itself liberalized.
The rest works well for me.
Baldwin seeks:
1. Keeping gays from marriage rights
2. Returning troops to Panama
3. Ban anything he finds morally disgusting. Upholding laws on “obscenity”
4. Base our government on the Bible
5. Enact a state controlled economy by removing all foreign investment
6. Putting tariffs on all foreign imports.
7. Stopping all immigration
Yeah, hes a true friend of Liberty. Talk about statist if I’ve ever seen one.
Winston,
As a third party activist, I’ll just tell you what I tell Democrats. Yes, X-Candidate is terrible. But that doesn’t make Y-Candidate good.
Y-Candidate still sucks.
The cosmo libertines just can’t help themselves. Be my guest becoming the party/advocates of open borders, vice and overt hostility to religion and traditional values.
I can image the rallying cry now. “Vote for us if you like sin.”
Good luck with that.
The Paul endorsement of Baldwin has really turned the stool of the resident sociopaths here rather loose. What to do? We must certainly say something to reassure ourselves. Perhaps attack the CP platform, belittle Baldwin’s faith, defend murder, something, anything. The whole edifice of a Libertarianism erected as a kind of arrested adolescence is now under credible threat. The patron saint has aposticised! Maybe if we just keep asserting those mantras we taught ourselves when we were blaming Mom, Dad and the Church for those nauseating little narcicisms of ours. Yeah, that’s it. Then we’ll feel better, huh?
Red,
You can try to justify his statist positions all you want.
Its not governments role to regulate things you find morally disgusting. What do you want them to regulate next?
The CP is as bad as teh Republicrats.
Chuck Baldwin is on http://www.revolutionbroadcasting.com right now.
Thanks, listening to that now.
BTW for anyone who said no one in the mainstream will know or care about snubgate:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/09/23/libertarian_idol_ron_paul_endo.html
WinstonSmith,
Anti-statism as a cover and rationale for a purient amoralism? Please. Resolve the issues with Mother & Dad somewhere else.
The regime ain’t my mom and dad, and even if it was, I’m grown.
John,
Can you point out where the Constitution states it is governments job to regulate morals?
Chuck Baldwin:
“No objections to the platform of the Constitution Party”. Live on air.
BTW, Ron Paul was able to hold his unique coalition together precisely because he was not viewed as a cosmo libertine. He is able to get re-elected to his seat in Texas for the same reason. And I hate to break it to you, but Barr is trying hard to avoid that image as well. Half of the Rothbard-Rockwell axis will have nothing to do with the LP because it is viewed as being too infested with modals who celebrate vice. (As John points out, perpetual adolescents.)
That stuff may fly in DC, NYC, etc. but it doesn’t fly in flyover country and thank the Good Lord for it. America is descending into a moral cesspool as we abandon the Faith of our Fathers, but thankfully we ain’t to the point where you can garner mass votes running in defense of vice.
Why don’t you just get it over with and nominate a coked up porn star next go round. Then surely no one will mistake you for one of those backwards traditionalist Christians.
Also, when did the gold standard become a negotiable libertarian issue? Wouldn’t want any of the beautiful people thinking you endorse such an “extremist†idea now would you?
how to write an essay abstract heroism essay example generieke viagra bestellen https://bigsurlandtrust.org/care/viagra-in-hong-kong/20/ how to write a speech for election how to write a bibliography for an essay business plan camping writing an expository essay how do i turn off mail notifications on my iphone good colleges for creative writingВ free download essay dissertation guidance why i want to be a nurse essay see url http://fall.law.fsu.edu/stay.php?home=tips-on-how-to-write-a-college-essay https://geneseelandlordassoc.org/category/best-article-writing-service/44/ get link how to write a covering letter for a sales job helping writing essay follow site http://kerulos.org/19355-cheap-viagra-walmart/ follow link thesis for an essay example source link critical thinking ks3 business presentation conclusion of a thesis follow link Cheap cialis in uk follow persuasive essays on sexism trifles thesis statement Why don’t you just get it over with and nominate a coked up porn star next go round.
I’m for it.
Still waiting for someone in the CP to point out where the Constitution gives the government the right to regulate morals.
The faux-CP shows up again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin#Controversial_views
Controversial views
Although he refers to himself as “The Abraham Lincoln of this generation”, he has also spoken of Lincoln (along with Woodrow Wilson) as one of the two “worst presidents” in history.[15] Baldwin is also a supporter of private schools and an opponent of the Department of Education.[16]
He has appeared on The Political Cesspool,[17], a radio talk show whose host was described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as white nationalist.[18] He also wrote that he believes “the South was right in the War Between the States”, and that he does not believe the leaders of the old Confederacy were racists.[19] In addition, he wrote an article attacking Martin Luther King Jr., claiming that King was an “apostate” minister who renounced his Christian faith. He also stated that King spent the night of his murder with two paramours and physically fought with a third.[20]
Baldwin has written that “the Mexican government is deliberately and systematically working to destabilize and undermine the very fabric and framework of American society.”[21] He has attacked the “Happy Holidays” greeting, stated that “America was deliberately and distinctively founded as a haven for Christians”, and attacked “avant-garde egalitarians” who disagree with this. He also attacked France as an “atheistic, secularist country”.[22]
In another opinion piece, he wrote that “homosexualists” have taken over the Republican Party and the the Republican elephant isn’t red, “it’s pink”.[23] Baldwin has also attacked the feminist movement, which he believes has moved women from a position of being “nurturers and helpmeets” to “a place of independedence from, and even lordship over,” their husbands. He believes that men have a “natural headship” over the family.[24]
In another article, called “Feminizing America”, Chuck Baldwin wrote that most children grow up “undisciplined and spoiled” because their mothers, rather than their fathers, “dictate their upbringing”. “America’s boys only know how to play girls’ games. They have never had their noses bloodied or their butts bruised.”[25]
He also wrote that “a large number of young girls today are themselves sexual predators” and asked “For example, is it proper for a 15-year-old girl (who is built like a 20-year-old) to show her endowment at will without expecting a natural reaction from the object of her entrapment? Are boys the only ones who must exercise self-restraint? Do the standards of decent behavior apply only to the male gender? Does a loose, immoral teenage girl bear any responsibility for her conduct and dress? Do the parents of this teenage Delilah bear any responsibility for her sluttish behavior and attire?”[26]
Winston,
Constitution, schmonstitution. The Constitution presupposes an amoral culture? Don’t buy that one.
