Former Congressman Ron Paul interviews Daphne Lee on the 2012 NDAA and her speech against it in Clark County, Nevada.
Congressman Ron Paul makes a lot of good points about the ongoing “war” in Afghanistan. As a conservative who cares about the Constitution, as well as respecting life at all stages and living within our own means, I would encourage you to listen to his arguments about leaving Afghanistan.
No related posts.
Evan Kenney had just turned 18 and registered to vote for the first time when he campaigned to be an alternate delegate to the Republican National Convention. Lauding Ronald Reagan’s principles and blasting Keynesian economics at the Lynnfield caucus in April, the Wakefield High School senior beat out several well-known Massachusetts Republicans, including the party’s most recent nominee for governor, Charles D. Baker Jr.
But earlier this month, Kenney was one of 17 delegates and alternates disqualified by a Republican committee deciding who gets to represent Massachusetts Republicans at the national convention in Tampa. Kenney and others had failed to deliver in time an affidavit swearing, under the penalty of perjury, that they would support Mitt Romney’s nomination for president.
An affidavit is never mentioned in the Republican Party’s rules for selecting delegates and has never been required of delegates in the past, GOP critics say. Suspicions are steep this year because Kenney and the others are supporters of Ron Paul, the libertarian candidate whose quixotic campaign for president culminated in an effort to take over state caucuses nationwide. The delegates must vote for Romney, based on his strong primary win in Massachusetts, but Paul’s supporters hope to use the convention to draw attention to his agenda, including auditing the Federal Reserve and requiring wars to be declared by Congress.
In Massachusetts, Paul’s Liberty Slate swept the Republican caucuses in April, stealing delegate spots that were expected to go to Romney’s friends and allies, whom he had selected. Massachusetts, a state dominated by Democrats and typically marginalized at national Republican events, could have an unusual share of the limelight at this year’s convention, since its former governor is the party’s expected presidential nominee.
Read More at boston.com. By Stephanie Ebbert.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)
- Ron Paul Could Still Win Enough Delegates To Deny Romney The Republican Nomination Despite what you may have heard from the mainstream media,…
- How Ron Paul’s “Revolution” Is Taking Over The Republican Party What little commentary we’ve seen from the media on Ron…
Columnist Note: Although this piece was written with regard to perceived divisions within a local party apparatus in Idaho, many local party organizations may be working through some of the same challenges. For this reason, I was encouraged to submit it for whatever value it may provide for local Party entities elsewhere. – Richard
Intra-party struggles are nothing new. In a two-party system as we have, there are always party members who feel theirs is either too liberal or too conservative. What we have experienced this past year in local, state, and national party structures is nothing new, as ideologies are parsed and attempts are made by individuals or groups of individuals to swing party allegiance one way or the other.
Typically, internal party challenges are ideologically-oriented. That’s what the primary election process is all about: selecting candidates for each of the two major parties that are felt by party voters to best represent their respective parties.
The intra-party struggle for self-identity can be characterized aptly by the Asian yin and yang, the symbol closely identified to Taoism. The light and dark teardrop shapes are constantly in a state of flux or self-identification, and yet share the majority of their border with the other. This connection indicates how perceived contrarian forces are truly interconnected as well as interdependent.
Likewise, the forces of party self-definition, seeking their ideological identity, are constantly in a state of flux, where current economic and political climate, candidates, and ascending ideologies affect the overall composition of the party. One is not good while the other bad, but they’re both critical to the overall composition of the party as the forces vie for ascendency in every election cycle.
Political labels are unavoidable, as political parties, candidates, pollsters, and media all incorporate them for purposes of identification and classification. Some, however, are used pejoratively, as in the classification of “RINOs,” (Republicans in Name Only) and the “Old Guard”, which are sometimes used interchangeably, though incorrectly.
The “Old Guard” in most cases constitutes the long-time, sometimes life-long party leaders who have been in the trenches fighting the good fight for conservatism all along. They are, by definition, not synonymous with “RINOs” as they have been the standard bearers shaping the party platform over the years (where RINOs clearly reject many if not all of the conservative planks.)
Headlines in the Journal of late have indicated a schism within the ranks of the Bannock County Republican Party apparatus. The headlines are based falsely, in my estimation, on a difference in ideology. Having been on board from the earliest stages of the Tea Party movement locally, I know what the movement is based upon. The ten planks of the Tea Party movement are: eliminate excessive taxes, eliminate the national debt, eliminate deficit spending, protect free markets, abide by the Constitution of the United States, promote civic responsibility, reduce the overall size of government, believe in the people, avoid the pitfalls of politics, and maintain local independence.
This past week, I had the opportunity to visit extensively on ideology, campaigning, organization, and electioneering with those classified as the “Old Guard” of the Republican Party in Bannock County. With each one, I reviewed the core principles of the Tea Party movement, as listed above. And without exception, each one agreed in toto.
Having known these men for years, I would’ve been surprised by any response to the contrary; for they are honorable, civic-conscious conservatives who uphold and defend the Constitution and have spent the majority of their adult lives advancing conservative principles.
This presents a conundrum for the relative newcomers to the party, the Tea Partiers and Ron Paul supporters; for if there is no ideological chasm that exists between them and the “Old Guard,” what is the source of animus?
It seems to me that the original source of the schism seems to be an artificial one created by a neophyte who appeared locally on the scene a few years ago and then left just as suddenly, who somehow convinced the newcomers that the Old Guard was the “enemy.” And without an ideological basis upon which to make such an assertion, the “Old Guard” became disparaged and demonized.
In the absence of ideological differences, all that remains is more superficial stylistic distinctions of leadership style, organization, and management, none of which are sufficiently substantive to warrant the degree of acrimony recently observed.
