A New Alliance - By Dr. Ron Paul
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582#more-582
"The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process. It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo. There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored. The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.
Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that a claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.
In both political education and organization, coalitions are worthwhile and necessary to have an impact. “Talking to the choir” alone achieves little. I have always approached political and economic education with a “missionary” zeal by inviting any group in on issues we agree upon.
This opens the door to legitimate discourse with the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty. This strategy led to the press conference with the four candidates agreeing to the four principles we believe are crucial in challenging the political system that has evolved over many years in this country.
This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.
This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address?
Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance. Our cause is liberty —freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight. Once it’s realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I’m convinced we win by working with others. Those who don’t want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs.
In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign. There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties. The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.
Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding. Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause. In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood. That’s progress.
Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress. The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched. But we can’t beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.
Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.
Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year. They take time. But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up. The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue. Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.
Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.
The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.
I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.
In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.
I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin
"The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process. It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo. There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored. The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.
Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that a claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.
In both political education and organization, coalitions are worthwhile and necessary to have an impact. “Talking to the choir” alone achieves little. I have always approached political and economic education with a “missionary” zeal by inviting any group in on issues we agree upon.
This opens the door to legitimate discourse with the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty. This strategy led to the press conference with the four candidates agreeing to the four principles we believe are crucial in challenging the political system that has evolved over many years in this country.
This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.
This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address?
Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance. Our cause is liberty —freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight. Once it’s realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I’m convinced we win by working with others. Those who don’t want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs.
In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign. There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties. The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.
Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding. Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause. In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood. That’s progress.
Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress. The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched. But we can’t beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.
Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.
Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year. They take time. But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up. The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue. Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.
Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.
The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.
I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.
In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.
I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
why is it fringe candidates always try to scare me into voting for them by telling me i am being controlled?
Depends if you find the truth scary. Some find it liberating.
You do understand what happened to the league of women voters right?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
maybe he should put his $ where his mouth is
Do you understand why though?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
the truth is 2 parties have developed over the decades and became very organized and popular with very different views and stances... nobody is stopping someone from actually organizing and running a 3rd or 4th viable party... their problem is that they are always too far on either fringe and do not find much support from the general public... not to mention it seems the best candidate who could have helped build a 3rd party, Ralph Nader, apparently has zero interest in doing that and has wasted a bunch of people's time...
Ross Perot ran as an Independent in 1992 and had 18.8% of the vote with nearly 20 million votes, i repeat 20 million votes... so people can stop with the whole "controlled 2 party election" bullshit... the dude was older then dirt and got 20% of the friggin vote
speaking of 1992, if everything was so "controlled" by puppet masters why did GHW Bush lose to Clinton in 1992? wouldnt "they" have fixed that election for the ultimate insider? :rolleyes:
yeah, because he is full of shit... the last republican to hold true to conservative government ideals was fucking barry goldwater... so he can stop with the "I am trying to help steer my party back to its conservative ideals" bullshit
Yeah and Clinton and Dole took control away from the the league of women voters and put it back into the hands of the two party system. You knew that right?
but if you think it's all a face value and fair democracy...be my guest...vote...and learn from it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I don't know how to explain something to someone who doesn't want to understand.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'm voting Baldwin.
so in typical MT fashion mr roland goes to personal attack mode and acts as if i cannot comprehend the brilliant Dr Paul and his horseshit :rolleyes:
trust me when i tell you this, you are not smarter then everyone else
please tell me why you keep running with this league of women voters thing?
shit, women cannot even vote in half the world... and you want to act like America is some big bad vote suppressing/controlling police state :rolleyes:
Roland, i have NEVER seen you say ANYTHING good about America. not one time, not one sentence, not one comment, and it is obvious you continue to have an anti-american bias for some reason... and dont give me the "dissent is the greatest duty of patriotism" horseshit becuase it is obvious that is not where your disdain for america comes from, i question my government all the time, but i do not try to constantly paint america as some evil force in the world controlled by shadow elements hell bent on the planets destruction and the enslavement of the world population :rolleyes:
womens suffrage has made major advances in the last 100 years globally so you are correct, i was more just trying to make a point and was also factoring in the long list of countries that do not have elections at all or controlled ones like the sham election in egypt a few years ago...
i have never had a problem casting my vote here in america, how about you?