Red is right. Liberty doesn’t sell in flyover country.
It’s all about what sells, of course.
Baldwin doesn’t sound that bad in a lot of ways. Other CPers and former CPers that post here ( like Trent Hill) seem alright.
Theocratic statists like red Phillips don’t help.
Still waiting for someone in the CP to point out where the Constitution gives the government the right to regulate morals.
Or the Bible, for that matter.
http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf
The Constitution is not the most important thing in the world. Really. But you would think a party named after it might care a little more.
I disagree with Baldwin on a couple major things. I think on most things he doesn’t let his personal beliefs dictate federal law, at least. There are certainly non-religious reasons for opposing abortion.
Constitution, schmonstitution. The Constitution presupposes an amoral culture? Don’t buy that one.
That wasn’t the question. Government and culture are two different things completely.
Perhaps you believe that a laissez-faire economic policy means one hates poor people, or a non-interventionist foreign policy means one endorses foreign dictatorships?
FWIW,
I have never snorted coke off a gay porn star or anything like that. I am not “libertine” but I AM a libertarian. If someone else wants to do something like that in private with willing participants, that’s up to them.
I have never snorted coke off a gay porn star or anything like that.
Other than the gay part, I have. It was fun, but I wouldn’t recommend making it a daily thing.
Red is right. Liberty doesn’t sell in flyover country.
Neither does peace. So?
“It’s all about what sells, of course.”
I never said that. If I believed that I would be a Republican or a Democrat now wouldn’t I? My point is that the cosmos seem mostly concerned about staying in the good graces of a small circle of other cosmos and liberals. They seem clueless about how regular people think. They need to get out more.
Winston, the Constitution says very little about regulating morals. That was the job of the States and localities and Christian morals and a Christian worldview were presupposed as under girding the Republic. Even the Founders who were less than orthodox did not celebrate vice.
Pauli, as a Christian and a conservative, which is also what Chuck Baldwin is, what part of that gotcha wiki article am I supposed to object to? Do you think Lincoln was a good President? And Martin Luther was most certainly an apostate. He denied the virgin birth, the Trinity, and the Deity of Christ. (Or at least plagiarized people who did.)
That’s paulie, with an e on the end.
And that was not for you, since I’m sure you agree with every last bit of it. (Other people here may not have known Chuck Baldwin believes all that. )
Although, if you hate Lincoln, why would you call yourself the new Lincoln? That’s a bit strange.
Winston Smith, they believe that the founding fathers were Christian, so therefore the Constitution is an extension of God’s law. And God’s law is the bible, and that makes the bible the law of the land….
I had hopes for Chuck, because he never talks like the platform. But tonight he just said he has no problems with it. And I cannot vote for him now.
Ick…. that leaves Nader.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/09/libertarian-reform-leader-tells-paul-supporters-to-check-out-cp-platform/#comment-14196
Ick…. that leaves Nader.
Not so fast.
http://realchange.org/nader.htm
Neil – Nader’s for the Ni4D. Big plus.
VTV,
They are warping the Constitution and history to fit their personal beliefs.
While many Founding Fathers were Christians, most were determined to keep it from mixing with politics. Notice the secular writing of the Constitution and the Declaration.
The CP is more scary than the Republicans and Democrats. They are statists who want to establish a theocracy based on their own morals. Definitely scary.
he does not believe the leaders of the old Confederacy were racists.
Of course not.
Personally, I don’t know why anyone thinks this is bad news for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party, or libertarianism.
To me, the Paul endorsement of Baldwin is the perfect ending to the R3VOLution. The kooky Paul did a good job raising the profile of libertarianism, but was saddled with too much baggage, vis a vi the racist newsletters, cozying up to the troofers, state dominion over the bodies of women, and his overall cranky attitude. Libertarianism can dump him and all of his baggage in the laps of the christofacists, while saying we agree with him on some things.
Regardless of what happens in November, long term, this is a good thing for libertarianism.
I am getting flogged in the chat in revolutionbroadcasting.com right now for daring to speak out against baldwin.
I just realized the chat room is full of theocrats.
I just got told “So what” when I point out that the platform is for banning gay marriage, and perverts the 1st amendment to BAN profanity and pornography!
This is absolutely nuts.
