The power of III

Summum ius summa iniuria--More law, less justice

17 August 2011

Why the US Constitution and Ron Paul should unite Right and Left

Note well:
Progressives of the National Socialist or Socialist ilk, that believe in Big Government, intervention of Big Government in the affairs of individuals, the right to confiscate wealth through taxation, inflation, and those that believe in the right to legislate moral issues for 330 million people in these "united" States, keep surfing, this post ain't for you.

However, if you are socially right or left, and believe that the federal government has no right to confiscate wealth, that government exists solely to protect people and their property from the encroachment of individual and organized criminals, read on.

The beauty of our founding philosophy is evident in the commentary below, written by a social liberal.  He is attracted to a conservative constitutionalist Republican, committed to original intent of the Constitution.

This original intent, advocated consistently by Ron Paul, is based on limitation of Federal powers in favor of local and State powers, where "representatives" are theoretically more in touch with the people, and are therefore more accountable to the people.

This system was crushed under the tyrannical heel of Abraham Lincoln and his Army of the Potomac. 

We are witnessing the endgame of that ugly experiment in Nationalism, Corporatism, and Empire right now.

Feel some hope as you read the commentary below.

Know, however, that Ron Paul will neither gain the nomination nor the Presidency.  He is merely the obstetrician of the New Republic.  Ron's son Rand Paul has much greater potential down the road...he is a much more effective communicator than his dad, and has inherited political savvy, a promising combination.


A comment on a blogpost in The Telegraph,

Why the American Media Hates and Fears Ron Paul

"As a former Democrat turned Ron Paul supporter, I take issue with your assertion that "Democrats can’t understand his loyalty to the Republican label and, when they know about it, loathe his views on sex and sexuality". The fact is, Ron Paul's position is that we should respect the Constitution, get the federal government out of social issues, and that issues specifically related to sex and sexuality are best handled on as local a level as possible - thus allowing for more progressive communities to permit nude beaches, gay marriage, etc., while allowing more conservative communities to set their own standards. I wish that everyone was tolerant and accepting towards homosexuality, and "alternative" lifestyles, but I recognize that part of having a free society means that we have to allow points of view that we disagree with. In the American system, we don't have a 1st Amendment protecting free speech so that people can talk about the weather.

Ron Paul is also on the record in favor of overturning "Don't Ask Don't Tell", his campaign manager from 2008 was openly gay and he has strong support in the gay community because he does not want to force his views of sex and morality down the country's throat.

On a broader level, progressives should support Ron Paul if they care about ending the wars, stopping the continued bailouts for the rich bankers, stopping the civil liberties abuses (Patriot Act) and ending the federal drug war (hurts minorities). Ron Paul as president could have a unilateral impact on these issues, while he would not be able to enact his domestic economic/fiscal agenda without a super majority in the Senate (not likely any time soon). He's also on the record in saying that the money being spent overseas should be used to tide over those dependent on our entitlement programs; he's the only one talking to us like adults.", 17 August 2011


Christian conservatives should applaud this type of attitude; it is what united the proponents of disparate philosophies of politics and religion 230 years ago.  People that cannot abide the standards and laws of their locale (e.g. a social conservative in San Francisco, a gun control advocate living in Montana, a NAACP advocate who is offended by the battle flag, or a Christian who is offended by passage of a gay marriage law, etc.) can get up and move to a place they find more attractive. 

I advocate the return to our original confederation of united States, with universally guaranteed Rights, and understood limited powers of a servant government. 

Under such a republican system, you will no longer have the threat of a law passed in remote Washington DC affecting every single person in the country, forcing self righteous morality down our throats, or robbing our kids' future properity.

1 comment:

  1. I advocate the return to our original confederation of united States

    Hear! Hear!