Awhile back we reported that Ron Paul was considering a run for President in 2012. As a former Libertarian Presidential candidate, a friend of the ballot-access reform movement, and a speaker at Libertarian Party and Constitution Party functions–this news is very relevant to third party activists. Young American Revolution, the magazine of Young Americans for Liberty, is being printed as we speak. Within the magazine is a four-page interview with Dr. Paul where he is asked whether he will run in 2012 or not. The issue has not been mailed yet, nor will it be available online, but it is not too late to sign up for a subscription to the magazine. For students it is just $10 (the signup fee for YAL), for anyone else it is $50.
Disclosure: I am the Southeast Regional Coordinator for Young Americans for Liberty and am a contributing editor for YAR.
Supported Ron Paul, voted for Chuck Baldwin. I think Rand looks promising… raised a cool million this quarter for the Kentucky Senate race.
Paul / Paul 2012
Well, Hoppe would be pleased at the monarchistic appeal of it, at any rate.
Paul / Paul 2012
Yes. I believe Nixon’s war on drugs was a war on the American people. It therefore operated, in my view, as a war on the United States. So, I think Nixon, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all his other administration participants engaged in treason. So has every administration since. In my view the war on terror is a redoubling of the war on the American people.
I agree. But, “treason” presumes an obligation of loyalty to the nation. I don’t presume that of anyone except those who have sworn to such.
If the economy continues to tank after all these Keynesian measures and if Afganistan turns into a repeat of Charlie WIlson’s War, then I GUARANTEE if Ron Paul wins, he’ll be the Republican Nominee for President. GUAR AN TEE.
What are you backing this guarantee with?
If the economy continues to tank after all these Keynesian measures and if Afganistan turns into a repeat of Charlie WIlson’s War, then I GUARANTEE if Ron Paul wins, he’ll be the Republican Nominee for President. GUAR AN TEE.
Yes. I believe Nixon’s war on drugs was a war on the American people. It therefore operated, in my view, as a war on the United States. So, I think Nixon, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all his other administration participants engaged in treason. So has every administration since. In my view the war on terror is a redoubling of the war on the American people.
I don’t think it is illegal to SMOKE marihuana, anywhere in the United States; however, posession is illegal in some places.
There were no laws against marihuana until the FDA was created and even still it wasn’t completely illegal until 1971 when Nixon forced States to pass drug laws.
Out of curiosity, how is smoking pot in the White House an indication of treason?
Last I checked, the constitution said that treason was making war on the United States (or, arguably, the people of the United States) and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Smoking pot is none of these things.
Indeed, I would say that Nixon’s war on drugs was a war on the American people, and still is. So, it is the war on drugs which is treason.
Question on Pat Buchanan above unanswered. In the meantime, there’s this…
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=2939
It could have been David Duke but the author was Pat Buchanan.
More of these at
http://www.brawndo.com/
BTW: ThirdPartyWatch has been down all day.
Still is.
I went back in time and told Younger Me about it. Here I am crying …
No one can be as dumb as the character you’re putting forth.
You haven’t petitioned for a living, I see.
Okay. I had one tiny shred of hope. Then I read that list. Now I do not.
You’ve gone too far in your trolldom. No one can be as dumb as the character you’re putting forth. You stretched believability just a little bit too far. Give it up. Create a new name. You’re not fooling anyone anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
More details
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/pubs/Harris_Poll_2009_02_19.pdf
Tanqueray = troll. You went too far, buddy. You gave yourself away.
When did I go too far? I didn’t say anything I haven’t heard lots of other people say.
All cretins, save for Jesus… But I don’t think fictional characters should count.
http://foolocracy.com/2009/02/obama-edges-jesus-as-number-one-american-hero/
Obama Edges Jesus As Number One American Hero
Posted in February 20th, 2009
by Glenn Church in United States
A new Harris Poll lists Barack Obama, Jesus, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush as the most often mentioned American heroes.
For those who might be offended that Obama placed ahead of Jesus, consider that God came in eleventh. That was one spot ahead of Hillary Clinton. She beat out her husband, Bill, who placed fifteenth. Also making the list was Sarah Palin in twenty-first place.
Of the top ten, six are deceased and five are Presidents.
@Tanqueray
“Obama is the commander in chief, that means we all follow his orders for now”
The President is the comander in Chief of the MILITARY, he is neither my commander, nor my chief! I don’t need a “leader”; I’d rather have a REPRESENTATIVE.
“USA will prevail” sounds a little like the “Voice of London” from “V for Vendetta” – “England Prevails because I say it does”
When I finish school….
Well Ms. Tanqueray, I hope you learn some grammar, along with a healthy dose of history.
It wouldn’t hurt to learn how to use a spell-checker, also.
PEACE
Tanqueray = troll. You went too far, buddy. You gave yourself away.
Yes, last year it was all about McCain-Palin and Country First. However Obama won the election. If you stayed in school this should be something that you would know. Are there a lot of dropout’s here or what?
So since Obama is the commander in chief, that means we all follow his orders for now. Because he is the commander in chief.
But if he is found smoking drugs in the white house or praying to Allah he should be impeached for being a traitor.
When I finish school I hope the commander in chief order’s me to go kill some Muslim’s. USA #1 BABY! Oh yeah also if you do drugs you should be in prison and throw away the key.
PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH
Somebody wil be converted at the point of a sword. The only question is who.
Wow. USA worship!! Who needs Jesus when we have your Messiah (Obama)?
Well, Mr. Tanqueray, you are going to get what you asked for. Your “Messiah” has already escalated the war(s). I hope that you have volunteered to go.
Or are you a chicken-shit, too afraid to stand up for what you supposedly believe?
PEACE
Tanqueray is such a liberal. He has faith in the federal government to protect us from foreign threats, AND to educate children. What an Obamanite.
Oh, so now it’s smart too flunk out of school? Is that we are supposed to teach the kids? No way. You are a fool if you don’t stay in school.
And without a military you would be on your knees to Allah five times a day in Arabic.
I have a better idea. Dip a nuke in pigs blood and drop it on Mecca courtesy of Uncle Sam, baby! That will light up their world like theirs no tomorrow. Their holy moon rock, and their whole holy city, mixed at the atomical level with the blood of pig’s.
Do unto them before they do unto us. Somebody wil be converted at the point of a sword. The only question is who. But there is no question because USA will prevail! USA #1!
Stay in school, say no to drug’s and muslim’s and suport the military, God, mom and apple pie. Oh yeah. You’re the liberal, you liberal!
So finishing the liberal, big-government-funded school is a mark of intelligence?
Liberals are the ones who support socialism, and there’s nothing more socialist than the military.
You have surrendered your freedom. You are a liberal surrender-monkey.
No, liberals are the one’s who suport surrender. Duh. You must of also had a hard time with finishing school also?
Tanqueray is the one “blaming the victim” — the victims of U.S. aggression. He’s just a big-government liberal, FDR style.
….wow.
My boy up there said “stop inviting terrorist blowback” like as if it was America’s fault. Blame the victim mentality. Well we don’t need too be a victim. Stand up and kill all the terrorist scum and those who even look or sound or smell like them. No surrender, fight too the finish!
America is not at fault for what the terrorists do. The terrorists are too blame. Fight terror with terror. They started it. We finish it. Let God sort ‘em out. USA #1!
Ok, I’ll bite. What does this have to do with the price of eggs, immigration, or Ron Paul (the topic of this thread)?
PEACE
“America is not at fault for what the terrorists do. The terrorists are too blame. Fight terror with terror. They started it. We finish it. Let God sort ‘em out. USA #1!”
PLEASE tell me thats a joke.
America is not at fault for what the terrorists do. The terrorists are too blame. Fight terror with terror. They started it. We finish it. Let God sort ’em out. USA #1!
BTW: ThirdPartyWatch has been down all day.
Makes it kinda’ hard to have a civil conversation, ya’ know?
I’m trying, but I don’t always succeed.
Imagine how many dollars worth of new schools and health care that will be… what fun.
WOW!!! Amazing how some people will use the inherent instability and bankruptcy of socialism to argue against more freedom.
Makes it kinda’ hard to have a civil conversation, ya’ know?
PEACE
Steve
I think that way of putting it is far more fair. The vast majority of them arent racist, just protectionist.
Plenty of them are racist, but not all.
For example, some are migrants who want to pull up the ladder behind them now that they are “here.”
Obama and the Dems will see to it that they become citizens. That’s way too many Dem voters for them to turn their backs on. Then the Dems will be winning elections like a runaway train,
So what?
and then pipe dreams of a third party or whatever will be even further from possible than it is now.
How so?
You shouldn’t care… unless you wouldn’t enjoy living in a country with a *one* party system.
I don’t enjoy living in a country with a one-party system. I’ve tried it in a country where the one party operated as one party. Now, I am living in a country where one party rules while pretending to be two parties. How do I benefit from this deception?
Think we can handle another 25-50 million?
That would be a good start. Make it 250-500 and I’ll be even happier.
Imagine how many dollars worth of new schools and health care that will be…
A) Yes, because they won’t add anything to the economy, right?
B) If I had my way, it wouldn’t matter, since the government would not be building any of those.
Enjoy.
I’m enjoying your failure to demonstrate why any of us should ever support the NSGOP. It’s been very enjoyable so far; keep up the good work!
Jumbo is still under the delusion that we’re not living under a one-party state; that voting matters; etc. Also, he apparently has no problem with widespread socialism, so long as it pertains only to native-born Americans.
If the immigrants crash the welfare state, then GOOD. They will have done more for freedom than anyone since the Revolutionary days.
GE,
I think that way of putting it is far more fair. The vast majority of them arent racist, just protectionist.
“How can someone who is not a citizen be on the voter rolls?”
Obama and the Dems will see to it that they become citizens. That’s way too many Dem voters for them to turn their backs on. Then the Dems will be winning elections like a runaway train, and then pipe dreams of a third party or whatever will be even further from possible than it is now.
“…why should I care if they vote Republican or Democrat?”
You shouldn’t care… unless you wouldn’t enjoy living in a country with a *one* party system.
That party will be either the Democrat party… or possibly the Globalist party.
And it will arrive sooner than you think if we get lots more illegal immigrants from the South. Think we can handle another 25-50 million?
Imagine how many dollars worth of new schools and health care that will be… what fun.
Enjoy.
Opponents of immigration are defenders of the welfare state.
Actually, I take back the racists comment. Many are just hardcore protectionists, like the union slobs and welfarist parasites, who aren’t necessarily racist.
“Interesting. I’m sure he wouldn’t cop to saying it is because they are “white.””
I dont believe that is his reasoning.
What’s his reasoning?
Immigration controls = central economic planning. It’s ridiculous to discuss the issue because there is nothing to be gained. Either you believe in central economic planning or you don’t. I don’t.
Me neither.
Immigrants are leaving the U.S., Jumbo.
True.
Immigration opponents are statists, period. And racists, too.
Not all of them.
There’s no way around these things. So then you have Christo-fascist Laurence Vance
I wouldn’t characterize him that way.
pretending that all “open borders” advocates are against property rights. No. No one has the right to trespass. But that has NOTHING to do with the subject of national-socialist borders.
There, you are correct.
The only borders I recognize are the ones around the circumference of MY property, and the legitimate private property of other individuals — not the ravenously murderous state.
Exactly.
Like if I say im going to “stop smoking” it implies forever.