“Or the Bible, for that matter.
http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf”
PauliE, I love it when libertarian ideologues who have little use for if not outright hostility to the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity try to lecture Christians on proper theology. The only Jesus they like is a Jesus they have turned into a libertarian ideologue as well. So Jesus didn’t condemn sin? That funny since he died for it. He endorsed the God-given Old Testament law in its entirety.
“While many Founding Fathers were Christians, most were determined to keep it from mixing with politics.”
Winston, that is demonstrably false modern secularist spin. Christianity was presupposed by most. They did not want a Federal official denomination. This was partly for SOCAS reasons and partially because the States would not have been able to agree on a single denomination. But several States had State Churches until long after the Constitution was passed. But it never would have even occurred to them that Christianity should not “mix†with politics. Your secularist myths do not pass the test of history.
VTV,
I worked a R3VOLution booth Labor day weekend in 2007 at a county fair in Ohio. One of the days, I sat for 6 hours with a Consitutional Party member who told me that according to the Constitution, only Christians can run for public office. After I told him I was a moderate on the abortion issue, he brought over some twitchy pastor from the Right to Life booth who debated the issue with me for about 2 minutes, then when he realized he wasn’t going to change my mind, told the kid I was sitting with that he shouldn’t sit with me anymore, and his eternal soul was at stake. I felt sorry for that sap of a kid, who didn’t know what to do at that point. Some people are just born to be followers, or should I say jihadists?
No matter how crazy Baldwin or the CP platform sounds, believe me, the foot soliders of that party are downright batsh*t crazy.
PauliE, I love it when libertarian ideologues who have little use for if not outright hostility to the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity try to lecture Christians on proper theology.
Thanks, but the e is not capitalized, and I have no such hostility; quite the opposite.
So Jesus didn’t condemn sin?
Of course He did. Read the article.
“No objections to the platform of the Constitution Partyâ€. Live on air.
Lame.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
“state dominion over the bodies of women”
Of course women’s dominion over their baby in the womb in the form of killing it is just peachy.
But several States had State Churches until long after the Constitution was passed.
Very true. That’s why, even in those cases when the constitution and states autonomy from the feds are moves in the right direction – and in most cases they are – they don’t go far enough.
As Roderick Long put it, the American Revolution isn’t over.
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/27638.html
Paulie, I have read part of the VERY LONG article before. I wasn’t referring to it specifically. More to the general tone of many libertarians. For example, the idea that it is “homophobic†to think that homosexuality is anything less than a morally neutral lifestyle choice despite the fact that the Bible clearly and unequivocally condemns it. So then to hold to the Christian viewpoint on that makes one automatically guilty of a thought crime against purist libertarian ideology. Or to use one of your gotcha examples above, Baldwin is allegedly guilty of wrong think for suggesting that the man is the natural head of the family when the Bible clearly and explicitly teaches that.
Did Jesus challenge gender roles? Did Jesus backtrack on the condemnation of homosexuality?
The Bible is clear on the role of government. (Christians of good faith can differ on the details and implementation, but not the general sentiment)
Romans 13
1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
I’m sorry, but that is not exactly a libertarian treatise.
“He’s going to shut down free trade agreements that ensure the orderly movement of goods and people, sans tariffs, between countries.”
And the 10,000 pages of regulations that come with those “free trade agreements”? I thought libertarians opposed federal bureaucracy.
“He’s going to implement crazy gold buggery.”
Could you explain what is so libertarian about the federal government forcing private businesses to accept paper as money? Is this the same “crazy gold buggery” that the Founding Fathers and the original Libertarian Party founders supported?
“And he’s going to argue for the “rights†of the states, which ALWAYS come above the rights of the people — especially if those people are women, gays or others who want to control their own sexual organs.”
What is the libertarian basis for supporting the federal government’s supremacy over the state government? Would you support the implementation of a world government to make sure the federal and national governments of the world don’t pass laws infringing on abortion rights and gay rights?
“Ron Paul’s self-destruction is finally complete. And none too soon!”
That must explain those 100K members of the Campaign for Liberty, and why the Barr campaign (which is even worse on your pet issue, gay marriage, then your nemesis Ron Paul is), has so few volunteers.
Brian, I believe you would consider Mao-Tse Tung a libertarian if he supported state-sanctioned gay marriage. I mean, he would be so much better on gay rights than that bastard Ron Paul. After all, isn’t that all that counts?
Red: pretty clear you haven’t read the whole thing. This works much better in context, but I realize most people won’t take the time to read the whole thing, so:
On Paul and Romans 13 and Titus 3:1
It is often claimed that Christians are required to submit to government, as this is supposedly what Paul commanded that we are supposed to do in Romans 13. Thus:
Romans 13:1-7: Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
But in actual fact Paul never does tell us in above excerpt from Romans 13 to submit to government!–at least certainly not as they have existed on Earth and are operated by men. In fact, Paul would be an outright, boldfaced hypocrite were he to command anyone to do such a thing: for Paul himself did not submit to government, and if he had then he would not even have been alive to be able to write Romans 13. For Paul himself disobeyed government, and it is a good thing that he did as we would not even know of a Paul in the Bible had he not disobeyed government. As when Paul was still only known as Saul he escaped from the city of Damascus as he knew that the governor of that city, acting under the authority of Aretas the king, was coming with a garrison to arrest him in order that he be executed. This was right after Saul’s conversion to Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. The Jews in Damascus, hearing of Sauls conversion, plotted to kill him as a traitor to their cause in persecuting the Christians. Saul was let out of a window in the wall of Damascus under cover of night by some fellow disciples in Christ (see Acts 9:23-25). In none of Paul’s later writings does he divest himself, or disassociate himself, from these actions that he took in knowingly and purposely disobeying government: in fact, this very event is one of the things that he later cites in demonstration of his unwavering commitment to Christ (see 2 Cor. 12:22-33)!
