Monday, January 9, 2012

Caught Between Libertarianism and Conservatism

My Stupid Shirts
I have vowed that I would vote for the Sta-Puff Marshmallow Man over Obama, and if Newt gets the nomination, I'll get my chance to do so.

The only reason I can give for favoring Romney over Gingrich is that Romney is a capitalist, and Gingrich has been at the levers of governmental power his whole adult life.  I get the sense that at least Romney would know how to put the economy back together, even if his lustful statist urges worry me.

Santorum is qualified to be president, I think, but he worries me as well.  He's not just a statist, but a moralistic one.  And I share his moral values.  The difference between Santorum and I is that my Christian faith rules my life, but when discussing government and law, the US Constitution is my guide.  Nowhere does the constitution give government the right to dictate morals.

Libertarian-Conservative:  an Unstable Amalgam

Libertarianism and strict conservatism are not really compatible, and that explains much of the current GOP muddle.  Lured by the libertarian siren song, we've finally spat out the GOP's neither-hot-nor-cold conservative big government statism.

Modern-Day Republicanism is just progressivism with flags; moralistic we-say-so-ism dressed up in war and patriotism and religion.  In fact, it is damned near indistinguishable from Woodrow Wilson's Progressive conception of almost a century ago.

So now we find ourselves in a political cul-de-sac, heaping scorn on everyone who isn't Ron Paul, and yet unable to embrace the cranky small-government John the Baptist who has been crying out in the wilderness all these years.  Libertarianism lured us out of our ideological trenches, but now we are caught half-way, unable to embrace Paulism, which looks to conservatives almost indistinguishable from OWS.

There is a way out. Conservatives are on solid footing so long as we allow ourselves to be just as libertarian as the founding fathers. Any more than that, and we fall off of a cliff into a pit of incoherence and clashing incompatibilities.

Constitutionalism:  The Founders v. Ron Paul

Dr. Paul's constitutionalist claims strike me as trying to be more Catholic than the Pope.

George Washington invaded Canada, and as president he donned his military uniform to lead a militia army in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. His protégé, Alexander Hamilton (one of the Federalist Papers authors) set up our nation's first central bank, and when a later congress voted against renewing it's charter, President Madison (another Federalist Papers author, and Father of the Constitution) established the Second Bank of America, another central bank. President Thomas Jefferson sent US Marines to the shores of Tripoli, and "The Last Founding Father" James Monroe's famous doctrine declared that any act by any European power to colonize any part of North or South America would be considered by the US government as an act of aggression to be met with military force.

Ron Paul is on the far side of the men who wrote the constitution and founded this nation.  Conservatives, like the founders, believe in an enduring moral order, and they are guided by custom and convention.  Libertarians clamor to tear down the wall; conservatives seek to know why it was put there in the first place before deciding to demolish it.

So its a tricky balancing act with a new equilibrium.  Some small government libertarianism of the founding father variety mixed in with a rediscovery of Russell Kirk Conservatism will put us back on solid footing.  Too bad no candidate fits the bill...  

64 comments:

dmarks said...

Wow. I've noticed the resemblance between Newt and Mr Staypuft for many years, but I never bothered to check to see if this was a meme or anything.

By the way, Newt? If you come to campaign in my area, just remember this: no one steps on a church in my town!

Ducky's here said...

Well, Silver, get ready fr Romney vs. Obummer.
And here's the point - there ain't much difference between the two.

Until we rid ourselves of these corporatist stooges it's all noise.

Keith Ellison(D - Scary Muslim) has submitted legislation to remove the concept of corporate personhood. It will die while we talk about ass nuggets like L'il Ricky Retardo and Ron "Psycho" Paul.

Strictly kabuki for Rollo and the suckers never learn.

Silverfiddle said...

...there ain't much difference between the two.

Sadly, I must agree with you.

The corporate personhood thing is a little more complex that lefties would have us believe.

Prohibiting corporations from contributing campaign contributions and from running advocacy adds put them at a disadvantage.

Politicians would be able to vilify them but they would not be able to fight back?

No, less freedom is never the answer.

Ducky's here said...

Coming up is Romney's record at Bain Capitol.

For some reason Republicans a not vetting him on this matter. Obama will.

One of Mitt's buddies at Bain ran for governor in Mass. He was exposed and had his teeth kicked in in the primaries.
Watch Obama pound on this one if it doesn't come out in the primaries

Silverfiddle said...

You make one miscalculation, Ducky. The US overall is not nearly as liberal as deep blue Mass, thank God.

An explanation of Shumpeter's creative destruction resolves the issue.

Slim and trim a company to allow it to stay in business does result in layoffs. Not doing so results in going out of business and putting everybody on the street.

Imagine state-protected candlestick makers, whale blubber lamp manufacturers, and buggy whip artisans trying to compete in today's world...

Adrienne said...

The government legislates morality all the time. It's impossible not to. Your choice is whose morality is it going to legislate.

http://adriennescatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2012/01/you-cant-legislate-morality.html

Ducky's here said...

Doesn't resolve a damn thing, Silverfiddle.

Creative destruction doesn't have F--- All to do with destroying a company, pocketing the assets, raiding the pension funds and leaving a debt ridden shell.
That is nothing more than an upward income transfer although the Libertarians seem cool with tat sort of transfer for UNPRODUCTIVE activity.

Schumpeter was concerned with Kapitalism overcoming it's inertia and growing. Nothing like Romney.

Remember, the Left is here to help you.

Z said...

Ducky, you're dead wrong; Breitbart is backing disgruntled Republicans who are exposing whatever situation involves Romney and losing jobs.
Yes, they ARE vetting him.
And it'll be fun watching them backtrack when Romney's the nominee and they have to support him...like seeing Hillary become Sec of State after she and Obama duked it out.

Odd that someone like you and the rest of the leftwingers would suddenly be behind vetting and the truth when Obama had virtually ZERO of that. amazing.

Ducky's here said...

z, your boy toy Breitbart was on rabies radio this morning shilling for Sarah Palin.

Romney's past as a corporate raider has been undercover until very recently. They latched onto it (they being the "not Romney" right) when they needed a club. But it helps Romney now because you know Obummer is just waiting.

Still, Obummer vs. Governor Olympics. Hobson's choice. Maybe the right will figure out what's happening before long and quit listening to ass nuggets like Breitbart.

Anonymous said...

CHOOSE YOUR TYRANT


The Marxicrats want all our money
The Moralists tell us whom to call, "Honey."

Both factions would have us be slaves
From our cradles right on to our graves

To a form of ideology
That denies our right to be free.

Neither a Nannycrat or a Theocrat
Can tell ME where to be at

And so
Each party has become our foe.

The lust for power and control
Is careening now on a roll.

Oh, how I yearn
To know where I should turn!


~ FreeThinke

dmarks said...

Ducky said: "Until we rid ourselves of these corporatist stooges it's all noise."

Well, neither is a corporatist, so there's no worry.

"Keith Ellison(D - Scary Muslim) has submitted legislation to remove the concept of corporate personhood. It will die while we talk about ass nuggets like L'il Ricky Retardo and Ron "Psycho" Paul."

Are you scared by Muslims? I'm not myself.

It should die. I've read it. It's very bad for two reasons.

1) It calls for censorship of political expression.

2) It comes down hard on "for profit" organizations, but not "non profit". To be consistent, it should treat both the same.

With Keith pushing for more might for the ruling elites and less power for the ruled. he needs "scary fascist" not "scary muslim" after his name.


----------------
Silver said: "Prohibiting corporations from contributing campaign contributions and from running advocacy adds put them at a disadvantage."

Not only that, but it rips the hart out of the First Amendment. Advocacy ads are well protected by the Bill of Rights.

It's extremely bad to deny this right to individuals because these individuals happen to be associated with organizations some do not like.

---------

And back to Ducky who said: "the Libertarians seem cool with tat sort of transfer for UNPRODUCTIVE activity."

I have never seen libertarians favor any transfer at all. They tend to favor the productive people getting to keep the wealth they create.

dmarks said...

As for Ducky's "scary Muslim" description of Rep. Ellison, he might be right. Scary Muslims are a tiny minority: only a few Muslims are terrorist or advocate genocide.

But here you find Keith Ellison at a rally to support Hamas. Hamas is one of those 'scary Muslim' organizations, having directly engaged in terrorism that has killed many Americans, and is specifically devoted to exterminating Jews.

There are numerous other examples of his association with genocidal extremist groups, such as Farrakhan's Nation of Islam", which encourages African Americans to rise up and destroy the Jews, and calls Judaeism a "gutter religion".

Scary Muslim or not, this man is a nutty genocidal antisemite.

Z said...

Actually, he's not shilling for Palin, but good try. He'll stand up for her because she still gets so much flack from total lies about her, but you're dead wrong. I can't abide the woman but I'll stand up for her against the lies said about her. Still, I'm glad you're listening to rightwing radio (Oh, sorry, the leftwing places you frequent must have been on the hunt and told you, so you're there :-)

A LOT of good conservatives don't find Romney conservative enough; and a really solid conservative is probably what we need to take Obama down, but.... the mainstream media's making the selections...sad.

Boy, Ducky, since you said you wished Breitbart was in a body bag, you've gone viral on him, haven't you. Is it SO bothersome that some people don't agree with socialism?

Z said...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20075362-503544.html

accept for my feeling that Palin has to go back to ALaska, I'm 100% behind Breitbart on this one.

Good try, Ducky.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Adrienne: The government legislates morality all the time. It's impossible not to. Your choice is whose morality is it going to legislate

I get where you're coming from. All choices have a moral component. The trick here to to keep legislation and government action within the clear confines of the US Constitution.

Anonymous said...

FYI:

BIGGEST LIE of the YEAR (outside of the charge that Ron Paul is a racist, an anti-Semite and a leftist):

POLITIFACT (Bill Adair of The St. Petersburg Times) has blandly and baldly asserted on C-Spin this AM that Barack Obama is not a Socialist, and that nothing he has advocated or accomplished indicates anything in that direction.

This WHOOPERINO was delivered in a dead calm, level, baritone with a straight face.