Not at all. I’ve stopped drinking before.
It was the worst day of my life.
No, but seriously, I stopped doing cocaine for ten years. I started up again later. But I was still stopped while I was stopped.
You may be familiar with the term “stopping traffic.” Does this mean traffic will never travel down that street, ever again?
I’m open to discussions that substantively show that illegal immigration doesn’t adversely affect our national health care and education resources.
Already addressed. I don’t consider this a legitimate question, for reasons stated in comment 221.
As far as the Texas thing, I didn’t say “50% of school children,” I said, “50% of first graders.”
And I’m still asking why you think this is either relevant, or bad. I don’t care if they are first graders, college sophomores, rocket engineers, or Walmart greeters. Why should their ethnicity concern me?
Your only attempt at a reply – that it “eats up resources” – is addressed by data compiled and analyzed by Julian Simon, which I linked.
The “legal vs. illegal” issue is addressed simply by making migration legal.
The basis for your question seems to be that there is a fixed amount of resources to allocate – which is completely false. Alternatively, you may think that government is more capable of matching people to resources than a free market is; also false.
The moral basis of your question – that government should have a right to plan the movements of people to (supposedly) optimize resources – I also reject on principle. If you consider that a deflection, too bad.
Incidentally, there have been Hispanics in Texas for many generations – as long as Texas has been a part of the US, and longer. So the ethnicity of any group of Texans does absolutely nothing to advance your argument, other than to create a suspicion in the minds of some that you may in fact be a bigot, despite denying it.
Again… if they’re willing to come here legally, I have no problem with that.
Of course they are willing to come “here” legally. All you have to do is get rid of the immigration quotas.
indicator of an increasing number of illegal immigrant adults who have arrived… and they’re swelling Democrat voter rolls for the most part.
How can someone who is not a citizen be on the voter rolls? If there is vote fraud going on, address that, and not overly broad attempts to sweep up people who have not been proven guilty of any such fraud based on ethnicity and/or not having some regime gang’s permission to breathe in a large portion of the continent.
And, why should I care if they vote Republican or Democrat? From my viewpoint, both are equally bad.
So far, your only “point” in favor of the Republicans is that they will allegedly crack down on migration (using John McCain, of all people, to illustrate such an argument is silly) – which, if it were true, would just be a point in favor of the Democrats.
That’s some circular logic there!
“Immigration opponents are statists, period. And racists, too. There’s no way around these things. So then you have Christo-fascist Laurence Vance pretending that all “open borders” advocates are against property rights. ”
This is a false dichotomy. Did you even READ Vance’s article?
“Interesting. I’m sure he wouldn’t cop to saying it is because they are “white.””
I dont believe that is his reasoning.
Immigration controls = central economic planning. It’s ridiculous to discuss the issue because there is nothing to be gained. Either you believe in central economic planning or you don’t. I don’t. Laurence Vance does.
Immigrants are leaving the U.S., Jumbo. We’re a sinking ship.
Immigration opponents are statists, period. And racists, too. There’s no way around these things. So then you have Christo-fascist Laurence Vance pretending that all “open borders” advocates are against property rights. No. No one has the right to trespass. But that has NOTHING to do with the subject of national-socialist borders. The only borders I recognize are the ones around the circumference of MY property, and the legitimate private property of other individuals — not the ravenously murderous state.
““forever” is implied in the statement “end immigration.”
No, I don’t think it is. ”
Of course it is. Like if I say im going to “stop smoking” it implies forever.
It’s also relevant if they’re illegal because it is an indicator of an increasing number of illegal immigrant adults who have arrived… and they’re swelling Democrat voter rolls for the most part.
A wonderful way to build an insurmountable majority, huh?
I’m open to discussions that substantively show that illegal immigration doesn’t adversely affect our national health care and education resources.
And… still… nuthin’ from you on this. Everything so far is merely deflection.
As far as the Texas thing, I didn’t say “50% of school children,” I said, “50% of first graders.”
I will concede that many of those could be legal immigrants’ children, but there’s no way to know, because school administrators aren’t allowed to ask, are they?
It’s relevant if significant numbers of them are illegal, because (in a huge state) they’re causing the need for many, many more schools, teachers, and administrators than if *they were not in our country.*
Again… if they’re willing to come here legally, I have no problem with that.
“forever” is implied in the statement “end immigration.”
No, I don’t think it is.
Furthermore, Buchanan would still except political refugees and allow small numbers of immigrations from Western European countries, australia, New Zealand, etc.
Interesting. I’m sure he wouldn’t cop to saying it is because they are “white.”
“I don’t recall “forever” being part of the original statement. Moratorium advocates certainly exist. Pat Buchanan, for instance”
“forever” is implied in the statement “end immigration.”
Not “temporarily end immigration”, but “end immigration”
Furthermore, Buchanan would still except political refugees and allow small numbers of immigrations from Western European countries, australia, New Zealand, etc.
Yes, as they say in the ‘hood: Stop hatin’!
Word!
I’m open to discussions that substantively show that illegal immigration doesn’t adversely affect our national health care and education resources.
I don’t consider the natural right of human beings to migrate (except where it concerns migrating unto, or across, legitimately privately owned property) to be a function of resource calculations that can be centrally planned.
I don’t think governments are smart enough to perform those calculations, or ever can be. The market naturally determines where labor is most needed, and it self-regulates through supply and demand – the less government intereferes with it, the better it can do so.
But so far, all I have heard is “it is absurd to refer to any human being as illegal”
And that remains true.
and “make illegal immigration legal and the problem is solved.”
Yes, because you have defined the problem as “illegal immigration” and said that discussions of migration in general are irrelevant. By your own definition, then, making it legal solves the problem.
That line of thinking isn’t a valid, substantive response to my concerns.
You haven’t shown how so. Nor that your concerns are themselves valid and substantive.
I’m still wondering why you thought that it is relevant that 50% of the school children in Texas are Hispanic?
“Great, then you’ll join me in working to make currently illegal migration legal, right?”
No… but then you already knew that. If all you’re going to offer up is smartass responses like that, I can’t take you seriously.
As I said before, (an assertion you seem totally unable to address), I’m open to discussions that substantively show that illegal immigration doesn’t adversely affect our national health care and education resources.
Legal immigration doesn’t bother me in the least.
Great, then you’ll join me in working to make currently illegal migration legal, right?
Overly simplistic response
Then add some detail I haven’t considered. Julian Simon’s book talks about immigration’s effects. “legal” vs. “illegal” is a distraction that is removed by making it all legal. Then we are back to addressing the points Simon brings up.
you simply cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with you.
I tolerate intolerant people just fine. Couldn’t have dinner with my family otherwise, for one thing.
Yes, as they say in the ‘hood: Stop hatin’!
I have NEVER met a anti-immigration person who wanted to completely end immigration forever.
I don’t recall “forever” being part of the original statement. Moratorium advocates certainly exist. Pat Buchanan, for instance.
And calling Vance a statist is ridiculous.
I wouldn’t call him a statist, although I do think his view on this particular issue is.
I don’t have time to hate.
“No need to be concerned. http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Immigration/”
Without reading the whole thing, it looks like that piece is on legal immigration. Legal immigration doesn’t bother me in the least. Why throw totally irrelevant information into this discussion… more deflection?
“So, make it legal. Problem solved.”
Overly simplistic response… but I guess I should expect it after seeing the rest of your “theories” that illegal immigration will do no harm to the U.S. economy and thereby, its citizens.
“Why would I hate ignorance?”
You don’t, sir… you simply cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with you.
I’m open to discussions that substantively show that illegal immigration doesn’t adversely affect our national health care and education resources.
But so far, all I have heard is “it is absurd to refer to any human being as illegal” and “make illegal immigration legal and the problem is solved.”
That line of thinking isn’t a valid, substantive response to my concerns.
“” No proponent of restrictions on immigration wants to close the borders and completely end immigration ”
Provably false. ”
Provably? Ohk. Name one person, one semi-influential thinker or politician who has said he wants to completely end immigration forever.
“” No proponent of restrictions on immigration wants to close the borders and completely end immigration ” = HA!
Laurence M. Vance = Statist and liar.
That article is a sickening statist rant and LRC should take it down.”
This isnt a lie. I have NEVER met a anti-immigration person who wanted to completely end immigration forever. And calling Vance a statist is ridiculous.
I agree that people are the source of “all value.”
It’s a tremendous logic leap to say that therefore borders should be open completely. Not all people are resources. Some are destructive. Criminals, for example. Those with communicable diseases.
And an influx of people at some level could cause temporary dislocations.
This is another example of the failures of absolutism. IMO.
Well, yes, criminals and people with communicable diseases do exist. And they sometimes cross borders. Not all of those are national borders, however. They include state borders, county borders, city borders, precinct borders…would we be better off enforcing all of those as well?
The illegal immigrants in Texas are the Anglos who stole the land in the first place.
Those people are dead. It was stolen countless other times before them.
“I wish they would refrain from insinuating that any restriction on immigration is incompatible with laissez-faire capitalism.”
Why insinuate it, when it can be stated openly? It is, indeed, incompatible.
” No proponent of restrictions on immigration wants to close the borders and completely end immigration ”
Provably false.
= HA!
Laurence M. Vance = Statist and liar.
That article is a sickening statist rant and LRC should take it down.
That kind of rhetoric does not help.
The country is already in ruins, and anyone who thinks it can be saved by “restoring the constitution” should do us all a favor and put his head in the oven.
What do you advocate?
Rothbard, “I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.”
This is around the time of the infamous newsletters. Rothbard and company then, shamefully, decided to make common cause with the racist far right – the “paleo” strategy – which was an utter failure. Although this tactic has by and large been discarded during the Bush II era, many shameful vestiges of it remain in Rockwell’s circle, and may yet bear some more ill fruit now that Obama is in office.
I am personally against the highly secure borders concept for several reason. First, as the Soviet Union proved with the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, a border strong enough to keep bad people out is strong enough to forcibly keep many good people in, as well as to kill many who try to escape.
Second, it is simply mistaken to regard immigrants as a sapping of resources. People are the only source of production. People using technology are more productive, and total production is the product of people multiplied by their average productivity. Simply put, if you want more wealth in the country, you want more people.
I am, in fact, provably better off than I was when the population was half of what it is now, and by more than twice as much. Individuals are the source of all value, all inventions, all creativity, all new ideas, all clever works of fiction, all scientific discoveries. More people means that more of these things happen more often.
Julian Simon was completely right about people. They are the greatest blessing of all.
And, yes, there is a strong note of bigotry in concerns about the border with Mexico. No big deal if a bunch of Polynesians paddle their canoes to Hawai’i? No huge fears of Russians paddling kayaks along the Aleutian chain? Japan actually militarily occupied parts of the USA in WW2, including some islands in the Aleutians. No big artillery emplacements for those islands, I guess?
Exactly.
And, of course, the longest undefended border in the world is between the USA and Canada.
No longer true. The border with Canada is no longer as free as it once was.
Even if St. Hon. Dr. Ron Paul dies, it is the moral obligation of Campaign4Liberty to run an android RonPaul in the GOP primaries… for liberty.
LOL. I can’t tell if you are serious.
Paulie,
You should read Laurence Vance’s latest on immigration.
Why? I’ve read plenty of anti-migration stuff from the Rockwellians over the years. Does this one offer something new?
I can write a point by point reply to any of them, although it would take a long time.
for the record, Im an advocate of “secure borders” in the same way Mises, Rothbard, and Ron Paul were/are. Laurence Vance sums up my opinion well in the link I posted to Paulie a couple comments up.
Rothbard was right earlier on, before he became a “secure borders” advocate.
I don’t hate him for being ignorant. I hate him for being a National-Socialist.
Tronnic “50% of first graders in Texas are Hispanic *now.*”
Hill: Despite my last comment–this statement reaks of anti-hispanic bigotry.
Tronnic 2I don’t mean to disappoint you, but I am not a bigot. It doesn’t matter to me what ancestry the people coming across the border from Mexico are.
Then why is the “50% Hispanic” factoid relevant in your mind?
The thing I’m focused on here is looking at what looks to me like a slow sapping away of our resources by their coming here and living here.
No need to be concerned.
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Immigration/
You can say all day long that we should…
*End the drug war to cut crime
*End the welfare system
…but at the moment, neither of those looks like it is on the horizon.
This line of argument anticipated, and addressed, by me above.
And I’m not even sure they’d stop the illegal immigration.
I’ve got a solution that is 100% guaranteed to stop all illegal immigration. In fact, it is the only way to stop it 100% and it is completely guaranteed to work with asbolutely no exceptions.
My solution is to make it legal. Once it is legal, there will be no more illegal immigration.
Yes, it’s illegal to come here the way they do.
So, make it legal. Problem solved.
So, the fence system is…
Stupid, like the Berlin Wall, Maginot Line, and Great Wall of China.
more and more illegals arrive.
No human being is illegal. And I hope that a lot more people formerly classified as “illegal” (what a stupid, offensive term) come in after it is made legal. The more the better. Legalize it, and I will advertise it.
And while I’m thinking about it, why would anyone say that a secure border would infringe upon Americans’ rights to travel to Mexico?
Once the walls are built and the guards and dogs are in place, it is trivial to turn the guns the other way. By then due to the failing economy and increased totalitarianism, many American may want to leave the part of North America claimed as its turf by the armed bandit gang which calls itself the US government, but the system to prevent them leaving will have been already put in place, in large part by their own foolishness in stupidly worrying that someone will come in and take away what they have.
IMO, we need a fence system… but don’t hate me for that.
Why would I hate ignorance?
I agree that people are the source of “all value.”
It’s a tremendous logic leap to say that therefore borders should be open completely. Not all people are resources. Some are destructive. Criminals, for example. Those with communicable diseases.
And an influx of people at some level could cause temporary dislocations.
This is another example of the failures of absolutism. IMO.
The illegal immigrants in Texas are the Anglos who stole the land in the first place.
” No proponent of restrictions on immigration wants to close the borders and completely end immigration ” = HA!
Laurence M. Vance = Statist and liar.
That article is a sickening statist rant and LRC should take it down.
Ron Paul running would be cool, I guess… It might educate some more people on issues of liberty. However, it will also be a waste of time. The country is already in ruins, and anyone who thinks it can be saved by “restoring the constitution” should do us all a favor and put his head in the oven.
“I wish they would refrain from insinuating that any restriction on immigration is incompatible with laissez-faire capitalism.”
I wish these anti-immigrant weirdos would stop insinuating that they are somehow FOR laissez-faire. I mean, get a fucking clue. Border enforcement is about as “free market” as the Federal Reserve.
Rothbard on nation’s by consent:
http://www.panarchy.org/rothbard/nation.html
1993. He writes on page 7, “I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.”
I am personally against the highly secure borders concept for several reason. First, as the Soviet Union proved with the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, a border strong enough to keep bad people out is strong enough to forcibly keep many good people in, as well as to kill many who try to escape.
Second, it is simply mistaken to regard immigrants as a sapping of resources. People are the only source of production. People using technology are more productive, and total production is the product of people multiplied by their average productivity. Simply put, if you want more wealth in the country, you want more people.
I am, in fact, provably better off than I was when the population was half of what it is now, and by more than twice as much. Individuals are the source of all value, all inventions, all creativity, all new ideas, all clever works of fiction, all scientific discoveries. More people means that more of these things happen more often.
Julian Simon was completely right about people. They are the greatest blessing of all.
And, yes, there is a strong note of bigotry in concerns about the border with Mexico. No big deal if a bunch of Polynesians paddle their canoes to Hawai’i? No huge fears of Russians paddling kayaks along the Aleutian chain? Japan actually militarily occupied parts of the USA in WW2, including some islands in the Aleutians. No big artillery emplacements for those islands, I guess?
And, of course, the longest undefended border in the world is between the USA and Canada. You do have to be aware that Canada has granted landed immigrant status to tens of thousands of British Commonwealth sorts from places like Somalia and Pakistan and India.
But some people are only going to be concerned about Mexicans. Perhaps you’d rather have your daughter dating a Somali from Canada? I could make introductions.
Even if St. Hon. Dr. Ron Paul dies, it is the moral obligation of Campaign4Liberty to run an android RonPaul in the GOP primaries… for liberty.
Whoops, I didnt post it. Here it is.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance164.html
Jumbo,
for the record, Im an advocate of “secure borders” in the same way Mises, Rothbard, and Ron Paul were/are. Laurence Vance sums up my opinion well in the link I posted to Paulie a couple comments up.
“I don’t mean to disappoint you, but I am not a bigot. It doesn’t matter to me what ancestry the people coming across the border from Mexico are. The thing I’m focused on here is looking at what looks to me like a slow sapping away of our resources by their coming here and living here.”
Im not saying you are a bigot, sir. I simply think your statement came across as bigoted. You are railing against illegals, not legal immigrants–and then you cited a statistic saying 50% of school children in Texas are hispanics. What does this statistic have to do with the problem at hand? The vast majorty of those children are likely legal, and illegal aliens are not purely hispanic.
Paulie,
You should read Laurence Vance’s latest on immigration.
“50% of first graders in Texas are Hispanic *now.*”
Trent Hill: Despite my last comment–this statement reaks of anti-hispanic bigotry.
_________________
I don’t mean to disappoint you, but I am not a bigot. It doesn’t matter to me what ancestry the people coming across the border from Mexico are. The thing I’m focused on here is looking at what looks to me like a slow sapping away of our resources by their coming here and living here.
You can say all day long that we should…
*End the drug war to cut crime
*End the welfare system
…but at the moment, neither of those looks like it is on the horizon.
And I’m not even sure they’d stop the illegal immigration. Yes, it’s illegal to come here the way they do. And right now, our system rewards their doing so.
So, the fence system is… for now… the best, most efficient means of stopping the flow. It could always be opened up later if a more ideal world arrives.
Until that time, working against a controlled border is only going to make one feel like one of those “I wish I had been able to see that coming” people once things get considerably worse because more and more illegals arrive.
And while I’m thinking about it, why would anyone say that a secure border would infringe upon Americans’ rights to travel to Mexico? That’s absurd, unless you know millions of Americans who just want to go on a walkabout. There are plenty of places one can cross into Mexico if one so desires.
I imagine it was merely an attempt at deflection, but it just hit me as a very poor effort to pile points on the other side of the argument.
IMO, we need a fence system… but don’t hate me for that. Heh heh.
True.
paulie – I agree with comment #187, but what you’re saying is true of people outside of urban dwellings, too.
Ever heard of MS-13? Or is that just a coincidence?
Central America in the 1980s was a scary place. I saw young teens play soccer with human skulls.
Malcolm X talked about this a long time ago: the chickens coming home to roost.
It is all of one piece. At the top, those who create what we call money out of thin air.
Then, those who rake in billions of it manufacturing weapons, getting government construction contracts such as military bases, prisons, rebuilding foreign countries after they had been blown up by the weapons, pharmaceutical industries and others that benefit from heavily subsidized and controlled markets.
The families that are destroyed by a combination of welfare dependency on one side, and one the other, drug war and wars overseas which remove the fathers from the home.
The kids who grow up with only the mother, or elderly grandparents, or foster homes – often see no choice but to go bang, and perpetuate the cycle. With business and occupational licensing, other routes are even more closed.
So what’s left but either to join the military, police, or street gangs?
The wars overseas escalate, the military surplus weapons and training find their way to the now militarized police and street gangs in the US. The war comes home.
It’s the hate that hate created.
Exactly!
Its dumb to suport surrendering to terrorism.
It is also dumb to support terrorism. And even dumber to TEACH it, as we do at the “School of the America’s” (Now called Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Concerns- WHISC) at Ft Benning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas
This is the sort of thing that creates “blow-back”. Ever heard of MS-13? Or is that just a coincidence?
Paulie is correct “Propping up foreign regimes is most certainly interventionism – whether it involves US troops or US money.”
And teaching terrorism is merely a more subtle form of interventionism.
PEACE
What crazy?
“needs to drop his hostility against religion”
Yes, he does. Also–the crazy.
Yeah. Its dumb to suport surrendering to terrorism.
It was more about my non-attendance. And I don’t support surrendering to terrorism; I just don’t buys that a few wackos in caves are the source of terror, especially when you research who trained and supported them over the years, and then study who has benefited from the “war on terror.”
needs to drop his hostility against religion
Hmmm….I think that’s new for you. I could be wrong.
“Phillips wanted to stop the drugs from getting IN” = yeah, why would that hardcore mercantilist luddite make an exception for drugs?
Ventura needs to drop his hostility against religion and against people who are more libertarian than him.
“Otherwise I would have never graduated high school. ”
Yeah. Its dumb to suport surrendering to terrorism.
school teachers are bribed for better grades,
That happens here, too. Otherwise I would have never graduated high school.
cops are bribed to get out of minor traffic tickets,
Better than what typically happens in the US.
See
http://shadowcabinet.us/?p=61
Paulie is correct in # 172, but he does not go far enough with “ending foreign intervention”.
We must also stop propping up our corrupt puppet regimes south of the border. Americans sometimes joke about our own government corruption, but immigrants from our puppet regimes KNOW what real corruption is.
I’m not sure what you think I meant by interventionism, but this would be a subset of it.
Propping up foreign regimes is most certainly interventionism – whether it involves US troops or US money.
I agree with the rest of #175.
Paulie is correct in # 172, but he does not go far enough with “ending foreign intervention”.
We must also stop propping up our corrupt puppet regimes south of the border. Americans sometimes joke about our own government corruption, but immigrants from our puppet regimes KNOW what real corruption is.
Bribes are so common in our puppet regimes that even school teachers are bribed for better grades, cops are bribed to get out of minor traffic tickets, any kind of business license requires a bribe (or several), etc.
Until the US stops subsidizing our puppet regimes, we can expect to find more escapees from massive corruption.
PEACE
“stop inviting terrorist blowback”
blame the victim mentality
“So a gaggle of right-wing racists and faux libertarians want to build a wall on the border. They are going to “secure” the borders. Nice.”
“I suspect the feds will still be building when I go to my grave and that ultimately it will be scrapped unfinished. It will only stand as a monument to the stupidity and waste of government and to the bigotry of the xenophobic Right.”
“They’ve already pretty much played their hatred of gays to death. It’s really time to move to on to another group of people to attack and why not the Mexicans?”
CLS wrote those comments, not me. The formatting that showed I was quoting him was removed when I cut and pasted – actually, I did not intend to copy that part, just the comment #1, but it looks like I grabbed more than I meant to. To see it in context:
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/immigreat-2/
Trent @ 170: I would agree with everything you say there.