Indeed, ever since Paul’s conversion to Jesus Christ, he spent the rest of his entire life in rebellion against mortal governments, and would at last–just as with Jesus before him–be executed by government, in this case by having his head chopped off. Paul was continuously in and out of prisons throughout his entire ministry for preaching the gospel of Christ; he was lashed with stripes 39 times by the “authorities” for preaching Christ; he was beaten with rods by the “authorities” for preaching Christ; and none of these rebellions of his did he ever disavow: indeed he cited them all as evidence of his commitment to Jesus (again, see 2 Cor. 12:22-33)!
But even more importantly, if Paul is saying in Romans 13 what many people have said he meant, i.e., that people should obey mortal, Earthly governments, then it is questionable whether Paul could even be a genuine Christian. For as was pointed out above, Jesus would not even have existed as we know of today had it not been for Joseph and Mary intentionally disobeying king Herod the Great and escaping from his reach when they knew that Herod desired to destroy baby Jesus (see Matt. 2:13,14). Thus, if indeed Paul meant in Romans 13 that we are to obey Earthly governments then this would mean that Paul would rather have Joseph and Mary obey king Herod the Great and turn baby Jesus over to be killed.
So what in the world is going on here with Paul and Romans 13? Is Paul a hypocrite? Is Paul being contradictory? Actually, No to both. Once again, as with Jesus’s answer to the question on taxes, this is another ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection. Paul was counting on the fact that most people who would be hostile to the Christian church–the Roman “authorities” in particular–would, upon reading Romans 13, naturally interpret it from the point of view of legal positivism: i.e., that such people would take for granted that the “governing authorities” and “rulers” spoken of must refer to the men who operate the governments on Earth. But never does Paul anywhere say that this is so! (Legal positivism is the doctrine that whichever gang is best able to overpower others with arms and might and thereby subjugate the populace and who then proceed to proclaim themselves the “authority” are on that account the rightful “Authority.”)
But before proceeding with the above analysis, what would the motive be for Paul to include such rhetorical misdirection in his letter to the people at the church of Rome? In answering this, it must be remembered that just as with Jesus, Paul was not free to say just anything that he wanted. The early Christians were a persecuted minority under the close surveillance of the Roman government as a possible threat to its power. Here is Biblical proof of this assertion written by Paul himself:
Galatians 2:4,5: And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
Paul never intended that his letter to the Roman church be kept secret, and he knew that it would be copied and distributed amongst the populace, and thus inevitably it would fall into the hands of the Roman government, especially considering that this letter was going directly into the belly of the beast itself: the city of Rome. Thus by including this in the letter to the church at Rome he would help put at ease the fears of the Roman government so that the persecution of the Christians would not be as severe and so that the more important task of the Church, that of saving people’s souls, could more easily continue unimpeded. But Paul wrote it in such a way that a truly knowledgeable Christian at the time would have no doubt as to what was actually meant.
The Church leaders at the time would have known that Paul obviously couldn’t have meant the people who control the mortal governments as they exist on Earth when he referred to the “governing authorities” and “rulers” in Romans 13, for that would have made Paul a shameless hypocrite and also meant that he would desire that baby Jesus had been killed (for surely the histories of Paul and Jesus’s lives would have been fresh on their minds). The only answer that can make any sense of this seeming riddle is that one doesn’t actually become a true “governing authority” or “ruler” simply because one has managed by way of deception, terror, murder and might to subjugate a certain population and then proceed to thereby proclaim oneself the “King” or the “Authority” or the “Ruler.” Instead, what Paul is saying is that the only true and real authorities are only those that God appoints, i.e., one cannot become a real authority or ruler in the eyes of God simply because through force of arms one has managed to subjugate a population and then proclaim oneself the potentate. Thus, by saying this Paul was actually rebuking the supposed authority of the mortal governments as they exist on Earth and are operated by men!
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” (Rom. 13:1.) leaves wide open the possibility that those who control the mortal governments on Earth are not true authorities as appointed by God. The fallacy most people make when encountering a statement such as this is to unthinkingly and automatically assume that Paul must be referring to the people in control of the mortal governments that exist on Earth–for after all, don’t these people who run these Earthly governments call themselves the “governing authorities”? Do they not teach their subjects from birth that they are the “rulers” and the “authorities”? But when we factor in the life history of both Jesus and Paul, then it can leave no room for doubt: Paul most certainly could not have been referring in Romans 13 to the people who control the mortal governments as they exist on Earth–otherwise Paul would be an outright hypocrite as well as an advocate of deicide against baby Jesus. Indeed, God Himself directly confirms this very thing:
Hosea 8:4: “They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them.”
