Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Ron Paul Comments on the Future

The questions now being asked are: Where to go from here and who's to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party?

Now, in light of the election, many are asking: What is the future of the Republican Party?

But that is the wrong question. The proper question should be: Where is our country heading? There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.

Once it's figured out what is fundamentally wrong with our political and economic system, solutions can be offered. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the policy changes needed, then the party can be rebuilt.


The Republican Congress never once stood up against the Bush/Rove machine that demanded support for unconstitutional wars, attacks on civil liberties here at home, and an economic policy based on more spending, more debt, and more inflation -- while constantly preaching the flawed doctrine that deficits don't matter as long as taxes aren't raised.


Party leaders concentrated only on political tricks in order to maintain power and neglected the limited-government principles on which they were elected. The only solution for this is for Republicans to once again reassess their core beliefs and show how the country (not the party) can be put back on the right track. The problem, though, is regaining credibility.

After eight years of perpetual (and unnecessary and unconstitutional) war, persistent and expanded attacks on our privacy, runaway deficits, and now nationalization of the financial system, Republicans are going to have a tough time regaining the confidence of the American people. But that's what must be done.


Since the new alignment of political power offers no real change, we will remain on the same track without even a pretense of slowing the growth of government. With the new administration we can expect things to go from bad to worse.


Opportunity abounds for anyone who can present the case for common sense in fiscal affairs, for protection of civil liberties here at home, and avoiding the senseless foreign entanglements which have bogged us down for decades and contributed so significantly to our fiscal and budgetary crisis.


Why should one be excluded from the Republican Party for believing and always voting for:

• Limited government power

• A balanced budget

• Personal liberty

• Strict adherence to the Constitution

• Sound money

• Strong defense, avoiding all undeclared wars

• No nation-building and no policing the world


The problems are easily understood and the answers are not that difficult. Abusing the rule of law and ignoring the Constitution can be reversed. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the needed reforms, it can lead the way and regain its credibility. If power is sought for power's sake alone, the Party will never be able to wrench away the power of the opposition.


To ignore the political struggle and only "hope for the best" is pure folly. The march toward a dictatorial powerful state is now in double time.

All those who care -- and especially those who understand the stakes involved -- have an ominous responsibility to energetically get involved in the battle of survival for a free and prosperous America.


Waldo Lydecker's Journal said...

Yup, good on the broad overview, pretty lame on the details. Still hewing to the view that personal liberty is maximized by white straight men.

Tyler Nixon said...

Righto, because race and sexual orientation are the first determiners of the validity of one's ideas or ideology. No?

Duffy said...

• No nation-building and no policing the world

While I agree the piracy issue is a serious one. Who keeps the sea lanes open if not the USN? Private security companies?

Tyler Nixon said...

Interesting point, Duff. Do you mean piracy is NOT a serious issue? I think the word "serious" is a good operative term for whether we need to be intervening anywhere with our national resources.

While you raise an interesting topic I am thinking Paul's aim is more about land-based "policing", such as turning the U.S. into an arm of the U.N., insinuating our power and resources into situations of no serious or even real consequence to U.S. national defense.

Anonymous said...

So was Thomas Jefferson's violation of Libyan sovereignty therefore unconstitutional? For those of you who are products of Delaware public education, Jefferson sent the US Marines to attack the Barbary Pirates, who were preying on shipping in international waters - that's why the Marine Hymn includes the line, " the shores of Tripoli."

Anonymous said...

I cannot take Ron Paul seriously.

I didn't believe his bullshit non-apologies on his racist newsletters.

And his dodging the issue on the don't ask don't tell front didn't help him.

His endorsement of DOMA didn't help.

His efforts to legislatively restore state sodomy laws, declaring that states "have the right to regulate sexual conduct based on local standards," turned me completely off.

His endorsement of Pastor Chuckie was a slap in the face to the "movement" he supposedly represents.

And his endorsement of Proposition 8 in California is just the latest outrage.

Seriously, if people want to heal the rift in the Libertarian movement, they need to move beyond this crazy-assed conservative 20-year federal employee and the unjustified deification of him.

He has achieved nothing notable in a policy perspective, has refused to work across party lines on issues where he agrees with others (i.e. opposing the bank bailout with Dennis Kucinich), and ranks as one of Texas's biggest pork barrel congressmen.

Get out the brain bleach and use it, Ron Paul supporters.