I think that there are in fact legitimate concerns behind some of what border control freaks worry about, other than the race/culture stuff, which is completely bogus.
The solutions, I (naturally) believe, are smaller government:
*Ending the drug war to cut crime
*Ending the welfare system
*Ending corporate welfare, and cutting taxation and regulation
*Ending foreign interventionism, so as to stop inviting terrorist blowback
We should be pushing for more freedom from government on all these issues; not more government as some kind of solution to, well, anything.
(Monopoly coercive) government is never the solution. It just worsens problems and creates new ones.
“So a gaggle of right-wing racists and faux libertarians want to build a wall on the border. They are going to “secure” the borders. Nice.”
“I suspect the feds will still be building when I go to my grave and that ultimately it will be scrapped unfinished. It will only stand as a monument to the stupidity and waste of government and to the bigotry of the xenophobic Right.”
“They’ve already pretty much played their hatred of gays to death. It’s really time to move to on to another group of people to attack and why not the Mexicans?”
“A lot of it is.”
I’d say a sizeable minority of it is. Most Americans and most anti-illegal activists base their ideas on security reasons (which are mostly unfounded) or bad economic ideas (protectionism, OUR jobs, etc).
…but, is there something specific I said that you are replying to when you say…
to say that the illegal immigration debate is based on bigotry, hate, or racism.
…?
“50% of first graders in Texas are Hispanic *now.*”
Despite my last comment–this statement reaks of anti-hispanic bigotry.
A lot of it is.
Paulie,
I find it dishonest and unrealistic to say that the illegal immigration debate is based on bigotry, hate, or racism.
Oops, looks like I grabbed the article as well as the comment. My apologies.
Anyway, in addition to what Robert says in #164, it really is kind of silly of border control freaks, off all people, to mourn McCain’s loss. I mean seriously guys…McCain?
Sure, he may have thrown you some red meat on the campaign trail, but the man has an actual voting record in the US Senate. He introduced the amnesty bill. And you are looking to this guy for salvation? Give me a break.
Now, it’s true that McCain (or Obama) don’t share my opinion on the issue either, which is getting rid of the border controls (which we didn’t have until a few decades ago).
Of course, I also think we should end drug prohibition and the welfare state. but I don’t think that migration freedom should depend on those things happening first, any more than we can advocate more gun control “until we end the drug war and the welfare state.” Or more social welfare until we end corporate welfare, or vice versa.
I want all our freedoms – all the time.
50% of first graders in Texas are Hispanic *now.*
Good for Texas!
But the real bottom line is that Obama, McCain and their parties are just two wings of the same bird of prey.
As Harry Browne wrote here,
I voted for Barr, but I preferred to see Obama over McCain. While Obama seems more likely to make the US pinker, I feared McCain more, as his warmongering seemed more dangerous to life itself.
1st of 22 comments at NFV article linked above…..
ImmiGREAT!
2007.06.29 by pauliecannoli | Edit
Border wall boondoggle: even dumber than I thought!
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/
So a gaggle of right-wing racists and faux libertarians want to build a wall on the border. They are going to “secure” the borders. Nice.
So what does securing the borders mean? Well, one taste of it is that the historic right of Americans to cross into Canada or Mexico without a passport is gone. To travel you have to a government document giving you permission to do so. You can see why I think the “libertarians” who support this measure are not really libertarians at all.
And they want to build a big wall on the Mexican border. Also nice. Real nice. (You do know I’m being sarcastic.)
Since the United States was founded (and before) the borders with Canada and Mexico were never “secure”. Never. So the communities developed often without regard of that imaginary line in the dirt.
Now the authoritarians want “secure borders” and that means problems. It doesn’t mean problems for would-be terrorists. After all the 9/11 criminals didn’t cross the border illegally. They came in with government permission. They had passports and the US government said to them: “Welcome to America. Want some flying lessons?”
No one came in through Canada or Mexico. They didn’t cross the borders but flew in and handed over their permission slips to the hall monitors at the airports. They were roaming around killing people because they passed government security and had state permission to be in the US. You would think the government would look at how they approve would-be terrorists to enter the US. Instead Americans are being forced to get passports to spend a few hours shopping in Mexico.
But with hundreds of years of open borders the problems of imposing a Berlin Wall of security around the country are immense and very costly. Now think of this Border Wall for a second. The estimated cost is $2.2 billion. Like most government boondoggles that is the estimated cost. The real cost no doubt will be significantly higher.
A 14-mile section of wall in the San Diego area has been in the works since 1996. That project spent $39 million to date and the government plans another $35 million for it. By my calculation that is about $5,286,000 per mile. This is in an area much more easily accessible than where the American “Berlin Wall” is being installed. Even if this new wall costs the same as the one in San Diego the final price will be closer to $4 billion. And the New York Times says the cost could reach $49 billion. I suspect the feds will still be building when I go to my grave and that ultimately it will be scrapped unfinished. It will only stand as a monument to the stupidity and waste of government and to the bigotry of the xenophobic Right.
Now that cost is for the wall itself. What isn’t counted is that the US government is going to purchase or confiscate by eminent domain miles of privately owned land abutting the border. Again the faux libertarians supporting the wall will tell you that they oppose eminent domain. Yet only a total moron would have to say this wall can be built without the use of eminent domain. No doubt some of these “new” libertarians will find a way to justify eminent domain the way they have justified their other non-libertarian policies.
How will the wall and the confiscated land be paid for? Taxes, of course. Yet one conservative Republican is telling everyone he has never voted for a tax increase. But he has voted to spend billions of dollars walling in America. In fact he has made the border hysteria a major focus of his campaign. He imposed billions of dollars in costs on the American people and wants to pretend it was done tax free. Sure I believe that.
The Tohono O’odham Indians are not happy with that border wall. And they are supposed to be somewhat sovereign on their own land. But they say the wall will prevent them from crossing onto their land in Mexico and prevent wildlife from crossing. But this tribe may have it easy compared to other Americans.
University of Texas vice president Antonio Zavaleta says the border fence is going to cause a problem for students. “Part of our university would be on the Mexican side of the fence.” He wants to know if students are going to need a passport to travel between classrooms. The New York Times reports:
In Brownsville, Dr. Zavaleta said, that path would cut off not only the International Technology, Education and Commerce campus of the University of Texas and Texas Southmost College, which is in a former shopping center about a mile from the main campus, but also its golf course and a national historic site, Fort Brown, where an upright cannon marks an opening skirmish of the Mexican War.
According to the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram “officials with the Department of Homeland Security mentioned its condemnation authority ‘within the first 15 words’ spoken to landowners” in the Rio Grande Valley where this Orwellian agency is “eyeing numerous private tracts for the wall.” Rep. Henry Cuellar says the landowners were told: “Keep in mind we can take away your property through eminent domain.”
Of course the border nazis insist they want to work with the landowners and that the landowners are “partners” with them. (Sort of the way a woman is a partner to a rapist.) Border Patrol spokesman Xavier Rios says: “The amount of property that would be used for this is only the property that has been identified as essential for completion of the project.” Now doesn’t that clear it up? In other words they will only take as much land as they think they need. Doesn’t everyone feel better now?
The Star-Telegram reports that in Rio Grande Valley section a 90 mile long wall is planned “most of it on private land and that the landowners “have expressed fears that a wall will disrupt cattle and ranching operations, block access to the Rio Grande and — unless they agree to the government’s financial terms — spur nasty court battles over the condemnation of private property.”
Noel Benavides, had a border patrol official show up at his ranch and show him a map indicating the wall would come right through his property. But Benavides was told he couldn’t have a copy of it. Benavides says: “What really got me upset was the individual mentioned eminent domain. We can’t stop Homeland Security. It is the law right now that we have to have a fence in this area. But to come in and say we will take it anyway we can, we can exercise eminent domain, that really got me upset and it still does.”
The land was in Benavides’ wife’s family since 1763 and includes large sections of untouched wilderness. And the Rio Grande was a river his family as uniting two countries, not dividing them. As a boy he swam in the river. Now he wonders if he will even be able to use the water rights he has to the river. “How are we going to be able to pump water if a fence separates us from the river? What is going to happen to all those animals that drink water from the river?” Benavides wonders which Mexican president is going to say: “Mr. President, tear down this wall… like Reagan said.”
Hey boys and girls! Aren’t you glad that those private property loving, small government conservatives (Ron Paul included) pushed through this idea?
It also appears that entire sections of Laredo, Texas are built up right to the border with Neuvo Laredo in Mexico. That would means wide sections of private property, people’s homes and businesses, will have to be confiscated to build the wall. We now have conservatives, who whined about the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision on eminent domain, proposing a wall that is only going to be built through the confiscation of thousands and thousands of pieces of private property. But don’t expect them to mention that.
So far there are no plans to wall in the Canadian border. But Americans are going to need passports to cross into Canada shortly. But how, for instance, will that work in the town of Derby Line, Vermont? Derby Line and Stanstead, Canada share common streets.
Over a century ago the Haskell Library was built there. As Associated Press reported:
Step through the front door of the Haskell Library and you’re in the United States. Walk across the carpeted floor to the circulation desk and you’re in Canada. But if you sit down on the couch, you’re back in the U.S.
The two towns, in different countries, share a common water system, sewer system and emergency crews in both towns help one another. Will people need passports to go to the local library?
The residents of Canusa Avenue in Beebe Plain, Vermont have a bigger problem. This new found desire to “secure the borders” is one that troubles them. The street is named as it is as because it combines Canada and the USA (CanUSA). The residents on the south side of the street live in the US while those on north side live in Canada. Under the new Bush rules residents will need a passport to cross the street. As one lifelong resident of the street put it, referring to the new regulations: “This is quite a rats’ nest, if you think about.”
Ah, but in DC they never think about it and the Decider has decided and logic and reason never plays a role in his decisions. And what would Republicans campaign on if they didn’t have “illegals” around to scare their voters. They’ve already pretty much played their hatred of gays to death. It’s really time to move to on to another group of people to attack and why not the Mexicans?
Photos: 1) The wall, or one version of it. 2). Haskell Library, part in Canada, part in the US. 3) Canusa Ave: north side is Canada, south side is US. Passports will be need to borrow a cup of sugar from the neighbor?
Labels: big government, border control
posted by CLS at 6/20/2007 04:38:00 PM
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
* Opponents of the Border Fence Look to Obama
* Critics: Border Fence Too Fast, Too Costly
* A few belated post-inaugural thoughts
Posted in Canada, Department of Homeland Security, Martial Law, Real ID Act, civil liberties, coercion, complete fucking stupidity, draconian legislation, economics, educational videos, immigration, personal responsibility, police state, politics, property rights, regulation, texas | 22 Comments
22 Responses to “ImmiGREAT!”
1.
edit this on 2007.06.29 at 18.52.17 Dennis Wilson
I think immigration is ImmiGREAT and I have defended it in many articles that I have written.
groups.msn.com/DennisLeeWilson/yourwebpage3.msnw
Subject Index to my Published Articles:
The War against Immigrants
[2001-04-05] My web comments “Free Immigration-the alleged security issue” quoting Reisman’s book Capitalism http://tinyurl.com/tjr98l
[2006-05-14] “Ask the right question” http://tinyurl.com/373dug
Praise for “Mr. Wilson’s extremely interesting essay” from L. Neil Smith…. http://tinyurl.com/2vmu7c
[2006-09-10] More arguments for open borders-this time (unbeknownst to him) from the pen of Hans-Hermann Hoppe!” http://tinyurl.com/y393aq
[2006-09-03] “Will the REAL Lady of Liberty please raise a Lighted Torch” http://tinyurl.com/3247sm
[2006-10-01] Lady Liberty response to “…please raise a Lighted Torch” http://tinyurl.com/3atoez
[2007-04-08.1] Immigration Letters from Jim Davidson, Dennis Wilson, with Replies from Rex May and Jim Davidson http://tinyurl.com/3basrj
L. Neil Smith responds:
“Recent exchanges here in the virtual pages of The Libertarian Enterprise have made it necessary for me to engage, once again, on a topic that I would really rather let others handle whenever possible. There’s nothing I hate like repeating myself, so pay attention this time.