But, some may inquire, what about Paul telling us to pay taxes in Romans 13:6-7? Thus:
Romans 13:6,7: For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
But does Paul really tell us to pay taxes here? Again, just as with Jesus, nowhere does Paul actually tell anyone to pay any taxes! Paul continues with the rhetorical misdirection that he started in the beginning of Romans 13, knowing–just as Jesus knew before him–that those who would be hostile to the Christian church would automatically assume what they are predisposed to assume: i.e., that the taxes and customs “due” are due to those in control of the governments who levy them. But here Paul was being wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove, as Paul never said any such thing. For when Paul says “Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs” this just begs the question: to whom are taxes and customs due? The answer to which could quite possibly be “No one.” And this is precisely how Paul proceeds to answer his own question-begging statement, in Romans 13:8-10:
Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
So there we have it in no uncertain terms: Owe no one anything except to love one another! Yet since when have taxes ever had the slightest thing to do with love? As was explained above, all mortal governments throughout history steal and extort wealth from their subjects which they call “taxes,” yet at the same time governments make it illegal for their subjects to steal from each other or from the government. Thus in taxes we see that historically all governments do to their subjects what they outlaw their subjects to do to them. Thus, all Earthly, mortal governments, by levying taxes, break the Golden Rule which Jesus commanded everyone as the supreme law.
In the earlier discussion on Jesus and taxes we learned that when Jesus said “Give on to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and give unto the Lord that which is the Lord’s” he was, in effect, actually saying that one need not give anything to Caesar: as nothing is rightly his, considering that everything that Caesar has has been taken by theft and extortion.
And what of Paul writing in Titus 3:1: “Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work”? As was clearly demonstrated above, Paul was referring to the true higher authorities as recognized by God, not to the diabolical, Satanic, mortal governments as they have existed on Earth–as Paul spent his entire ministry in rebellion against the Earth-bound, mortal “authorities,” and was at last put to death by them. (For other cases of righteous disobedience to government in the Bible, see Exo. 1:15-2:3; 1 Sam. 19:10-18; Esther 4:16; Dan. 3:12-18; 6:10; Matt. 2:12-13; Acts 5:29; 9:25; 17:6-8; 2 Cor. 11:32,33.)
And as further proof of this, consider Paul’s advice to Christians as regarding being judged by what the government considers the “authority”:
1 Corinthians 6:1-8: Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
Paul said that the government judges “are least esteemed by the church to judge”! It is clear that he considered them to be no authority at all!
But moreover, even Jesus didn’t consider the Earthly, mortal “rulers” to be true rulers and authorities! Thus:
Mark 10:42-45: But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
By saying this Jesus was in fact rebuking the supposed “authority” of the Earthly “rulers”! Just because mortals on Earth may consider someone to be an “authority” and “ruler” does not mean that God considers them to be so!
paulie cannoli,
“That wasn’t the question. Government and culture are two different things completely.”
Sorry, paulie, but that’s very much the question. To make an abstraction of government when considering culture or culture when considering government may be convenient for the sake of pipe dreaming but, I’m afraid to do so has no correspondence with what’s real. The constitution didn’t emerge absent a context.
The Constitution Party platform is unconstitutional.
“This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
(The above statement is obviously religious in nature.)
“The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law.”
WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
(The bible is a religious book. This is a total contradiction.)
“All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. […] We would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”
WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Stating that the Christian God is the sovereign source of law, liberty or government is a BLATANT violation of the 1st Amendment.
“We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments.”
WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
It is completely inapropriate for any state building particularly that has to do with the law to have any religious symbols. Let alone religious concepts of law.
“The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. […]. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.”
WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
(What their religion’s “God” says is not in any way releveant to the law. PERIOD.
“We oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions […] We oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples. […] We stand against so-called “sexual orientation†and “hate crime†statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression”
WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
(This belief about homosexuals is ENTIRELY based on their religious beliefs. NO LAW can be made to respect any religion. PERIOD.)
“5. We also oppose all government “legalization†of suicide”
WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
(Their opposition to suicide comes entirely from their religion.)
“7. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy. […] Our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”
WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.
(So based on their religion, they object to profanity. So somehow, this means that they have the right through the 1st amendment to BAN what someone would say? This is a sick perversion of the 1st amendment of the highest level. In fact, it is beyond Theocracy and goes into religious FASCISM!)
“Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”
WRONG: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.
(In order to achieve what they want, one would have to acknowledge their God’s ideas about sex and morality. This therefore violates the 1st Amendment)
“That wasn’t the question. Government and culture are two different things completely.â€
Sorry, paulie, but that’s very much the question. To make an abstraction of government when considering culture or culture when considering government may be convenient for the sake of pipe dreaming but, I’m afraid to do so has no correspondence with what’s real.
Who suggested any such thing?
Go back and read Winston’s question.
Red actually provided somewhat of an answer, which only points out why Winston’s question was the wrong one to ask to begin with. You just provided deflection.
The presumption you seem to make, and even seem not to understand you are making, is that there is some equivalence in saying something is a bad thing and saying government should legislate against it – or some contradiction in saying that something is a bad thing, AND government should stay out of it. [Government here referring to coercive territorial monopoly government, IE the regime].
If so, would you dispute that poverty, pollution, lack of education, and foreign dictatorships are bad things?
Lol, religion. It must be nice to be able to justify your positions by pointing to ancient texts written by insane charlatans claiming to be speaking for non-existent men in the sky.
I’m no libertine, not even close — but people should be free to be libertines if they want.
insane charlatans claiming to be speaking for non-existent men in the sky.
Do you take that on faith?
I’m no libertine, not even close — but people should be free to be libertines if they want.