OMIGOD!!! What do they TAKE us for?

~ FreeThinke

Leticia said...

Hmm..Mr. Sta-Puff, not a bad choice. And if we get fed up, we can roast him and enjoy a tasty treat, ha!

Santorum is still the one I am going to root for to the bitter end. I believe that morals play a huge part when I consider a candidate. But I cannot argue the point about a candidate that will adhere to the constitution, but Silver, I have yet to see that happen, unless of course, you count Reagan.

Infidel de Manahatta said...

If the Republican party wants to survive it'll have to find a way to move away from big government with an annoying tendency to preach and go more towards libertarian/conservative principles.

If they can square that circle then they have a future. If not, they will go the way of the Whig party.

Anonymous said...

"Modern-Day Republicanism is just progressivism with flags; moralistic we-say-so-ism dressed up in war and patriotism and religion. In fact, it is damned near indistinguishable from Woodrow Wilson's Progressive conception of almost a century ago"

Ya shore got THAT right, SilverFiddle!

I wonder how many rank-and-file Republicans under the age of -- let-us-say 50 -- even begin to realize realize that?

JFK sounds today like a CONSERVATIVE.

INCREDIBLE the extent to which the forces of Cultural Marxism have been able to manipulate the masses through brainwashing the "Intelligentsia" at the university level!

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

No z, Breitbart has always disgusted me. He's a cheap pimp.

Ducky's here said...

dmark, Ellison's bid to amend the 14th makes pretty good sense. Revising "person" with "natural person" is pretty straightforward. Natural person has a defined meaning in English case law.

The non-profit issue is a concern that could give corporate scum a hole to drive a truck through.

beamish said...

Fusionism requires conservatives and libertarians working together towards these goals:

1) American foreign policy should seek to end totalitarian regimes;

2) the domestic functions of government, and especially of the federal government, should be strictly limited

3) the moral precepts traditionally associated with Christianity (sometimes the formulation includes Judaism as well) should be upheld.

Ronald Reagan was a fusionist.

Ron Paul can't be, as he's neither conservative nor libertarian, but rather a Euro-socialist champion of Johnson's Great Society.

dmarks said...

Ducky said: "The non-profit issue is a concern that could give corporate scum a hole to drive a truck through."

Translation: the individuals whom you want censored would be able to get around this through a loophole.

That's good! This form of censorship that you advocate is extremely nasty.

Perhaps we can find a way so any individual or for-profit organization can find a way to incorporate, or incorporate a front as a non-profit so no one's right to speak truth to power is curtailed.

-------------

FreeThinke said: "BIGGEST LIE of the YEAR (outside of the charge that Ron Paul is a racist, an anti-Semite and a leftist)"

I've read the racist statement in Ron Paul's own newsletter. Regardless of how he has tried to repudiate this recently, the fact remains that he has KKK-like views about black people at a relatively recent time in history.

Anonymous said...

Silver Fidle: "Ron Paul is on the far side of the men who wrote the Constitution and founded this nation."

I disagree to this extent:

Dr. Paul is in near-perfect accord with the spirit of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and fought the Revolution. Perhaps he may be somewhat at odds with those who gave us the Constitution, but not by much I don't believe.

How could that be, you ask?

Easy! Those who started the Revolution were radicals -- rebels -- in virtually the same position as the Southern Secessionists of 1860. After independence from Mother England what had been a rebellion became a new NATION -- with authority to determine is own affairs. . Once a power-base (i.e. Authority) has been firmly established, however, it immediately starts to become self-protective -- interested in self-preservation and self-perpetuation -- and, therefore, more-than-a-bit self-serving. Established power -- even when it starts out well -- naturally, over time, gravitates towards tyranny, if left unchecked. Thomas Jefferson, himself, said so:


1. "It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism – free government is founded on jealousy, and not in confidence which prescribes limited constitutions . . . In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."


2. "When we consider that this government is charged with the external and mutual relations of these states; that the states themselves have principle care of our persons, our property and our reputation, constituting the great field of human concerns, we may well doubt whether our organization is not too complicated, too expensive; whether offices and officers have not multiplied unnecessarily, and sometimes injuriously, to the service they were meant to promote."

3. "Whenever a man has cast a longing eye upon [public offices] a rottenness begins in his conduct."

4. "In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will cultivate, and improve. Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. ..."

5. “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”


~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


Silver Fiddle: "Conservatives, like the Founders, believe in an enduring moral order, and they are guided by custom and convention."

Indeed, and the customs, conventions and mores that animated the Founding Fathers were much closer to the kind of thinking espoused by Dr. Paul than by any so-called "Conservative" today.

Silver Fiddle: Libertarians clamor to tear down the wall; conservatives seek to know why it was put there in the first place before deciding to demolish it."

Probably, but the Founders were definitely libertarians, and today would have to be classified as RADICALS and REVOLUTIONARIES. We're in desperate need of a revival of the red hot Spirit of '76 to pull us out of the rut we're in. we do NOT need timid, tepid, torpid self-interested "Conservatives" more interested in policing the sex lives of citizens and in doing what-amounts-to "Missionary Work" for "Democracy" in the Third World than in securing the best possible future for AMERICANS at HOME.

The Founders, I am certain, had no interest whatsoever in establishing One World Government for the "greater good"of ALL mankind -- a hideous, self-destructive notion that came in with The Progressive Era.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

D. Marks, please look in at AOW's blog under the video of Jimmy Carter magically changing into Barack Obama and back gain. There were nearly 200 statements posted there on the tedious subject of anti-Ron Paul propaganda -- mostly an overly lengthy, rather turgid exchange between the bombastic bully, liar, accomplished Sophist and viciously unprincipled bigot known as "Beamish" and the equally fierce but knowledgeable and eminently fair-minded "FJ" aka "Thersites," "Speedy Gonzales" and Heaven-knows-who-all-else. I don't care about FJ's multiple identities. Only ONE voice comes through all of them -- easily recognizable to all who've been around the FPM, GeeeeeZ, AOW corner of the blogosphere for any length of time.

I am not going to get into it all the arguments over again. If you prefer to believe what anti-Ron Paul forces tell you ABOUT Dr. Paul, instead of listening carefully to the man, himself, no one could possibly help you.

Apparently, as Mitt Romney's successful destruction of Newt Gingrich's powerful ascendancy in Iowa conclusively proves, the public is ready, willing, able -- and AVID -- to believe anything BAD that's said about anyone who rises to prominence.

Maybe we can blamed the media for that, but I think the blames falls squarely on ourselves for our mentally lazy penchant for "letting "George" do our thinking for us, instead of thoroughly examining the scene for ourselves.

Slavish devotion to purely parochial interests, One-Issue politics, and the sewage spewed from our favorite Hate Mills does NOt a good citizen make.

~ FreeThinke

Liberalmann said...

Romney is the model for what's wrong with predatory capitalism.

Silverfiddle said...

FT: My argument is not based upon spirit, but facts as established by historical evidence.

And my standard for "conservative" is not some nebulous concept, but Russell Kirk. I included the link so there would be no confusion.

I wouldn't even classify this as a hit on Ron Paul, but rather honestly examining the chasm that exists between Lew Rockwell libertarianism and Kirk's conservatism.

Silverfiddle said...

Liberalmann: You and Ducky may, may be right. I've got to hear more about his actions at Bain.

Right now, it reads like propaganda, how he got his Mitts (haha) on a small company and squeezed the money out of it and then dismantled it, throwing everyone out of work.

A question remains: How did Bain get its Mitts on these little companies? Sounds to me like the owners sold out. Not Mitt's fault.

But I'm open to more information

beamish said...

the bombastic bully, liar, accomplished Sophist and viciously unprincipled bigot known as "Beamish"

I'm starting to get the impression I'm not well liked by actual anti-Semites.

Finntann said...

Seems like Romney's whole attraction is he isnt Obama, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, or Perry.

If we had a preferential voting system he'd probably be every Republicans second choice.

As far as Newt goes... just remember it's okay to caricature white candidates but any similar treatment of our current President will be considered racist and prosecuted as well as persecuted as a hate crime.

You'd think one of our principled progressive betters would point out the inappropriateness of depicting a white man as composed of marshmallows.

Oh silly me, I forgot, progressives don't have principles, only an agenda.

Cheers!

dmarks said...

Free said: "If you prefer to believe what anti-Ron Paul forces tell you ABOUT Dr. Paul, instead of listening carefully to the man, himself, no one could possibly help you."

The problem is, for his newsletters, I read his actual quotations. And they are pretty bad.

beamish said...

As far as Newt goes... just remember it's okay to caricature white candidates but any similar treatment of our current President will be considered racist and prosecuted as well as persecuted as a hate crime.

You'd think one of our principled progressive betters would point out the inappropriateness of depicting a white man as composed of marshmallows.


LOL!

And here I was mistaking it for a fat joke.

Ducky's here said...

@Silverfiddle -- You and Ducky may, may be right. I've got to hear more about his actions at Bain.
-----

Not to worry. You're going to be hearing plenty.

The Passionate Culinarian said...

"The difference between Santorum and I is that my Christian faith rules my life, but when discussing government and law, the US Constitution is my guide. Nowhere does the constitution give government the right to dictate morals."

Nicely said, Kurt. It would be nice if more people thought and acted with that mindset. However, I have found that if you aren't trying to remove Jesus from all public forums you are seeking to make Him the President. Both endeavors are foolish and immature.

I like the middle ground, as you said, where Jesus is my Life, but my secular government ideals are to be found in a secular Constitution. (Although I could easily wax on about how The Kingdom of God is His form of government and it is there where I derive my "political ideals" to begin with. But I shan't.)

Mark Adams said...

"I get the sense that at least Romney would know how to put the economy back together"
But not run a proven Reagan economic platform.

What seems to be forgotten here is any GOP left standing is going up against the Chicago thugs who know how to campaign. There is no one out there in the current GOP pack that can take on these pukes but an establish Washington guy, unfortunately. Because that is all that's left in the field. Politicians.

The DNC claims they fear Romney, that's just smoke an mirrors and thats how it's done in Chicago style politics.

Anonymous said...

From A Liberal Website:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Bills Introduced by Ron Paul in Congress:

This is all characterized as "bad." You be the Judge.


"[C]onsider Ron Paul's record in Congress. ... His past legislative proposals will provide some clues, and they are not friendly to progressive ideas. Here are some bills that Ron Paul has ... sponsored. [Y]ou can see that he tries repeatedly on certain issues, which ... are important to him.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

He opposes the right of women to be free to control their own reproductive systems if they happen to live in particular states or other countries, or if they work for the Peace Corps."

Ron Paul introduces ... pro-life bills


H.R.1095: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.


H.R.777: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.


H.R.1548: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.


H.AMDT.1003 (A024): Amendment no. 17 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funding for abortion, family planning, or population control efforts.


H.AMDT.380 (A022): An amendment no. 9 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funding for population control or population planning programs; family planning activities; or abortion procedures.


H.AMDT.312 (A011): An amendment, printed as amendment No. 32 in the Congressional Record of July 16, 1997, to prohibit the use of funds appropriated in the bill for Family Planning, birth control or abortion.


H.R.4984: A bill to prohibit the use of funds for the Peace Corps to be used for travel expenses of individuals in order for abortions to be performed on those individuals.

He wants to erase the distinction in U.S. law between a zygote and a person

H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.


H.R.1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.


H.R.776: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception


H.R.392: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right to life.


Submitted by FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Passionate: Thank you.

I have found that if you aren't trying to remove Jesus from all public forums you are seeking to make Him the President. Both endeavors are foolish and immature.

Yes indeed. I visited you website and enjoyed your "Too excited to sleep" post.

I can identify, although I am far from a professional chef.

Friends rave about my grilling, and I too get really jazzed before a get together, once when I am preparing everything a few days before (prep ahead of time is everything in bbq!) and then again when I am cooking it, having a drink, listening to good music, and laughing with friends.

I couldn't imagine doing it on a professional level. That would be scary.

Anonymous said...

PART TWO

From A Liberal Website:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Bills Introduced by Ron Paul in Congress:


This is all characterized as "bad." You be the Judge.


"[C]onsider Ron Paul's record in Congress. ... His past legislative proposals will provide some clues, and they are not friendly to progressive ideas. Here are some bills that Ron Paul has ... sponsored. [Y]ou can see that he tries repeatedly on certain issues, which ... are important to him."


-- He would deny the use of the Federal court system -- and even Federal precedent -- to people discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. This would also limit the cross-state recognition of same-sex marriages. Some of these bills he cynically calls this the "We the People Act".


H.R.300: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.


H.R.4379: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.


H.R.5739: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.


H.R.3893: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.


H.R.1547: To restore first amendment protections of religion and religious speech.


H.R.4922: To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.


H.R.5078: To restore first amendment protections of religion and speech.


This includes limits on courts' hearing cases related to abortion, and he has introduced bills specific to these kinds of cases. He also uses the deceptive term "partial-birth abortion"

.
H.R.1545: To prohibit Federal officials from paying any Federal funds to any individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions.


H.R.1546: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.


H.R.2875: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.


H.R.3400: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.


H.R.3691: To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear partial-birth abortion-related cases.


H.R.15169: A bill to eliminate the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to certain abortion cases.


Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag
H.J.RES.80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.


H.J.RES.82: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.


~ Submitted by FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

PART THREE


PART THREE

From A Liberal Website:


http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html


Bills Introduced by Ron Paul in Congress:


This is all characterized as "bad." You be the Judge.


[C]onsider Ron Paul's record in Congress. ... His past legislative proposals will provide some clues, and they are not friendly to progressive ideas. Here are some bills that Ron Paul has ... sponsored. [Y]ou can see that he tries repeatedly on certain issues, which ... are important to him.


LAWS IMPROVING THE LOT OF THE WORKING CLASS


He has tried to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act:

H.R.2310: A bill to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.


H.R.13264: A bill to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970


He would like to make it much easier to decertify labor unions:

H.R.694: To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit elections to decertify representation by a labor organization.

He opposes the Minimum Wage:

H.R.2962: A bill to repeal all authority of the Federal Government to regulate wages in private employment.

He would deny the prevailing wage to employees of federal contractors, and remove prohibition on kickbacks in Federal projects:

H.R.736: To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act.


H.R.2720: To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act.

He wants to severely weaken Social Security:

H.R.2030: A bill to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to make social security coverage completely optional for both present and future workers, to freeze benefit levels, to provide for the partial financing of future benefits from general revenues subject to specified conditions, to eliminate the earnings test, to make changes in the tax treatment of IRA accounts, and for other purposes.


H.R.4604: A bill to repeal the recently enacted requirement of mandatory social security coverage for employees of nonprofit organizations.

VOTER ISSUES

He has come out against attempts to make the United States more democratic, including the idea of eliminating the Electoral College, even *after* the debacle in the 2000 Presidential election:

H.CON.RES.48: Expressing the sense of the Congress in reaffirming the United States of America as a republic.


H.CON.RES.443: Expressing the sense of the Congress in reaffirming the United States of America as a republic.


He wants to repeal the "Motor Voter" Act, which has made it easier for people to register to vote.

H.R.2139: To repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

CORPORATE POWER


He would repeal significant portions of antitrust law, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others.

H.R.1247:
To ensure and foster continued patient safety and quality of care by exempting health care professionals from the Federal antitrust laws in their negotiations with health plans and health insurance issuers.


H.R.1789: To restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law commonly referred to as "antitrust law", and for other purposes.

He would gut the regulatory power of Federal agencies, forcing Congress to micromanage all decisions:

H.R.1204: A bill to an Act to restore the rule of law.


Submitted by FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

PART FOUR

From A Liberal Website:


http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html


Bills Introduced by Ron Paul in Congress:


This is all characterized as "bad." You be the Judge.


[C]onsider Ron Paul's record in Congress. ... His past legislative proposals will provide some clues, and they are not friendly to progressive ideas. Here are some bills that Ron Paul has ... sponsored. [Y]ou can see that he tries repeatedly on certain issues, which ... are important to him.



DISCRIMINATION

He has tried to make it easier for racial and ethnic discrimination in our society:

H.R.3863:
A bill to provide that the Internal Revenue Service may not implement certain proposed rules relating to the determination of whether private schools have discriminatory policies.


H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid.


H.R.4982: A bill to provide for civil rights in public schools.

He would propose an amendment to the Constitution to gut the Fourteenth Amendment by denying citizenship to people born here whose parents aren't already citizens "nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States". That latter part could produce some serious political discrimination, especially if radicals can have their citizenship revoked:

H.J.RES.46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.


H.J.RES.46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.


H.J.RES.42:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

Submitted by FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

PART FIVE

From A Liberal Website:


http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html


Bills Introduced by Ron Paul in Congress:


This is all characterized as "bad." You be the Judge.


[C]onsider Ron Paul's record in Congress. ... His past legislative proposals will provide some clues, and they are not friendly to progressive ideas. Here are some bills that Ron Paul has ... sponsored. [Y]ou can see that he tries repeatedly on certain issues, which ... are important to him.


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION


He would limit or try to repeal various environmental protection laws and regulations, including the Clean Air Act, the Soil and Water Conservation Act, and the use of devices that protect the "bycatch" of sea life:


H.J.RES.104: To disapprove a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to proposed revisions to the national pollutant discharge elimination system program and Federal antidegradation policy and the proposed revisions to the water quality planning and management regulations concerning total maximum daily load.



H.R.3735: To disapprove a rule requiring the use of bycatch reduction devices in the shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico.



H.R.4423: To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide that the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery shall be managed in accordance with such fishery management plans, regulations, and other conservation and management as applied to that fishery on April 13, 1998.



H.R.2504: A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to postpone for one year the application of certain restrictions to areas which have failed to attain national ambient air quality standards and to delay for one year the date required for adoption and submission of State implementation plans applicable to these areas, and for other purposes.



H.R.7079: A bill to repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977.



H.R.7245: A bill to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters which are navigable and for other purposes.



He would promote offshore oil-drilling, the construction of more refineries, coal-mining on Federal lands, and block conservation measures. This would further threaten our coastal and internal environments, and further trap our economy in fossil-fuel dependency:


H.R.2415: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.



H.R.4004: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.



H.R.393: A bill to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters which are navigable and for other purposes.



H.R.4639: A bill to repeal all Federal regulations and taxes on the production of fuel.



H.R.5293: A bill to prohibit the imposition of unreasonable severance taxes or fees on coal or lignite mined from Federal lands.



H.R.6936: A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from promulgating any federal emergency energy conservation plan which would restrict recreational boating.


He has fought ratification of the Law of the Sea. As President would he "un-sign" it? [More here.]


H.CON.RES.56: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.


Submitted by FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

PART SIX

From A Liberal Website:


http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html


Bills Introduced by Ron Paul in Congress:


This is all characterized as "bad." You be the Judge.


[C]onsider Ron Paul's record in Congress. ... His past legislative proposals will provide some clues, and they are not friendly to progressive ideas. Here are some bills that Ron Paul has ... sponsored. [Y]ou can see that he tries repeatedly on certain issues, which ... are important to him.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND MILITARY ISSUES


-- This "champion of peace" wanted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the
U.S.:


H.R.1665: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2002 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.


H.R.3769: To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2001 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.

He would continue U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court, despite the usefulness of this body for prosecuting war-crimes that are not challenged domestically.


H.R.1154: To provide that the International Criminal Court is not valid with respect to the United States, and for other purposes.


H.AMDT.480 (A010): An amendment numbered 9 printed in part A of House Report 107-450 to prohibit funds authorized in the bill from being used to assist, cooperate with, or provide any support to the International Criminal Court.


H.R.4169: To provide that the International Criminal Court is not valid with respect to the United States, and for other purposes.


H.CON.RES.23: Expressing the sense of the Congress that President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.

Submitted by FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

PART SEVEN

From A Liberal Website:


http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html


Bills Introduced by Ron Paul in Congress:


This is all characterized as "bad." You be the Judge.


[C]onsider Ron Paul's record in Congress. ... His past legislative proposals will provide some clues, and they are not friendly to progressive ideas. Here are some bills that Ron Paul has ... sponsored. [Y]ou can see that he tries repeatedly on certain issues, which ... are important to him.


H.RES.416: Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court.

-- He has promoted the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution, and otherwise sought limit the protections of international law. He would also prohibit U.S. courts from citing foreign laws or policies (other than English ones) in their decisions:
H.J.RES.1028: A resolution proposing the Bricker amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to force and effect of treaties and executive agreements.


H.J.RES.492: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to force and effect of treaties and Executive agreements.


H.CON.RES.49: Expressing the sense of Congress that the Treaty Power of the President does not extend beyond the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, but are limited by the Constitution, and any exercise of such Executive Power inconsistent with the Constitution shall be of no legal force or effect.


H.R.4118: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.


H.R.1658: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

Submitted by FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

H.R.1658: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.

If only he would do that himself...

Silverfiddle said...

FT: could you just link to the site and leave it at that?

Anonymous said...

Hi, SilverFiddle,

I not only could link the website, I have -- in each post -- but most people are either too lazy, too prejudiced, or just not interested enough to look at it for themselves, so I brought a piece of the mountain to Mahomet.

I thought since you all were so fond of facts and figures it was way past time someone posted some solid data showing something of Dr. Paul's record in CONGRESS, instead of all this crapola dug up by opposition research.

It's really funny, but I have never planned or expected to vote for Ron Paul. I am sadly positive that he could not possibly get elected. I think A) He's too old, B) He has a funny, whiny voice and an odd platform manner, C) His thinking is too advanced for a nation so conditioned by nearly a century of relentless Cultural Marxist assault, that even many who believe themselves to be "conservatives" are in fact no such thing.

I've become an advocate for Dr. Paul simply because I despise the process of Character Assassination an Alinskyan tactic now sadly a routine part of American Politics. As a result politics has been robbed of every shred of dignity it once had, and has reduced itself to nothing but name-calling and mud-slinging. Libel and slander posing as "information."

BAH HUMBUG!

If any commentator ever made a serious attempt to present a balanced, non-partisan, non-agenda-driven picture of a public figure, I'd probably drop dead of shock.

OKAY, here's the website:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html


It's one of many. I chose it primarily because it was LIBERAL website determined to present all this information as though it were really, really bad ess-aitch-eye-tea.

I was frankly hoping to find evidence of racism or anti-Semitism in any of these proposals Dr. Paul presented to congress, but I don't think it's there.

My view of anti-Semitism is that it's a despicably over used tactic designed to stifle discussion, debate or critical analysis of a broad range of topics AIPAC would rather not have to contend with.

One would have to wage a determined campaign to deprive Jews of their Civil Rights, terrorize them, vandalize their property, threaten their lives, and make serious attempts to draw legislation deliberately designed to limit their prospects for advancement.

I haven't seen anyone doing anything like that anywhere I've ever lived, and isn't that a mercy? Therefore, I can't see any reason for the persistent paranoia. At this late date, it's way past time to get off the pity pot and join with the more benevolent elements in human society as brothers instead of would-be "directors" to try to make this a better world.

Aren't YOU sick of all the "bashing" that's going on -- as if there were nothing better to do?

I sure am. It's a bloody bore.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Sorry! Heres the COMPLETE sentence:

One would have to wage a determined campaign to deprive Jews of their Civil Rights, terrorize them, vandalize their property, threaten their lives, and make serious attempts to draw legislation deliberately designed to limit their prospects for advancement to be truly guilty of anti-Semitism.

~ FT

Silverfiddle said...

But I am not engaging in character assassination. This is a post about conservatism and libertarianism.

Sorry, but Ron Paul is too nutty for me, and the fact that all the OWS people like him is another strike against him.

You've don an excellent job bringing facts, but I don't like his black and white foreign policy.

Had he and the Lindbergs of the time had their way we'd be speaking German now.

Anonymous said...

ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT:

AOW came down with a really bad cold over the weekend.

I think it would be good if some of her friends and fans here posted GET WELL GREETINGS at AOW's blog.

It's always helpful to know that people care about you -- especially when you're down.

Just a suggestion.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

"I am not engaging in character assassination."

I didn't say you were. Sorry if it looked that way.

I interpret what-you-see-as extremism and oversimplification as the kind of attempt union bosses make when they ask for wages to be doubled and hours halved. ;-)

They don't expect to get what they ask for first crack out of the barrel, but if they don't start very high, they know they won't get much of anything. It's a very old technique used in bargaining and bartering of all kinds.

Oriental rug merchants will start off telling you a rug is worth -- let us say -- $5,000.00. (It's probably worth about $850.00 at best._ No knowledgeable buyer EVER pays the full asking price. The merchant would regard him as a fool if he did -- not that he'd be above taking the money and laugh all the way to the bank.

The game REQUIRES a lot of determined haggling. If you don't haggle, you're not playing the game.

It's the same with legislation.