“The topic is “illegal” immigration. I dislike dealing with it primarily because the very necessity to do so challenges my otherwise optimistic view of my fellow human beings. The rational position on this issue should be obvious-open and shut-to anyone calling him- or herself a libertarian, and the fact that it isn’t depresses me”.
http://tinyurl.com/yp5mcb
[2007-06-10] “Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!” http://tinyurl.com/2dezy2
A fence system would cost much less than the cost of the number of boots on the ground that would be needed to enforce that *plus* the cost of trying to prevent illegals from coming in from Mexico.
Ending the enforcement of an unnecessary and vile edict (the migration “law,” not a legitimate law at all…see discussion and links at my link above) costs nothing.
Fire the people filling those boots, and tear down that wall.
I also disagree with those who say all we need to do is step up enforcement to make those who hire illegals pay dearly for their doing so.
No human being is illegal, and we need to end this enforcement, not step it up.
“The question you asked was not what you think, but about what other people think, especially those of us who did not vote for Obamacaine.”
Sure… but I hope it’s okay for me to express *my* opinion, too.
Insofar as the fence system being unneeded and another boondoggle, I disagree. I also disagree with those who say all we need to do is step up enforcement to make those who hire illegals pay dearly for their doing so.
A fence system would cost much less than the cost of the number of boots on the ground that would be needed to enforce that *plus* the cost of trying to prevent illegals from coming in from Mexico.
I’m focused on the Mexican border, not Canadian… and I think that trying to make the point that the 9/11 perps didn’t come across the border is irrelevant.
1. Future terrorists *could* decide to come in across the U.S. – Mexico border.
2. It is important to stop the increasing flow of illegals from Mexico because they commit a lot of crime *and* they suck up our health care and education resources. 50% of first graders in Texas are Hispanic *now.*
But with Obama and the Dems in Congress, nothing will be done, and they’ll figure out a way to let them vote, too… so the illegals will be swelling the Democrat voter rolls.
We don’t need to enforce the borders between so-called countries, any more than we need to enforce borders between states, counties or cities.
Mr. Obama, tear down that fence!
I think Obama, in combination with the Dem-controlled Congress is *much* worse.
The question you asked was not what you think, but about what other people think, especially those of us who did not vote for Obamacaine.
Let me rephrase that; I sincerely doubt it will happen during an Obama administration if the Dems continue to hold Congress.
Let’s hope it doesn’t.
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/immigreat-2/
“But it’ll never happen now.”
Let me rephrase that; I sincerely doubt it will happen during an Obama administration if the Dems continue to hold Congress.
Thanks for your reply… yes, I know Nader voters probably wouldn’t have voted for McCain.
I disagree that McCain and Obama are “were equally bad and unacceptable choices.” I think Obama, in combination with the Dem-controlled Congress is *much* worse.
For one thing, I think it’s a lot less likely that we’ll get a decent border control fence system with Obama. McCain at least said he understood the people want border control first and foremost.
I’d love to see this go up in the next few years:
http://www.weneedafence.com/the_solution
But it’ll never happen now.
I think a lot of Ron Paul supporters (maybe not the most ardent ones, but supporters nonetheless) from the primaries probably voted for Obama. There were a lot of young liberals who supported Paul because of how outspoken he was and he was anti-war.
Question: has there been an analysis of this election showing how many and where the Ron Paul and other independents’ votes were… showing how the electoral voting would have stacked up if those votes had gone to McCain?
Just asking… not wanting to start a flame war here, I’m just curious.
There have been numerous such analyses. Check the archives here going back to November.
Because I’m guessing most who voted for RP and other independents would *much* rather have McCain as POTUS as compared to Mr. PowerGrab.
Even if this was true, Obama would have still won easily. But it’s far from being true.
Also, Ron Paul was not one of the leading “independents” – he got a lot more voted in the primaries (about a million) than in the general election (about 40,000).
The “independents” as you call them range the ideological gamut. The leading one was Ralph Nader. I doubt most of Nader’s voters would have preferred McCain.
In fact, many people voted for someone other than Obama or McCain because they had no preference between those two, correctly assessing that both were equally bad and unacceptable choices.
Question: has there been an analysis of this election showing how many and where the Ron Paul and other independents’ votes were… showing how the electoral voting would have stacked up if those votes had gone to McCain?
Just asking… not wanting to start a flame war here, I’m just curious.
Because I’m guessing most who voted for RP and other independents would *much* rather have McCain as POTUS as compared to Mr. PowerGrab.
“My problem is that some Ron Paul supporters idolize him as a false god.”
I am a supporter, and he is no god, and I havent met any other Ron Pauler’s who subscribe to this belief.
He is a top notch representative of the people. An “Honest Politician”. Jeez I can believe I just typed those two words together.
I hope he does run again. Jeez I hope we have a free elections in 2012. If he is in the race, he will get my vote.
Joey , I thought the exact same thing the other night!!! great minds you know…..
Wayne is the friggin energizer bunny , he just doesnt stop . he used to be veiwed as being on one certain side w/in the party but now even those who used to oppose him are coming around and realizing what an asset he is .
Barry cooper , being a drug war reformer , would shore up the other side.
excellent excellent idea!
I have tremendous admiration for Ron Paul, and was quite impressed with the movement that grew around him, but I propose we try something completely different in 2012.
http://scarecrowforpresident.blogspot.com/
How about a Wayne Allyn Root/Barry Cooper ticket?
WAR2012.com
And NeverGetBusted.com/KopBusters.com.
Now that would be a great ticket.
KK submissive? In that pretty USAF uniform?
I asked Angela a long time ago and was relieved when she said no!
Robert, Dr. Paul is in excellent health, far better than most of us. His age, barring anything catastrophic, is a non-issue.
And The Keaton is focusing on Antiwar.com fundraising, not 2012. Please donate here: http://antiwar.com/donate/
Herr Capozzi,
Of course, this is correct…at 76, mein Gott! He should be trotting to ze glue factory…not running for office, should he not, zis altekocker Scheisse?
Nein, Herr Feldenstein. Ze Keaton is a New Yorker by ze origin. Herr Milnes is looking for a woman from ze South. Zey are more ze….submissive type, ya?
I think Angela Keaton would be the ideal running mate for Milnes.
Milnes/Keaton 2012!
Leymann Feldenstein, Milnes/Kwiatkowski looks best but I’d settle for Milnes/Ruwart if she would talk with me! At least KK communicates.
won’t RP be 76 in ’12? seems wildly unlikely he’ll run for anything above the House for much longer…though Thurmond hung in in the Senate from a small state for a long time….
Peter,
I think DC is probably more prone to libertarian winners because of the think tanks.
Ze redhead zlut…she reminds jew of jour mudder, ya? Und ze fish…zis is metafor?
http://www.mrspauls.com/
Wikipedia:
Paul has been married to Carol Wells since 1957.[8] They have five children, who were baptized Episcopalian:[2] Ronnie, Lori, Rand, Robert, and Joy. They also have eighteen grandchildren and one great-grandchild.[9]
Does Ron Paul have any daughters? If so, that could be a good running mate for Milnes. LOL.
I was thinking that Margot Kidder might be available for a Mines/Kidder ticket. But I think she is Canadian.
PEACE
I would vote for Milnes/Kwiatkowski.
“Emma Goldman, I think Teddy Roosevelt was an anarcho-left libertarian, esp. late in his career. How’s that grab your anarchist ass?”
Herr Milnez,
Zees zots you are having…zey kom wiz ze…how you say… nokturnal emission, yes?
Emma Goldman, I think Teddy Roosevelt was an anarcho-left libertarian, esp. late in his career. How’s that grab your anarchist ass?
Emma Goldman, how come it is ok (not politically incorrect) to bash the South?
Libertarian Joseph, “Ron Paul is a joke.” Agreed. I wouldn’t use those words, but agreed.
I thought you know-it-alls would come up with Karen Kwiatkowski & draft Karen.com.
Googling “Leola McConnell” was interesting. Thanks!
She’s not a libertarian or from the South, but I think that a ticket with Robert Milnes and Leola McConnell would produce some very unique press releases.
Search the whorehouses and speakeasies.
See
http://www.dailykingfish.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1105
I’ve even written the outline of such an ad for Robert:
Robert only has a certain amount of time he can devote to saving this planet. After all it is just one out of many where he does his important work.
Milnes can only help those planet that are willing to help themselves by supplying him with a female running mate, preferably a southerner, well-proportioned and available, constitutionally qualified for the office and ready to serve the ticket in whatever ways required of her.
Although at present, he can only offer monopoly money in payment, it won’t be long before it will be worth about the same as a federal reserve note.
Quasi-noble sure, but quasi-infamous?
Quasi-modal, as well.
Ron Paul is a joke.
Quasi-noble sure, but quasi-infamous?
Trent at the end of 2009 people are going to be thinking politics. Which politicians to hang in effigy and which ones to burn at the stake.
Lunged at, pirouetted at, danced with, anarchism for me.
The woman anarcho-libertarian from the South would also have to be stupid enough to run with Milnes on the ticket. They grow them free and Southern, free and stupid, Southern and stupid. Can you have all three? Search the whorehouses and speakeasies.
Leymann Feldenstein, thank you for the endorsement. However, I have the green/left progressive part of the fusion ticket covered. What is needed is not another leftist (like McKinney) but rather a woman anarcho-libertarian southerner. That would cover all the bases and correct the imbalance of right-heavy Teddy Roosevelt’s ticket in 1912. An all anarchist ticket! Anarchism to be presented as the ideal to be gradually strived towards, not lunged at.
Rope, Dope, Hope, Nope, Cope, Mope, Pope mix assembled by me.
O/T….time to troll for people to go comment over at Next Free Voice.
New so far in February:
Supreme Court ruling effectively opens floodgates for unlawful searches by Matt Harris
Lincoln’s Legacy by S. Greffenius. Rather unusual for an LP activist, he’s pro-Lincoln.
Facilitate Change – a nonviolent communication program with a focus on social change – my repost from Kimberly Wilder, by request.
Stimulis: Because All Economies Have Performance Issues – neat video I found at Reason.com.
Rethinking Alan Greenspan by AynRKey.
Taxpayers get the dog knot in Cali, by me.
Liberaltarian Dialog – February 2009 by Deaconstruck.
Site updates, new authors – updated by me.
And, since I trolled for NFV comments a few minuted ago on another thread here, another
new one…….
Free and Sexy by Jim Davidson.
It isnt me, I’d be doing it for all posts–but that’d take WAY too much time.
A lot of hit flurries off some social network thing…StumbleUpon I think. A lot of those are the Constitution Party posts, or Ron Paul stuff. Not as much lately. They get a lot of hits, but not a lot of comments in many cases.
I’m not sure who is bringing those in.
Yea, I know. It isnt an exact science, that’s for sure. Also–it could’ve just been a good link. We’ve been linked by LewRockwell, Reason’s Hit & Run, and a number of other pretty high-traffic blogs. We’ve also been cited in The Hill magazine/newspaper.
A lot of the articles that get a lot of hits (see “entry pages” and “exit pages” on sitemeter) don’t get a lot of comments, and also some articles get a flurry of comments days or even weeks or months after they are posted.
Best day since the 26th of Jan, which is odd since there was no article on the 26th, or 25th, that got tons of comments.
Last 30 days
BTW: This thread gave us a GREAT day. Almost 1800 hits isnt bad for post-election. I think our traffic will start to pick up again at the very end of 2009, when candidates start declaring for races and people become interested in politics again.
I meant the comment to be general, I don’t believe that Perry was in the presidential race, and although I don’t know what office he was running for, it probably would have been subject to these rules.
US Senate. He would have had to get about 40,000 valid (60k with a decent safety margin) to run as anything but D or R.
I meant the comment to be general, I don’t believe that Perry was in the presidential race, and although I don’t know what office he was running for, it probably would have been subject to these rules.
It has been inferred that it is a good strategy to “use” the big two parties in general, but aside from core beliefs, there is also the rule book that must be considered.
As to the original topic of this conversation, I could care less if R. Paul runs as a republican or not…I will vote my conscience and that doesn’t include the r’s or the d’s…
One thing some may not be aware of, but in some states, SC is one of them, if you run in a primary of one party for a given office, you cannot run in the general as a petition, write in, or candidate for another party.
This does not apply to presidential candidates, because what is on the ballot in November is the slate of electors for the college of electors.
One thing some may not be aware of, but in some states, SC is one of them, if you run in a primary of one party for a given office, you cannot run in the general as a petition, write in, or candidate for another party.
Aside for my distaste for selling out to get the platform and/or votes, how much education are you going to be able to do, if a “party machine” shuts down your candidacy before it gets started?
But that’s not me.
Or me.
No offense intended to anyone, but I consider this conversation over.
The conversation isn’t over, although you can certainly choose to no longer participate in it.
Kicked out of the GOP? This is patently false. I’ve been in the GOP for awhile now, as are many other Ron Paul supporters–all of whom attend End the Fed rallies and such. I never said anything about trying to get onto the County or State Committees–only about running as a Republican and being on the ballot, instead of running as a Boston Tea Party guy and being a write-in candidate. 14 votes isnt much of a vote total, as a Republican you likely would’ve raked in several thousand and had the opportunity to reach hundreds (or even thousands) with the message of Peace and Prosperity.
As for you getting kicked out for attending “End The Fed” rallies, I think that is an unfair statement. Many prominent Republicans, state committeemen, county committeement, local officials, etc have attended anti-fed demonstrations and not been “kicked out”. That sounds like hyperbole to me.
“…using the Republican Party as a vehicle (like Dr. Paul does)”
I would get kicked out of the GOP for not keeping my mouth shut.
Dr. Paul has been in the GOP far longer than I’ve been alive; he’s able to speak his mind; I wouldn’t be.
A friend of mine told me the “games” the GOP plays. You must keep quiet and “play along” in order to get a county level committee spot, stay quiet to get to the State Committee, then you can speak out. That’s 5-10 years of “playing nice”; no attending End The FED! rallies, no passing out Tax Honesty literature, etc… I’m not willing to play along with these stupid games just to win. I’d rather speak up for what I believe than stay quiet, just to win. I wouldn’t be staying true to who I am.
If that’s what YOU want to do, fine. But that’s not me.
No offense intended to anyone, but I consider this conversation over.
I’ve blogged a bunch of places. I’m quasi-infamous in some circles. Not with the general public, though.
Quasi-infamous!? This is IPR!!!!
“Loretta and Charles have been interviewed on national TV shows, so you can at least use their endorsement as some kind of cred. ”
The whole point of an endorsement is to sway a vote–I dont think those endorsements swung anyone’s votes.
got endorsements from Loretta Nall, Charles Jay & Paulie Cannoli
LOL. I’ve never seen my endorsement listed in that way, as if I was some kind of big shot.
Loretta and Charles have been interviewed on national TV shows, so you can at least use their endorsement as some kind of cred.
Me? I’m a recovering junkie, ex-career criminal, quasi-infamous blogger, and traveling petitioner. Oh yeah, I’m on the exec comm of an unrecognized political party in a mid-sized state. And I’ve worked as a volunteer on a few campaigns. You’re probably better off with the endorsement of Al the Grocer from the mini-mart, or the eye doctor or barber in one of the shops around the town square in one our state’s smaller county seats.
“But, if I was able to educate 1 person about the need for smaller government, i consider my campaign to be a success”
Really? I consider that a very low barometer for success. You could’ve educated thousands using the Republican Party as a vehicle (like Dr. Paul does). More education = more success,right? So you should be trying to reach the broadest audience possible.
“But, I couldn’t, in good conscience, given money to the GOP”
Why not? In exchange, you’d be getting MUCH more out of them. You’d be getting free media, free debate appearances, and thousands of votes-worth of a free advertisements in news-mentions (not the same as free press, this is just when the news media says, “Candidate X has only one opponent, Candidate Y”).
Wouldn’t your campaign have been more of a success if you educated more people?
94 is the best answer you’ve given!
“which Ron Paul supporters probably would’ve helped you pay for”
But, I couldn’t, in good conscience, given money to the GOP
But, if I was able to educate 1 person about the need for smaller government, i consider my campaign to be a success
Who cares about Ron Paul. I’m endorsing Robert Milnes for President on the Libertarian/Green fusion ticket.
Look-out Obama. Here comes Milnes/McKinney in 2012!
““why not run as a Republican?”
That would have required me to write a check to the AL GOP to be listed on the primary ballot”
Right–which Ron Paul supporters probably would’ve helped you pay for.
“I was the only “Liberty Candidate” from the State of Alabama listed in Republic Magazine, I was the highest rated candidate (aside from Ron Paul) on the Paul-O-Meter, and got endorsements from Loretta Nall, Charles Jay & Paulie Cannoli”
None of which seems to have mattered….
I repeat, .12% is the maximum you could have gotten.
Of the approx. 200 write-ins counted (of 2417 cast); 14 went for me
“why not run as a Republican?”
That would have required me to write a check to the AL GOP to be listed on the primary ballot
I was the only “Liberty Candidate” from the State of Alabama listed in Republic Magazine, I was the highest rated candidate (aside from Ron Paul) on the Paul-O-Meter, and got endorsements from Loretta Nall, Charles Jay & Paulie Cannoli
“I will never know; 50 of the 67 counties didn’t tabulate write-ins and the state didn’t tabulate what was given to them.”
But…around .10? Write-ins only accounted for .12% in that race.
“I was motivated to run because there was no Constitutionally sound candidate on the ballot.”
But even WITH you running there was no constitutionally sound candidate on the ballot–because you werent on the ballot. Im wondering why not run as a Republican? You would’ve been ON the ballot, would’ve gotten MORE votes, would’ve been mentioned in ALOT more media, and definetly would’ve given people a sound constitution option.
“How many votes did you get?”
I will never know; 50 of the 67 counties didn’t tabulate write-ins and the state didn’t tabulate what was given to them.
“Did you educate anyone?”
I believe I did.
“Did you sway any of the other candidates into supporting libertarian positions?”
I wasn’t able to sway Jeff Sessions OR Vivian Figures; they are both hardcore party-line.
“Did you get any media?”
I had a couple of press releases carried by newspapers across the State, I was also a guest on a few internet radio broadcast
“etc…”
The UAB Students for Liberty had me as a guest on a few occassions
“I ask not to attack you, but because I am genuinely curious as to what motivates someone to run a write-in campaign for Senate, and how he could consider it successful. ”
I was motivated to run because there was no Constitutionally sound candidate on the ballot.
“I don’t consider you poor.”
The government does =)
I dont either, actually,lol.
No, i mean i’ll likely go into debt. Or that I’ll forego certain luxuries I currently have (Internet, Cable, etc). Although admittedly, my situation has improved since I got my new job.
Internet, cable, etc, were not part of my equation.
If you have the kind of credit that allows you to borrow the max campaign contribution and still have money for food and rent, I don’t consider you poor.
“I’m not sure I understand that. You mean you will go sleep on the streets and eat at the soup kitchen so that you’ll have enough money for a max donation?”
No, i mean i’ll likely go into debt. Or that I’ll forego certain luxuries I currently have (Internet, Cable, etc). Although admittedly, my situation has improved since I got my new job.
“Not in my opinion”
Well make your case! How many votes did you get? Did you educate anyone? Did you sway any of the other candidates into supporting libertarian positions? Did you get any media? etc.
I ask not to attack you, but because I am genuinely curious as to what motivates someone to run a write-in campaign for Senate, and how he could consider it successful.
I mean…simply think about the number of votes you would have gotten had you run in the Republican primary. As a mere protest candidate you likely would’ve garnered at least double digits.
#
Michael H. Wilson // Feb 16, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I know some people, quite a few in fact, who smoke weed. The call it by the name cannabis since that is the proper name of the plant. Many of them are well to do and work their asses off and tend to be in good physical shape. Some are quite wealthy, but most of them don’t have anything to do with the LP because of the lack of principles, as one told me and the poor work habits of many in the party.
#
73 Michael H. Wilson // Feb 16, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Pardon me I should not have written work habits. The person’s comments had more to do with the way the ideas are presented and the willingness to insult others.
True, and also true on many other issues as well.
“If you even have that much money, and could still have enough for food and rent after donating it, you are not poor.”
I dont =) that’s the point.
I’m not sure I understand that. You mean you will go sleep on the streets and eat at the soup kitchen so that you’ll have enough money for a max donation?
““and I was wasting everyone’s time with a write-in campaign.”
Were you?”
Not in my opinion
Darryl:
True, there are different kinds of Ron Paul supporters. Some aren’t even antiwar at all, and some don’t care about the fed.
But there is no doubt that Ron Paul would not have gone nearly as far as he did if he hadn’t had the opportunity to stand up to Giuliani on the war issue in the debate.
“and I was wasting everyone’s time with a write-in campaign.”
Were you?
“No one will get as much support as Ron Paul if they dont appeal to the Austrians. Hard Money, free trade, and anti-Fed are issues that this candidate absolutely MUST possess if he’s going to appeal to the Ron Paul supporters.
Absolutely.
Being antiwar is key too.”
Some in the C4L insist on you being a member of the duopoly.
I witnessed this first-hand during my write-in campaign for US Senate. The head of the Mobile C4L told me (I’m paraphrasing) that he couldn’t support me because I wasn’t either a Republican or Democrat and I was wasting everyone’s time with a write-in campaign.
Three days later, he issued an endorsement for Jeff Sessions – a man that voted FOR the PATRIOT ACT and supported FISA.
I marched in DC in July, I was kicked out of a shopping mall in Louisville, KY on Tax Day for handing out Tax Honesty literature, I was at the Rally for the Republic, I protested the Fed on November 22; but because I REF– USE to be a member of the Republicratic duopoly, some people refuse to support me or anyone else in the Campaign for Liberty that isn’t a member of the duopoly.
“If you even have that much money, and could still have enough for food and rent after donating it, you are not poor.”
I dont =) that’s the point.
Fuck Ron Paul, RP/RP/dinosaur fossil. I’M running in 2012. That’s all you good losers need to know.
Pardon me I should not have written work habits. The person’s comments had more to do with the way the ideas are presented and the willingness to insult others.
I know some people, quite a few in fact, who smoke weed. The call it by the name cannabis since that is the proper name of the plant. Many of them are well to do and work their asses off and tend to be in good physical shape. Some are quite wealthy, but most of them don’t have anything to do with the LP because of the lack of principles, as one told me and the poor work habits of many in the party.
I wish we could get rid of these weed smoking, witch worshiping wackadoo’s but they aren’t going anywhere
Don’t be so pessimistic. You got most of the radical and left-leaning party members to leave already. Or at least no longer actively participate.
Not our fault that this doesn’t mean a bunch of Republican types suddenly flow in and make the LP a major party, like some people were promising.
But then again, county chairs should know some basic things, like actually sending their press releases directly to media by email and following up with phone calls, rather than thinking that putting it on the party’s website means the whole world has read it.
I wish we could get rid of these weed smoking, witch worshiping wackadoo’s but they aren’t going anywhere, even after we nominate the best person for the job, instead of whatever candidate their drug induced minds come up with.
So you want to get rid of half the LP. Why not be a Republican or Constitutionalist then?
If this is 1922, then, yes, 2012 would be a very different campaign.
If there will even be one.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025376.html
“The only difference between this and what the Reichsbank did is that the latter discounted commercial paper (which the FED already is doing) and not long-term paper.”
If this is 1922, then, yes, 2012 would be a very different campaign.
Paulie,
Can’t say I disagree with that idea. I guess it is good for a token get your name out there, but Presidential elections for a party that continually gets less than 1% of the vote is a waste of money.
Everyone who ever says this should read this, and then read it again. And then maybe a third time.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/2000/WasItWorthIt.htm
Please actually read it. Don’t skim. I’m serious.
The LP destructs every 4 years.
Warnings of self destruction are pure manipulation and will be entirely ignored by everyone involved, on both sides.
I wish we could get rid of these weed smoking, witch worshiping wackadoo’s but they aren’t going anywhere, even after we nominate the best person for the job, instead of whatever candidate their drug induced minds come up with.
Personally, I hope he does. It’ll be a great opportunity to educate some more voters.
It certainly can be, especially if the correct lessons from 2008 are learned.
“trying too hard”?
He’d have it in a cinch, VERY easily. The LP would probably also have its largest convention EVER.
I said without trying too hard. In other words, I agree with you on this.
However, that isnt going to happen. Paul might run, if he does–it’ll be as a Republican.
That is likely to be true as well, unless a lot of other things change. Which they might – if the economy and/or the war get much worse over the next few years, as I believe they very well might, the duopoly might break.
Personally, I hope he does. It’ll be a great opportunity to educate some more voters. I’d give a maximum donation,and im a poor college student.
If you even have that much money, and could still have enough for food and rent after donating it, you are not poor.
“Define “failed.” If you mean failed to win the presidency, the LP should stop running people for president (or governor, or congress) by that same criterion.”
Paulie,
Can’t say I disagree with that idea. I guess it is good for a token get your name out there, but Presidential elections for a party that continually gets less than 1% of the vote is a waste of money.
Better to focus on state and locals and then move up.
I mean failed by saying he didn’t even come close to earning his party’s nomination. He won’t in 2012 either.
“trying too hard”?
He’d have it in a cinch, VERY easily. The LP would probably also have its largest convention EVER.
However, that isnt going to happen. Paul might run, if he does–it’ll be as a Republican. Personally, I hope he does. It’ll be a great opportunity to educate some more voters. I’d give a maximum donation,and im a poor college student.
Ron Paul was the LP’s presidential candidate. He’s not going to run for vice president, why should he?
Yes, VP would clearly be a step down that he does not need to take. If he was going to throw out his Republican creds and run LP again, he could easily have the top spot on the ticket, without even trying too hard.
Lessons of Denver. Running any Republican, including Dr. Paul would destroy the LP – if you pay attention to Knappster and Keaton, attacking Paul supporters on the LNC in late 2007.
Knapp said this, yes. Some others, like Phillies, Rob Power and Brian Miller.
Keaton, on the other hand, voted for the resolution to invite Paul to run LP, as well as to give him the Ballot Base help; that’s all public record. So I don’t think you should lump her in with Knapp on that particular issue.
“I’d rather see RP as an LP VP candidate.” sez Joe.
Ron Paul was the LP’s presidential candidate. He’s not going to run for vice president, why should he?
“if teh LP “reaches out” and nominates ANY Republican ever again, with the only exception being Dr. Paul, the party will self-destruct. That’s the lesson of Denver, and people like me warned of it and went unheeded,” sez Michael the slightly dyslexic. Teh LP?
Lessons of Denver. Running any Republican, including Dr. Paul would destroy the LP – if you pay attention to Knappster and Keaton, attacking Paul supporters on the LNC in late 2007. The LP may self-destruct anyway. A libertarian presidential nominee would do the LP some good, but only if the GOP members of the LNC let go.
“Roy Moore makes Bob Barr look like a libertarian.” sez John.
Very difficult. I would pay to see that, maybe a dollar. Just putting a hat that says Libertarian on Barr doesn’t make him look libertarian. It makes him look like a conservative Republican wearing a funny hat.
“It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.”
Apparently IPR commenters are not the only ones considering Sanford: http://draftsanford2012.com/
Additionally, I just found this video remix of Sanford’s testimony against the bailout: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GxY2WzaGjE&feature=related
In fact, for the longest time, Sanford refused to use South Carolina’s federal bailout funds, although I believe he finally caved.
Sanford was also one of only five people in congress to vote against the 1998 bombing campaign in Iraq:
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0399/9903029.html
kept his promise by not *seeking* reelection in 2000
To the extent that I still support any more “mainstream” Republicans, I think Sanford is one of the best. The fact that he was elected on a voluntary term limits pledge in 1994 and then kept his promise by not reelection to the House in 2000 speaks volumes to me. I believe he was also against the Bosnian and Kosovo interventions while in Congress.
What I think has turned some people off to Sanford recently is his attendance at a 2008 Bilderberg group meeting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNtuFERbbPY
I’m not saying I agree with Alex Jones, the Truthers, or other conspiracy theorists, but generally CFR and the Bilderberg Group promote a brand of big-government internationalism that I don’t support.
No one will get as much support as Ron Paul if they dont appeal to the Austrians. Hard Money, free trade, and anti-Fed are issues that this candidate absolutely MUST possess if he’s going to appeal to the Ron Paul supporters.
Absolutely.
Being antiwar is key too.
No one will get as much support as Ron Paul if they dont appeal to the Austrians. Hard Money, free trade, and anti-Fed are issues that this candidate absolutely MUST possess if he’s going to appeal to the Ron Paul supporters. Unfortunately, very few people can manage to cross this barrier. Peter Schiff may run for Senate, and there is a rumor that Judge Napolitano is toying with the idea too. I think Gov. Gary Johnson should run for an open Senate seat in New Mexico.
I am curious why it is that some RP supporters are now shying from Mark Sanford?
I think some were never on board with him to start with.
He was getting a lot of positive buzz last summer and now his star is rising. He isn’t as strong as Dr. Paul or Gary Johnson all around but he is becoming one of the most popular voices for limiting federal power. That said I’d like to learn more about his foreign policy views.
That would be a major thing to know before considering supporting someone. Many other issues too.
The problem may be that Ron Paul doesn’t want to be President and his run in 2008 was an attempt to get the message out, particularly to young, college educated segments of the US electorate. That has been his biggest success, although he definitely gained creditability in predicting the failing economy, link bet. foreign policy and spending, and the most obvious, the nature of the Federal Reserve banking system. In many ways, the man is worthy of being considered a “god” because of the intellect and courage it took to stand up there and reveal the truth. I would support another run regardless if he has a chance as a continuation of getting this message out.
I don’t know if Dr. Paul will run in 2012. He’s getting up in age and the stress of another Presidential run may be too much.
He’s in good health, so I don’t think the age thing will be that big a deal. People are living longer and more active lives these days. The general population is getting older, so they will be more accepting of someone that age unless they show signs of poor health related to the aging.
However, I am looking forward to my own run in 2016!
It might be interesting.
He was a non-interventionist back in 2000-2004, too, when Interventionism was EXCEEDINGLY popular.
I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Maybe you know where I can find some?
If it was all personal conversations, again – successful politicians know how to feel out who they are talking to and tell them what they think that particular person wants to hear.
This is patently false. Roy Moore, Chuck Baldwin, Howard Phillips, etc have all told me personally that they want to end the Drug War.
It depends on what they were referring to as the drug war.
Baldwin wanted to legalize everything. Phillips wanted to stop the drugs from getting IN, but lessen the civil liberties-revoking police tactics now in place.
Phillips and the CP platform have both said that they would support having state and local portions of the drug war to continue, and do more to keep drugs from getting in, but leave the feds out of the enforcement within the US. I’ve also heard Phillips and other people from what was then the Taxpayers Party talk about using the death penalty more, and other things which states could do to “win” the war on drugs.
I’ve heard Baldwin say he supports the entire CP platform; but if you have something where he says he supports full legalization at all levels, I would love to see it.
Moore said he was in favor of legalizing the less harmful drugs,
Can you get that in writing, please? And his non-interventionist position, too. If it’s already in writing, please send a link or forward where it can be read.
the others he wanted to take a “constitutional approach to stopping”.
Constitutional approach to stopping can just mean that it is done at the state and local level, other than what the Coast Guard and Border Patrol does.
And all of them wanted to End the Federal War on Drugs, which would allow many states to completely legalize. None of them wanted to make the War more intense.
I’ve certainly heard Phillips say he wants it to be more intense at the state level. I believe I’ve heard Moore say the same thing.
None of these are the absolutely libertarian positions–but they’re certainly better than status quo.
It’s possible for state and local law enforcement to make things worse in the drug war. That’s where most of the enforcement is already.
“I’ll believe it’s more than a good politician telling everyone what he thinks they want to hear. ”
He was a non-interventionist back in 2000-2004, too, when Interventionism was EXCEEDINGLY popular.
Paulie,
How do you know im hearing BS? This guy has DAILY contact with Judge Moore. Im inclined to trust him over your pontificating.
I’m not pontificating, and I have my sources too. I can’t say who they are. But it’s a lot more than one person, and they all know him.
His church-and-state posturing is problematic for me, but I understood it is now taking a backseat to what he considers are more important issues–Hard Currency and Non-interventionist foriegn policy (he has always been a non-interventionist).
I haven’t seen anything from him on interventionism. When he starts speaking out about it publicly, frequently, unequivocally, and consistently, I’ll believe it’s more than a good politician telling everyone what he thinks they want to hear.
The church-and-state stuff will have to do more than take a back seat – it will have to be chucked out the window, loudly, publicly and completely, before I would even think of supporting Moore.
Roy Moore makes Bob Barr look like a libertarian.
Easily.