I’ve been somewhat of a libertine, and while I’m far from perfect, I can say with confidence there’s a definite downside. But then, there would have been a different downside to not have had those experiences.
Certainly, people should be free to be libertines if they want. Just don’t stick a gun to my head to pay for your syphillis shots, drug rehab, HIV medication, vaginal reconstruction surgery, etc.
paulie canolli
“Who suggested any such thing?”
Well, I’m afraid you did, son.
“The presumption you seem to make, and even seem not to understand you are making, is that there is some equivalence in saying something is a bad thing and saying government should legislate against it – or some contradiction in saying that something is a bad thing, AND government should stay out of it. [Government here referring to coercive territorial monopoly government, IE the regime].”
You utterly fail to grasp my point, young man. Winston was about to go into a decline imagining as he was the various possible impositions upon his “rights” by government, his point that moral questions ought not be the province of the state. Such a viewpoint clearly presupposes some fanciful divorce of the legal and the moral orders. The Constitution did not emerge nor was it ever the product of an amoral environment. Neither could nor would it have been even if it were to emerge today. There is simply no reality to a morality-free Constitution any more than there is a state of pure nature in which reason is divorced somehow from truth. Both are abstractions. So if you, or Winston, wish to argue the virtue of an amoral state, you’ll first need to remove it from the land of dreams.
Chuck Baldwin is an outright liar when he says he “has no problems with the Constitution Party platform” out of one side of his mouth, and then says that I (G.E. / Jason Seagraves) “don’t understand Ron Paul’s views” when I said he and Paul are NOT on the same page on trade.
So much for being a pillar of morality. The man is a liar and a charlatan just like his “hero” Jerry Falwell.
And Red, before you accuse me of being a “libertine” — save it. I’m as pro-life as they come. But I’m also pro-capitalism UNLIKE the evil CP platform that Baldwin “has no problem with.”
So, where does that leave you, GE?
Back to Ralph?
I have not necessarily ruled out voting for Baldwin. I’m just pointing out he’s a liar. I never said I WOULD vote for Baldwin, either. Paul’s endorsement just scrambled the board. Nader is probably in the lead, but I’m going to reserve making an “endorsement” until Election Day. Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin changed everything (like 9/11) so McKinney could even be a choice.
Baldwin ignorantly supports an impossible-to-calculate 10% across-the-board protectionist tariff on foreign imports — in direct opposition to 1) The CP platform which is 1000 times worse, and 2) Ron Paul… And yet he claims all three are one in the same.
This guy is about as bad as Barr and McBama on the Honest scale.
Well, I’m afraid you did, son.
Don’t be afraid, I didn’t, and I’m not your son.
You utterly fail to grasp my point, young man.
I probably have my first crop of biological great-grandchildren this year if I’m not sterile.
Youth is a relative thing; the US Census bureau considers me middle aged, but if I died tonight, I’m reasonably sure I’ve lived more than most people would have if they had lived for centuries.
Whereas I understood your point, you show no signs of understanding mine.
Winston was about to go into a decline imagining as he was the various possible impositions upon his “rights†by government, his point that moral questions ought not be the province of the state. Such a viewpoint clearly presupposes some fanciful divorce of the legal and the moral orders.
Nothing fanciful about it. It is simplicity itself.
The Constitution did not emerge nor was it ever the product of an amoral environment. Neither could nor would it have been even if it were to emerge today. There is simply no reality to a morality-free Constitution any more than there is a state of pure nature in which reason is divorced somehow from truth. Both are abstractions. So if you, or Winston, wish to argue the virtue of an amoral state, you’ll first need to remove it from the land of dreams.
I wish to argue no such thing. It would help if you argued against what I said, rather than strawmen of your own construction.
I find initiation of coercion to be immoral, and wish to legislate against it.
Arguing that it does not exist at present holds no more credence to me than arguing that chattel slavery had always existed held to abolitionists 150 years ago.
I wish you guys listened to Darrel Castle’s interview. I called in and got jumped on.
what did you say, VTV?
Well, I began asking questions about what I printed above. Mr Castle also agreed that he believes in and agrees with the platform.
The commentators, who are running a fundraiser for Baldwin, immediatly intervened when I asked him questions about the platform.
They asked him if he would uphold and defend the constitution, and he of course agreed.
When I pointed out that meant that we needed to examine what HE BELIEVED the constitution says, they tried to detract from that, and kept asking “what more do you want?”
So, when I pointed out that according to the platform that Mr. Castle had JUST AGREED TO, that they believe that the 1st Amendment gives them the right to ban profanity and pornography, AND when I pointed out that the platform that he AGREED with stated:
“We would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.â€
This statement inherantly says that they would wish the law to identify their god as the soverign source of law, liberty and government.
They did everything they could to attack me, and refused to let Mr. Castle answer.
“Do you take that on faith?”
In the face of extremely low probability, I generally take faith in the far more probable likelihood. I can never disprove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but given that its existence is extremely improbable, I can state that the IPU does not exist without unreasonable faith. Same with God.
Though I should also note that even if there was irrefutable evidence that God did exist, I would not worship him or consider him a valid authority.
paulie canolli,
“Youth is a relative thing; the US Census bureau considers me middle aged … ”
But you sounded so adolescent. 🙂
“Nothing fanciful about it. It is simplicity itself. ”
And it is also to argue for the reality of an abstraction. There is and can be no such thing as a legal order that exists apart from a moral order. The morality is always there as context whether or not you wish it to be. Its this latter that you would not seem to grasp.