There's an old joke among the many Jews I knew in New York:

QUESTION: Why did God make Christians?

ANSWER: Well, SOMEBODY has to pay retail!!!

I think, if you understand the implications I'm trying to make, that THIS is the reason The Democrats are called The EVIL Party, and the Republicans are called The STUPID Party.

If that were not the case, why would they keep nominating SCHNOOKS to run for the presidency?

Democrats have no qualms whatsoever about playing dirty. Republicans generally do -- or the don't have enough imagination to know how.

The political arena is no place in which to stand primly on Principle with pursed lips. Do that and you get trounced every single time.

Ron Paul has at least TRIED to make a difference And for this is vilified and crucified.

We get exactly what we deserve. And I say PHOOEY!

~ Freethinke

Mark Adams said...

Nice list a bills "introduced" Out of all his bills throughout his political career, One(1) was voted on and passed. Thats not much of an accomplishment.

Finntann said...

The problem with Ron Paul, even if you agree with him on everything in FTs wall of text, is the president doesn't have the constitutional authority to implement most of it.

"To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended."

Now, how do you go about doing that? A Supremer court to judge the activities and rulings of the Supreme court? Or presidential/congressional veto power over the courts?

I don't think you want to go there.

Cheers!

beamish said...

Nice list a bills "introduced" Out of all his bills throughout his political career, One(1) was voted on and passed. Thats not much of an accomplishment.

His record of adding amendments to spending bills he knew would pass without his vote anyway to secure pork for the 14th District of Texas is much much longer.

Methinks Ron Paul the insider doth protest too much.

beamish said...

Ron Paul: Porky Pig on spending

dmarks said...

FT said: "My view of anti-Semitism is that it's a despicably over used tactic designed to stifle discussion"

You are so flat out wrong about this. Antisemitism is a real problem, and in the vast majority of cases, the problem is the instance of antisemitism being pointed out. The problem is not accurarely describing it. The real problem are the people who are bigoted against Jews.

"...AIPAC would rather not have to contend with."

Ah yes, AIPAC. One of the bogeymen of the remaining neo-Nazi movement in the US.

"One would have to wage a determined campaign to deprive Jews of their Civil Rights, terrorize them, vandalize their property, threaten their lives, and make serious attempts to draw legislation deliberately designed to limit their prospects for advancement."

In other words, anti-Jewish slurs, lies, beating up and killing a few Jews, discrimination, etc is all OK as long as it falls short of a full blown Holocaust.

Z said...

No, Ducky, he is not.
He loves AMerica and passionate about what's happening to her....that's what you hate.

Anonymous said...

Hate hate hate hate hate. That's what it's all about, isn't it?

There is no evidence of love or affirmation anywhere.

Negative thinking -- and FACTIONALISM -- will be the primary means of our destruction.

We are no longer The UNITED States of America. We have become a nation of Special Interest Groups -- SPLINTER FACTIONS -- who have no concern and no respect for one another.

A nation of gladiators and bloodthirsty throngs who cheer them on. A Theater of Death,

Disgusting!

!~ FreeThinke

Rational Nation USA said...

Until the conservative movement (aka: republican) sheds it's statist big government, irrational inconsistencies, and it's love affair with religious mysticism over reason and science it will most certainly continue marginalize itself in American politics. A charade can continue for only so long.

It would do conservatives, and those who believe in capitalism well to read Ayn Rands many non fictional books. A starting part should be Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal followed by The New Intellectual. Then take it from their. Mo party or movement can last without a non contradictory philosophy of life and governance.

Republicans (conservatives) are, and have been for quite some time lacking in both.

Inspector AIPac said...

Keep up the good work, Deputy beamish. Distract, demonize and the deport the Paulbots and Independent Thinkers from the Republican Party, and we can save America!

beamish said...

Keep up the good work, Deputy beamish. Distract, demonize and the deport the Paulbots and Independent Thinkers from the Republican Party, and we can save America!

FJ,

I see you have less than 86 IQ points on other people's blogs as well.

Deputy Queenish of the AIPac PC Blog Posting Enforcement Society said...

What a dolt he is! Let's corner him, Deputy beamish. After we get rid of Framer John, we can go after all these other independent thinkers here at Silverfiddle's blog and force them ALL to vote Romney in 2012, Huntsman in 2016 and Julie Giulianin in 2020!

Or better yet, maybe we can shame all these other racist anti-Semites into perpetual political silence. What think you, Deputy beamish? You go to the RIGHT, and I'll go to the LEFT. We'll TRAP him in the middle!

dmarks said...

The people who raise the alarm about the infiltration of the evil Jew into the conservative movement only demonize themselves.

Inspector AIPac said...

Indeed they do, the Stormfront posting bast*rds!

You are hereby deputized to help us drive the anti-semitic scum out of the conservative blogosphere, dmarks! Some people just should not be allowed internet access!

dmarks said...

Finntann said: "The problem with Ron Paul, even if you agree with him on everything in FTs wall of text, is the president doesn't have the constitutional authority to implement most of it."

The thing about Paul is that he easily ignores the Constitution when it does not fit his agenda. This makes him no different at all from any politician who does this.