I don’t know if Dr. Paul will run in 2012. He’s getting up in age and the stress of another Presidential run may be too much.
However, I am looking forward to my own run in 2016!
If Paul runs as a Republican it will end the same way it did last time. No reason to do something that has already failed.
Define “failed.” If you mean failed to win the presidency, the LP should stop running people for president (or governor, or congress) by that same criterion.
I am curious why it is that some RP supporters are now shying from Mark Sanford? He was getting a lot of positive buzz last summer and now his star is rising. He isn’t as strong as Dr. Paul or Gary Johnson all around but he is becoming one of the most popular voices for limiting federal power. That said I’d like to learn more about his foreign policy views.
Also: I’d love to see Napolitano run for office, but maybe Senate instead of Prez. His books are great though!
I’d vote for Napolitano, too. But he’d be an odd character to run for President.
“Roy Moore and the CP do want to have a government-run drug war, although they would farm some of it out to the states, and continue (and even strengthen) interdiction efforts at the federal level.”
This is patently false. Roy Moore, Chuck Baldwin, Howard Phillips, etc have all told me personally that they want to end the Drug War. Baldwin wanted to legalize everything. Phillips wanted to stop the drugs from getting IN, but lessen the civil liberties-revoking police tactics now in place. Moore said he was in favor of legalizing the less harmful drugs, the others he wanted to take a “constitutional approach to stopping”. And all of them wanted to End the Federal War on Drugs, which would allow many states to completely legalize. None of them wanted to make the War more intense.
None of these are the absolutely libertarian positions–but they’re certainly better than status quo.
“You are hearing BS.
When I hear Roy Moore denounce his whole church-and-state posturing that has brought him to prominence at all, as well as articulate principled non-interventionist foreign policy views, he might be worth at least listening to. ”
Paulie,
How do you know im hearing BS? This guy has DAILY contact with Judge Moore. Im inclined to trust him over your pontificating. His church-and-state posturing is problematic for me, but I understood it is now taking a backseat to what he considers are more important issues–Hard Currency and Non-interventionist foriegn policy (he has always been a non-interventionist).
Ron Paul should definitely make another run. He has many more supporters now then he did when he was actually running. Also his supporters still campaign for him even to this day. I dont think another candidate could really do what Ron Paul has. What separates him from others is his immaculate voting record. No one else has that.
The only person I could see making an impact other than Dr Paul, is maybe Goldwater Jr. , and even then, I doubt he could make as much noise as Dr Paul. If he does run again, he wont take us by storm like he did this last time around. I believe things will be much different.
Roy Moore makes Bob Barr look like a libertarian.
Michael,
Is Napolitano a Republican? He describes himself as a libertarian, and his writings tend to show that.
I wouldn’t say he is anything close to what Barr was. Even though I liked Barr.
derkel, if teh LP “reaches out” and nominates ANY Republican ever again, with the only exception being Dr. Paul, the party will self-destruct. That’s the lesson of Denver, and people like me warned of it and went unheeded.
If Paul runs as a Republican it will end the same way it did last time. No reason to do something that has already failed.
I don’t really think he should run on a third party ticket either. I think he should run as an independent.
I don’t know if he should even run again really. If only for my own satisfaction of not having to deal with the Paulites again. Which were the only thing close to as bad as the Obamaites.
If the LP reaches out and nominates a candidate like Andrew Napolitano, who was a Ron Paul Republican, then they may receive a Paul endorsement.
Civil liberties means different thing to different people. It is also possible to have the position that some things are wrong but that the government should not regulate them.
Roy Moore and the CP do want to have a government-run drug war, although they would farm some of it out to the states, and continue (and even strengthen) interdiction efforts at the federal level.
If Ron Paul runs for President again as a Republican there needs to be a strong back up candidate who runs as a third party candidate for the “baton” to be passed to so Dr. Paul’s supporters have somebody they can ralley around if Ron Paul fails to capture the Republican nomination. The big problem last year is that once it was apparent that Dr. Paul was not going to be the nominee, many of his supporters felt that they had nowhere to go and thus all of the momentum that Dr. Paul had built up pretty much fell to pieces.
I don’t think any one alternative party candidate would unite all the different elements that Ron Paul does.
I don’t think some of Baldwin’s supporters would have supported Ruwart or Kubby, and vice versa. And so on.
I think Ron Paul’s handlers and consultants will encourage him to run and I believe he will.
Makes sense.
Third party wouldnt make sense. It’d ruin all of his hard work. He has done the third party route, is friendly to it, but has made VERY clear that he wont do it again. He should run as a Republican–and run balls-to-the-wall in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.
I agree.
Jesse Ventura could be a great candidate if his views continue to evolve in a more libertarian direction.
It’s not his views that are the problem. He was scoring 100/100 libertarian on the Nolan quiz back over 10 years ago. But that is not what he did in office.
Hill: A friend is trying to draft [Roy Moore], we’ll see.
Lowell : Must he?
No, let’s hope he thinks better of making such an effort. Or at least that Moore decides against it.
1) His supporters work in every state to reform ballot access laws, so that it is possible to run in 3rd party, after running in a primary in that state.
Not needed. It is possible now, since it is slates of electors which actually run in the general election, not actually the candidate.
What would have to be reformed are internal party rules, which were letters that Ron Paul had to sign with the Republicans in some states that he would not run against their nominee in the general election. And that is not something which can be reformed by ballot access laws.
“Roy Moore: no way.”
I tend to think the same, but I hear some of his views have changed in major ways that make him more Ron Paulish.
You are hearing BS.
When I hear Roy Moore denounce his whole church-and-state posturing that has brought him to prominence at all, as well as articulate principled non-interventionist foreign policy views, he might be worth at least listening to.
Even then, he’ll have to overcome a great deal of natural skepticism, due to his actual record, but he would have to dissociate himself from that record thoroughly to even be worth considering.
What about Jesse Ventura?
He certainly talks a good game, and I would be inclined to support him if that was all I paid attention to. The trouble is that he also talked a good game when he ran for Mayor and Governor, but then governed no differently from a major party politician.
The thing that sets Ron Paul apart is that he actually voted “no” out of principle on many bills where all the other members of Congress vote yes, and that he has been doing this for decades, so his ideas are not just rhetoric.
Believe me, Paul will haul in money and votes if he runs again.
True. Hopefully his campaign learns from some of the things done wrong as well as some of the things done right last time.
Sanford would have widespread appeal within GOP circles far beyond what Paul could ever hope for.
That’s the mistake a lot of people make. A lot of Ron Paul’s support did not come from within NSGOP circles at all. I would say in fact, most of his support came from independents, crossover Democrats, alternative party voters and those who had previously never voted at all.
And most of these Republicans you all are talking about would not attract this support.
stopdrugwar // Feb 16, 2009 at 11:16 am
I will vote for a Constitution Party candidate only if they also believe in civil liberties, i.e. support ending the drug war.
Civil liberties means different thing to different people. It is also possible to have the position that some things are wrong but that the government should not regulate them.
“Trent Hill // Feb 16, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Sean,
Third party wouldnt make sense. It’d ruin all of his hard work. He has done the third party route, is friendly to it, but has made VERY clear that he wont do it again. He should run as a Republican–and run balls-to-the-wall in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.”
If Ron Paul runs for President again as a Republican there needs to be a strong back up candidate who runs as a third party candidate for the “baton” to be passed to so Dr. Paul’s supporters have somebody they can ralley around if Ron Paul fails to capture the Republican nomination. The big problem last year is that once it was apparent that Dr. Paul was not going to be the nominee, many of his supporters felt that they had nowhere to go and thus all of the momentum that Dr. Paul had built up pretty much fell to pieces.
I think Ron Paul’s handlers and consultants will encourage him to run and I believe he will. The important thing is that he can raise enough money to pay his handlers and consultants.
Anything beyond that is gravy.
Ron Paul = cash cow
“RP 2012 // Feb 16, 2009 at 9:50 am
What about Jesse Ventura?”
Jesse Ventura could be a great candidate if his views continue to evolve in a more libertarian direction.
Sean,
Third party wouldnt make sense. It’d ruin all of his hard work. He has done the third party route, is friendly to it, but has made VERY clear that he wont do it again. He should run as a Republican–and run balls-to-the-wall in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.
I think Paul could make a big impact if:
1) His supporters work in every state to reform ballot access laws, so that it is possible to run in 3rd party, after running in a primary in that state.
2) He runs in the Republican primaries (free publicity during the debates)
3) He then runs as a 3rd party candidate.
4) He doesn’t do a Perot and drop out 🙂
Must he?
“Roy Moore: no way.”
I tend to think the same, but I hear some of his views have changed in major ways that make him more Ron Paulish. A friend is trying to draft him, we’ll see.
Believe me, Paul will haul in money and votes if he runs again.
I’d rather see RP as an LP VP candidate.
Sanford would have widespread appeal within GOP circles far beyond what Paul could ever hope for.
If Paul runs again, he’ll have marginal support and dismal fundraising. People gave last time because they thought Paul could actually win. They wouldn’t donate again after seeing what actually happened to their money (went unspent) and what happened with his campaign (horrific failure).
Ron Paul’s only shot at effecting change in politics was squandered in 2008 when he failed to run as an independent, and failed to support a viable alternative after he shut down his campaign.
Ron Paul is better off remaining in the political obscurity from which he came prior to the 2008 election and handing his seat off to another libertarianesque Republican.
Roy Moore: no way.
I will vote for a Constitution Party candidate only if they also believe in civil liberties, i.e. support ending the drug war.
I’m a big Paul supporter. I would not vote for Jesse Ventura. I imagine thats said for alot of us.
What about Jesse Ventura?
Sorry Guys,
From my perspective, Goldwater, Jr. and Johnson can’t hold a candle to Dr. Paul.
I don’t see either out there fighting for ‘we the people’ by speaking truth to power, as evident in the following link: http://www.examiner.com/x-369-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m2d14-Ron-Paul-Video-What-if-Americans-woke-up-to-the-war-racket
“Trent Hill // Feb 16, 2009 at 3:20 am
Andy,
I think both Barry Goldwater Jr. and Gary Johnson could make significant impacts. Both are revered by Ron Paul’s followers but also have a wider appeal.”
They could be OK, but I seriously doubt that either would have as great an impact as Ron Paul.
Andy,
I think both Barry Goldwater Jr. and Gary Johnson could make significant impacts. Both are revered by Ron Paul’s followers but also have a wider appeal.
“Gary Johnson, Barry Goldwater Jr, Walter Jones Jr., and John Duncan Jr. I’d at least give the following people a CHANCE: Mark Sanford and Roy Moore.
However, I think both would dissapoint.”
None of these guys would have anywhere near the impact of Ron Paul, and none of them are anywhere near as good on the issues as Ron Paul.
I’d vote for Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Barry Goldwater Jr, Walter Jones Jr., and John Duncan Jr. I’d at least give the following people a CHANCE: Mark Sanford and Roy Moore.
However, I think both would dissapoint.
I sure hope Ron Paul will be in good health in 2012. My problem is that some Ron Paul supporters idolize him as a false god. I do believe that in 2012 there must be a strong candidate that can defeat this duopoly. If Ron Paul does not run I would be willing to vote for Chuck Baldwin again although I would prefer that more famous people run like Roy Moore, Chuck Hagel, Walter Jones Jr., Barry Goldwater Jr., etc someone who can have a bigger impact.