“I find initiation of coercion to be immoral, and wish to legislate against it. ”
Your premise is that the law does, in fact, exist apart from morality yet you wish to employ it – the law – in a crusade against something you consider immoral? And you don’t see the contradiction there? Extraordinary.
Ron Paul endorsement or not, Baldwin and the CP are never going to be “catching on, I’m tellin’ ya”.
Like it or not, the only 3rd parties that will receive even a trickle of media, be included in some polls, and might break 1% are Barr and Nader.
If you want to cast a protest vote that might possibly garner some attention, those are your choices.
What a clusterfuck 2008 has become…..! Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
G.E., I would never call you a libertine because I don’t believe that. I do think you are guilty of making a thought crime out of believing the clear teaching of the Bible re. homosexuality.
Paulie, Christians of good faith have and do disagree on just what is meant by submit and what are the limits of that. There is clear Biblical precedent for resisting authority if it mandates immoral behavior, Daniel for example. What is not as ambiguous is the God ordained PURPOSE of government.
But you sounded so adolescent.
That may be because you are getting hard of hearing at your age 😛
There is and can be no such thing as a legal order that exists apart from a moral order.
True. A legal order which considers initiation of coercion to be more moral than any mutually voluntary activity is an immoral legal order.
The morality is always there as context whether or not you wish it to be.
Certainly, and the immorality of coercive force is a great and central part of that context, something that you would not seem to grasp.
Your premise is that the law does, in fact, exist apart from morality yet you wish to employ it – the law – in a crusade against something you consider immoral?
You apparently haven’t thought through the implications of that statement. By what means is “the law” implemented? Any government that is coercively funded is initiating coercion, so that practice would be outlawed. Any government that uses force to establish an artificial monopoly would be engaging in an illegal practice; that is, if someone else wishes to set up “police,” “courts,” “legislatures,” etc., in the same plot of land could not be prosecuted merely for doing so – only for initiating coercion themselves.
Thus, there could be no monopoly government as we know it today. And that would be the only possible natural consequence of morality, since coercion is inherently immoral.
And you don’t see the contradiction there? Extraordinary.
The only contradiction I see, which it appears you do not (or will yourself not to see), is between saying you wish to enforce morality, and using immoral means to do so.
By the way, you never did answer any of my questions. Scroll up to see what they were; I included question marks to make them easier to identify.
Ron Paul endorsement or not, Baldwin and the CP are never going to be “catching on, I’m tellin’ yaâ€.
Like it or not, the only 3rd parties that will receive even a trickle of media, be included in some polls, and might break 1% are Barr and Nader.
McKinney and Baldwin are already included in some polls. The Ron Paul revolutionaries can certainly boost the money and attention that Baldwin gets above Barr’s, and “mainstream” media will either follow – as they increasingly do – or lose market share to sites such as ours.
I see very little potential for Barr to get 1% anymore. Perhaps before Palin and snubgate/Baldwin endorsement, and probably not even then. Certainly not now.
What is not as ambiguous is the God ordained PURPOSE of government.
Yes, if you manage to read the whole article, it becomes very clear.
Paul probably would have stayed neutral or perhaps endorsed Barr but unfortunately Barr (under the evil influence of the destroyer Russ Verney) couldn’t help himself and acted like the Tasmanian Devil, wrecking everything in his path. He did it to himself and suffer for it.
Barr will get the votes of the cosmo liberartarians, but they’re easily swamped in Obamaland. Hell, Wayne Ally Root could only find 30 people to show up for a recent campaign rally on his own in California which shows the limited appeal of the Barr/Root ticket.
With Paul’s endorsement, I think its safe to say Baldwin will do better than any CP nominee has done in the past, but again we find ourselves divided and divided by some fairly substantial issues. Because Paul decided not to run all the way to November, the movement divded itself. Perhaps it was inevitable but the prettyness that usually finds itself emeshed in non-major party politics has reared its ugly head again.
In retrospect, especially in the wake of this awful financial bailout, it sure would be nice to have Paul out there swinging away against the majors on the ballot of three of the biggest non-major parties. But not running for President in the fall when he was running for re-election to Congress and winning deleagtes to the GOP Convention were factors in keeping this from taking place. What’s done is done and you can vote for Barr or Baldwin or Nader or McKinney if you like. My only hope is there are enough votes going either way to kill one of the major party candidates, McCain hopefully from my point of view.
Yet there’s no question the scene right now is crying out for a party that promotes decentralization, especially on the national stage. The differences we have, both politcally and culturally, may very well mean we cannot have a merger of the LP and the CP or the Naderites and Greens. Thats’s fine. Let them act locally or at the state level where they are more effective anyway. But there’s no reason to think that these parties could come together in a national party dedicated to the principles Ron Paul laid down in his press conference with the CFL as its foundation (that’s why it was disappointing Barr didn’t show up). Such a party would run candidates for Congress and President and would be made up of members of of non-major and even those of major parties who, like Ron Paul, don’t want to shed their R or D label in order to win locally.
Ron Paul proved we can all work together if we share four or five main goals we can all strongly agree on and agree to disagree on all the rest. You cosmos may very well dislike the trailer park “Jesus Freaks” and you provos may very well hate the “poofs” living in ivory towers, but divided by hate, we are easily controlled by the majors. Only when we are united around short and clearly defined principals, do we put the fear of God into them.
