-
Website
http://danielmiessler.com/ -
Original page
http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-constitution-party-is-scary-why-did-ron-paul-support-them -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
How far is his support for the Constitution Party? I also heard him mention Ralph Nader as a possible candidate to vote for in stead of Obama/McCain. I am really sure that Ron Paul does not actually support Nader's policies, but in this instance was only listing him to support third-party candidates. Could this be the same thing for his support of the Constitution Party, or do you think he really supports that platform of this party.
Yes, he supports the platform. He wouldn't formally endorse a specific group out of many third-party options unless he did. Keep in mind the religious similarities I mentioned. That's most likely why he went with them over the Libertarians.
Daniel,
Nothing here is in contradiction with the original intent of the constitution. The real tragedy is how Lincoln ran over the constitution during his war on the South. As a result, we now we have a NATIONAL government which demands adoration, extracts tribute, starts wars, sends our children into harm's way to protect empire. You folks want to use this same power to run over folks at home and force them to embrace you ungodly life style. Some worship Christ as King, you worship the state!
Consider this portion of an exchange between Robert E. Lee and Lord Acton, November 4, 1866, Lord Acton writes to Lee:
"I saw in States' rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."
December 15, 1866, Lee responds:
"While I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only are essential to adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."
All of this can be read in "The Real Lincoln," Thomas DiLorenzo.
You folks just make it up as you go, no consideration of history, all about how you feel! Or how "non-inclusive" policy/statements might make someone feel.
Brian.
Magnolia, TX
"the heart of FLY-OVER country"
Where did you get that he supports the party? As far as I've ever heard, he only endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, and mainly because Bob Barr stiffed him at that press conference. Don't forget that Ron Paul has for a long time and continues to be a member of the Libertarian Party.
He formally endorsed the Constitution Party, Dan. And he's not a member of the Libertarian party; he's a Republican, and has been for years.
Daniel - I just did a search and can only find where he supported Chuck Baldwin. Can you point me to the link of his official support of the party? When we talked about this yesterday I took it for granted that the people who approached you where right. But maybe they took the Baldwin endorsement as an endorsement of the party.
Ken, I think you're right, when people give endorsements it is to a person, not to a party. But there's little difference to me. According to the Washington Post, Baldwin is a Baptist pastor and former officer in Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority.
I don't think Paul would be supporting the Presidential candidate of a party when he doesn't support the platform.
Just a little more evidence:
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." -- Ron Paul
Dont' be an idiot. Ron Paul is all about the Constitution.
You are going to find that 'christians' are the ones most willing to preserve your rights even if you don't agree with religion.
They have always been great here in NH.
And you have never heard Ron speak in religious terms and neither have I in my many personal dealings with him.
There is just not basis for your fear.
The intent of the Founder's was never to remove the church (or religion) from the state, but to remove the state from the church.
“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” - Sinclair Lewis
How fitting!
Being a former member of Jerry Falwell should not be held against him given his consistent critical critique of the Religious Right. Paul endorsed the man, not the party. Paul is a life long member of the Libertarian Party. Go Dr. Baldwin.
Part of the problem here is we have strayed so far from the intent of the Constitution and the dreams of our fore fathers that when we here their intent it sounds radical. Our Government is so out of control our fore fathers would not recognized this country any longer. One should step back and re-read the Deceleration of Independence. It might scare you to find out how far our country has slipped backwards in the freedom and liberty departments. We need a major shift to get the ship back on track or she is going down with all the patriots... Wasting your vote on a Dem or Rep is not the answer...it is the problem.
Could it just be that Ron Paul is just another wingnut with discredited views?