You might want to become familiar with John Pilger and his works. Does the term police the world come to mind? I didn't coin the phrase if you were wondering.
You might question your gov't in your own eyes, but I think perhaps not enough.
ask someon for the Pilger box set for your your next birthday...or download it.
let me know what you think...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Where do you get this absolute horseshit from?
Excuse me M2H, because you are usually at least articulate in your points if not accurate, but this is just raving leftist poo poo.
Ron Paul has put his money where his mouth is on every issue he has ever cast his vote on ... a lot more that Mr "Present" Obama can say for his sorry ass self.
WTF specifically is your beef with Ron Paul, and please tell us in a candid fashion what you think he has done (or failed to do) that makes him "full of shit".
Because i respectfully submit that this is an ignorant comment, made out of extreme-leftist primordial fear of ANYTHING labeled as "right" or "conservative" with essentialy zero real knowledge of the facts.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
So tell me you know why he is a republican. I only asked if you knew why, and suddenly I'm some kind of asshole.
interesting....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i dont think you are an asshole... it is just that anytime some disagree's with you on this board you take an elitis perch and talk down to them as if they cant comprehend what you are saying
thats all i was saying, from what i can tell you are no asshole good buddy
i love the "leftist poo poo" line, thanks for the laugh
i disagree with Ron Paul on nearly every issue... i typically have what people would label as a "liberal" view point on most issues... the free market and regulation/oversight being one of them... gun rights, abortion, universal health care, education, etc, etc, etc...
do i really need to go on? you know my politics and know they dont jive with Ron Pauls views...
see, i am a person that actually understands what a true political conservative's ideals are or should be... and the republican party has not represented those ideals since 1964 when Goldwater lost
and save your breath, i know you guys have already excused that stuff away to yourselves, and you will probably say "haha your bringing up that old dead bs"... but i am not fool and when you print that shit in YOUR newsletter, then those are your views...
momma didnt raise no sucker
i can only imagine if Obama had a newsletter for years and the headlines and sotries were "kill whitey" and "fuck honkeys" and touting a race war... i would love to see you guys tearing him to pieces, for good reason, and i would join in :cool:
Hey buddy,
I didn't ask you to defend your political views.
I don't care if you are "left" leaning or "right" leaning,
or if you bend over backwards in the shower.
I was asking you to defend your statement that Ron Paul is "FULL OF SHIT".
And you haven't done that.
You accused him of being full of shit, and you said he should put his money where his mouth is.
My point to you is that you can disagree with his positions until you are blue in the face, but Ron Paul, probably more so than ANY other member of congress, has stuck to his ideals and what he holds as truths.
You can dig his voting record up and mill it over,
and get back to me when you find the part where he is "full of shit".
Again, you can respectfully disagree with the man's policies (and that is fine by me), but calling him "full of shit" is an arrogant and asinine statement.
You tried to infer that Ron Paul is not a true conservative because the last real conservative was Barry Goldwater, which is laughable considering that Barry Goldwater Jr. specifically and vocally endorsed Ron Paul. Also, its hilarious, because Ron "No Interventionism" Paul is actually way more conservative that Mr. "Go Kill The Gooks" Goldwater. But since you have repeatedly brought up his name, just WHAT ideals did Mr. Goldwater express that Ron Paul has failed to address? Cause i can't think of any.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think I say things people don't want to hear, or accept, most times. If that comes across as talking down, I don't think I'm going to be able to help it, unless I start putting question marks, or maybe's, in brackets at the end of most of my sentences.
I personally think the current state of politics in the US is a runaway nightmare that needs a complete ground up renovation. Call it human nature...chaos theory... I don't know... all I know is that it appears very out of control, and I am beginning to see it is very much becoming by design and seemingly on purpose.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You are preaching to the choir, Rev Wright.
Where do you live?
we know, we know... ron paul supporters are smarter then everyone else :rolleyes: