|
||||||
|
The 2012 campaign for the GOP presidential nomination should, once and for all, end the myth that the GOP is the party of limited government, free markets and personal liberty. I submit it is instructive to look at the records of the three remaining GOP candidates not named “Paul.”
The following bullet points were excerpted verbatim from Reason.com’s candidate profiles. Yes, I have cherry picked items inconsistent with limited government, free markets and personal liberty. Yes, these same profiles mention positions of each candidate that are consistent with limited government, free markets and personal liberty. The point of this post, however, is to show that none of these three candidates believe, as a first principle, in limited government, free markets and personal liberty. They each are more than willing to make exceptions when expedient. Therefore, any claim that they believe in limited government, free markets or personal liberty must be prefaced by the qualifier “when convenient.”
Can we quit pretending? The GOP loves government programs. One might be able to make the case that the GOP loves government programs less than Democrats, but that is damning with faint praise. [ January 31, 2012; 5:30 pm to 8:30 pm. ] Start off 2012 right by attending the re-launch of LOTR-DTC at our new location the Chinook Tavern! You’ll be hangin’ out with our guest speaker and former gubernatorial candidate, Congressman Beauprez, who will share his thoughts on the upcoming 2012 election. We’ll also have information as to how you can get involved with helping build the [...]
Words have meanings, people.
There are many legitimate criticisms of Ron Paul, but calling him “isolationist” is simply a misuse of the word. It is either done purposefully to misrepresent and impugn him or out of ignorance. From Merriam-Webster:
(emphasis added). Any statement that Paul wants the U.S. to refuse to trade with or engage in economic relations with other countries is nonsense. He is the furthest possible thing from a mercantilist. He is more of a free-trader than any of the other three remaining Republican presidential candidates. Paul’s position is clear: “Free trade with all and entangling alliances with none has always been the best policy in dealing with other countries on the world stage.” This belief is a rarity in modern politics. Criticize it as dangerous if you wish. Call it foolish. Call it naive. Call it something accurate, but don’t call it “isolationist.” You may think him an unelectable dogmatic kook. That is an opinion and you can have it. But when you describe actual policy, try not to make yourself look foolish. Use the actual meanings of words. The notion that the U.S. Constitution only protects U.S. citizens is palpably false. It is an indictment of our education system that any American could think such an outrageous thing. The drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were educated men. They chose their words carefully. They debated over precise word choice. One can assume every word they chose was done with a purpose. The Constitution and the first ten amendments distinguish between the concept of “people/persons” and the concept of “citizen.” For example, Article I, Section 3, says “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States…”. A “person” is therefore different from a “citizen.” Everyone is a person, but only some are citizens. This distinction is seen again in Article II, Section 1: “No Person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Again, you may be a person, but you can’t be President unless you are also a citizen. The drafters of the Constitution knew when they wanted it to apply to people and when they wanted it to apply only to citizens. The first two paragraphs of Article IV, Section 2, clearly distinguish between “citizen” and “person.” It reads:
Therefore, only citizens are entitled to “privileges and immunities” but all persons charged with a crime who then cross state lines shall “be delivered up.” It does not matter if you are a citizen or not if you are a fugitive. Of course that makes sense. The point, however, is that the Constitution and its Amendments clearly distinguish between “citizen” and “persons.” “Citizen” means those either born in the United States (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) or naturalized. “Persons” and “people” mean everyone. For instance, the First Amendment states that ”Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”. The First Amendment therefore grants to all people the same protection against certain congressional action, regardless of citizenship status. The Fourth Amendment, likewise, applies to the “people,” and not just citizens. It reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated …”. Likewish, the Fifth Amendment:
And the Sixth Amendment:
The notion that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to non-citizens is incorrect. It even applies to those in the country illegally. For instance, the government cannot keep an illegal alien locked up indefinitely. An undocumented worker will still get an attorney appointed to him if charged with a crime. I hope this little blog post helps alleviate that misconception. In light of the War on Terror, the Patriot Act and the recently passed NDAA, among other legislation, it appears the Constitution doesn’t even apply to citizens any longer. And that is sad.
Ron Paul’s success in the Republican nomination process has very little to do with Ron Paul the candidate. It has everything to do with ideas. It has everything to do with a mission. After wandering in the big government political wilderness for over a century, Paul is leading us to the land of freedom promised in the Constitution. He probably won’t make it there himself, but like Moses, he’ll show it to us across the river. (OK, the Moses comparison is a bit much. I got carried away. Sue me.)
Paul would never be picked by central casting for the role of political leader. He’s old. He’s short. He’s far from charismatic. He’s far from perfect. But those imperfections are of the man, not of the ideas. People are starting to realize that government, indeed, is not the answer. Free markets and voluntary action is the answer. Less government is a start. Unfortunately, neither half of the two-party duopoly has ever – ever! – made the federal government smaller. Voting for the same-ol’ same-ol’ results in ….. more of the same. At the very least, Ron Paul is not more of the same. A libertarian philosophy may never win over a majority of voters. That makes it no less correct. But without someone spreading the message – even a flawed, short old man – we know for certain the philosophy will never win over a majority of voters. And what if those that understand and believe in a constitutionally limited government actually vote for it? They might actually get it. You want to throw away a vote? Keep voting like you have, America.
Rick Santorum
Ronald Reagan [ January 4, 2012; 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm. 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm. 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm. ] Get ready to start the new year off right with Liberty on the Rocks happy hour at Choppers in Cherry Creek! Join fellow liberty enthusiasts as we gather to toast to liberty and freedom, while sharing ideas and strategies for winning the war of ideas in 2012 and beyond. We will also be joined by special [...]
The 2012 presidential election is being called “The Most Important Election Ever!”
Wrong. Even the election of 2008 was more important. Unfortunately the GOP gave us John McCain as the only viable option against the disaster that is Obama. And yet, four years later, it is the same group that is going to give us the only viable option against that same disaster. Mitt Romney? Really? Mitt is McCain without the war resume.He’s Bob Dole without the charisma. If you ran a business and your hiring manager kept choosing poorly, would you let him keep making those decisions? If you did, whose fault would the next bad choice belong to? If you keep hiring the same contractor to work on your house and each addition has a leaky roof, you get exactly what you deserve. Mitt is pretty leaky. |
||||||
|
Copyright © 2012 Liberty on the Rocks™ Denver - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