Or Buddah, Or Allah, Or Great Spirit or just fear itself. You see, I’m very ecumenechal.
Sean, you have completely gotten what Dr. Paul was trying to do. 🙂
Baldwin writes “I would seek to reduce federal spending to constitutional levels by eliminating those same federal departments that Newt Gingrich promised to eliminate in his Contract with America back in 1994 (and then failed to do). I would seek to eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, etc.”
The CWA didn’t include eliminating any departments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_With_America.
Brian,
Newt didnt promise anytihng IN the Contract with America–but he made pretty overt promises to do just those things. It was a slipup though,well caught.
pauli canolli,
“There is and can be no such thing as a legal order that exists apart from a moral order.
True …
The morality is always there as context whether or not you wish it to be.
Certainly …”
Well, some progress at last! These statements certainly didn’t represent your outlook earlier. Then, government was one thing and morality another and never the twain should meet. Welcome aboard.
“Your premise is that the law does, in fact, exist apart from morality yet you wish to employ it – the law – in a crusade against something you consider immoral?
You apparently haven’t thought through the implications of that statement.”
The question we were addressing bore solely on whether there were some real relation between law and morality. Why would I have been required to consider possible implications when the more basic question remained unresolved?
“By the way, you never did answer any of my questions. Scroll up to see what they were; I included question marks to make them easier to identify.”
For the life of me I can’t locate what it is that you refer to here.
If you can’t spell my nickname correctly or do a ctrl+F to find what questions I asked, I won’t help you.
Coercive monopoly government is, in fact, immoral by the very nature of its existence.
If it must continue to exist, it should be minimized as much as possible, but we should always be aware that, just as with any other malignant cancer, infectious disease, or pest infestation, cutting out part of the problem is not an adequate solution.
The idea that such an immoral institution can safeguard our morals is silly, and not worth debating. (Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop!)
Neither is anyone who would want to pardon Ramos and Compean worth debating. I sincerely hope they are in general population, in the same cell block with numerous immigrants, and receiving no special protection, and that they remain so for the rest of their full sentences.
America’s British common law anteceded the arrival of Christianity on the British Isles. The CP platform is anti-American theocratic drivel.
Now that’s an interesting part of history I don’t know enough about. Got some links/references on that, sunshinebatman?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html
Thanks!
pauli canolli,
“If you can’t spell my nickname correctly or do a ctrl+F to find what questions I asked, I won’t help you. ”
You’ll pardon me, of course, if I were to express a certain pleasure with this outcome.
I have no idea who pauli canolli is, but perhaps your eyesight is degenerating as badly as your hearing and cognitive processes.
You’ll pardon me, of course, if I were to express a certain pleasure with this outcome.
Unlike the CP, I have no problem with expressions of pleasure. Please don’t aim them in my direction, and I hope you remember to wipe yourself and/or your keyboard off when you’re done.
pauly canalle,
“Unlike the CP, I have no problem with expressions of pleasure. Please don’t aim them in my direction, and I hope you remember to wipe yourself and/or your keyboard off when you’re done.”
Well, one thing we can say with certainty about your capabilities, Pauly, you’re sensate enough to know when you’ve been insulted. 🙂
jonhlowball,
You were saying something about me acting like an adolescent? When you point that finger, five are pointing back at you.
jonhlowball at TurdPottyWatch:
What is to be made of the vapididity of the Libertarian defense of “any activity that is peaceful and honestâ€, for example. For having done so, shouldn’t people that write such twaddle be dunked like witches into vats of steaming horse phong?
No doubt, you would do exactly that if given the chance.
Wow, president tush was right…the terrorists really do hate us for our freedom.
When you diss me, you diss yourself, jonhlowball.
Pawlie,
Well, I suppose the only important question to be raised at this point is if you might have felt comfortable writing that platform line, “any activity that is peaceful and honest”. Were you the author of or sypathetic to that brilliancy, big P? If so, you do indeed deserve to be dunked in the fashion of a latter day Salem witch into a vat of animal ca-ca. Best to make the punishment suitable to the crime, of course. 🙂
For goodness’ sakes… I am not typically one of those people who say that blogger-type people have nothing else to do all day but sit at their computers pushing F5 and making idiotic replies, but this seriously makes me wonder. I am all for free commenting, without regulation, but please, allow the maturity to show through? IPR folks are good at replying to emails: spam your *favorite* writer/poster there.
Questioning the “peaceful and honest” formulation is like questioning the “force and fraud” formulation. Either betrays a shocking level of ignorance about the ideas and history of the freedom movement.
The Preamble containing that phrase was added to the LP Platform in the earl 1980s. I suspect that, like “force and fraud”, the phrase pre-dates the LP’s founding in 1971.
Brian, you aren’t talking to someone who is in any way, shape or form on the side of the freedom movement. You’re talking to a would-be terrorist who hates freedom with a vengeance and literally wants to revive the witch trials. He also wants to torture us for even speaking out about the idea of freedom. And he means it. This individual obviously thinks he is quite ethical and mature, but nothing could be further from the truth, as can be evidently seen from the garbage he spouts.
I’m reminded of a saying about beams and eyes. How did that go again? (Don’t ask Lowlife, he probably thinks it commanded him to poke out the eyes of anyone who does not worship Satan and call him Jesus or YHWH, as he does).