This brings us to the Tea Partiers and the Ron Paul libertarians. The Tea Party movement found traction in the perception that President Obama and his facilitating Congress were racing the country to a constitutional and fiscal precipice, at which the republic would be cast to ruin. Ron Paul, as a libertarian Republican, capitalized on much of the Tea Party momentum with his no-nonsense approach to reducing spending, basing federal governance on constitutional principles, and denouncing the devaluation of the dollar by the Federal Reserve. Notice I said much of the Tea Party momentum. One can be a Tea Party conservative and not be a Ron Paul supporter, as I have illustrated in earlier columns, and which fact I stand in evidence of.
Tea Party conservatives are opposed to the direction the country is headed; they strive for a return to the constitutional precepts, economic system, and classical-liberal ideals that made America great, and can make her great once again. Ron Paul supporters, for the most part, believe similarly, but with the proviso that inextricably connects a single persona with those principles. As a result, they fall subject to the same errant “messiah” complex that Obama sycophants connected with him as the standard bearer of “hope and change.” A messiah complex is creepy enough on it’s own, but in politics, is both disturbing and illogical. It is a mistake to embrace one person as the embodiment of correct principles (unless one is speaking eschatologically of The Messiah, for there’s only one of Him.)
One of the dogmatic and idyllic characteristics of these groups is the rejection of compromise, for that’s a “sin” in their lexicon. If compromise is seen as abdication and acquiescence, I totally agree that it should be a “sin.” But true compromise on legislation and political issues is the way to get things done and can be done without sacrificing one’s principles. For the reality is nothing in politics happens without some compromise; each side giving up a little in order to facilitate governance.
If we approach politics as we do our personal religious convictions, we will forever live in disillusionment over the political process, lose our zeal and motivation, and never have a positive impact on the process; for we can never have things entirely our way. But compromise to bring reality closer to our ideality is not only requisite; it’s fundamental to having an incrementally positive impact on our political system.
There’s a simple three-step process for the local GOP to function cohesively and in unison for this election cycle and the future: for all factions and persons involved in the perceived schism to realize that there is no ideological divide! We’re all essential spokes in the same wheel. Follow Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican,” and discontinue the divisive and demonizing speech and inferences. And finally, get to work together; for united we stand, but divided we fall. If we’re not part of the solution to create such cohesiveness, we’re part of the problem of divisiveness and failure.
AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)
- Faced With Internal Division, Liberal Website Clamps Down On Obama Criticism With a Democrat in the White House whose approval ratings…
- FOX FEUD? GERALDO HITS BACK AT GOLDBERG: ‘IDEOLOGICAL’ & ‘OPINION MEISTER’ Geraldo Rivera hit back hard against regular Fox News contributor…
Every election cycle, the American people are bombarded by messages from those who think they are fit to lead. Most of them are not, but they wear nice clothes and smile a lot, so other people listen to the garbage spewing forth and agree or disagree.
Meetings are held, speeches are given, unhealthy ‘finger’ food gets eaten, and we wonder to ourselves if anything said is true. We listen to men and women who are different from the scoundrels begging on the street only by the clothes they wear and the phony smiles featuring false teeth and the painted smiles of the women seeking a paycheck at the expense of the taxpayer.
It would be amusing, if we weren’t in such dire straits.
It used to be that meetings were held in smoke-filled rooms where men bargained and gambled using the future of the people as bargaining chips. Now it is politically incorrect to smoke, but the rooms stink anyway from the hot air expended by the self-important wannabes and their handlers.
The unethical shenanigans and the dishonest tricks are used not to help one, but to hinder one. It is a disgusting business. Billions of dollars are spent bringing messages to the weary voters; most of these messages are not believed by either side. It is the best liar who wins. It is the one who can pull the dirtiest tricks that gets the votes.
Here in Clark County, Nevada, we have a situation that defies any logic – even in politics. A candidate for the United States House of Representatives has used nefarious means to win the primary election for the Republican candidacy in the general election in the fall. His followers think he won. We lost. We lost because we have now a man who has proven himself to be unworthy of the title of Representative. How could anyone now address him as The Honorable _____ _________?
That is how he will be addressed, if he wins the general. I hope he does because his opponent is even worse. I shudder at the prospect of my grandchildren’s future, for it is a dismal future.
The chairman and vice-chairman of the Clark County Republican Party Central committee both resigned their positions at about the same time and joined Team Nevada (that is the name the unfair and dishonest Republican National Committee is using for their anointed candidate.) This move was planned far in advance, perhaps even in advance of a questionable vote at the bi-monthly meeting of the CCRPCC. Team Nevada accepted the former members of the Central Committee. Would you accept such people to your team? This is, at best, dishonest. We now have a potential presidential candidate who willingly accepts men who have proven themselves to be less than forthright. What does that say for the candidate? You are known by the company you keep.
At the State level of the Republican Party, a technician “accidentally” provided one Congressional candidate with the list of 1,600 purged voters as the current list of voters, while at the same time providing the ultimate winner with a list of 20,000 current voters, then resigned and joined Team Nevada.
Do those who support and will vote for the scoundrel think that they can trust him? If they do, they are being very foolish. A dishonest person cannot be trusted. That is a gold-plated fact. Yet, that is exactly what we will have if the man wins the general election – a man who has proven that he will accept the help of duplicitous people with a smile and a “thank-you.” He cannot be trusted to be open and honest.
The people who support this dishonesty call themselves Christians, attend church services regularly, put a few dollars in the coffers at their church, and bow and say “amen” when the Pastor calls for honest and ethical actions in their daily lives. But could we trust them to keep our books?
These people who pull the dirty tricks think they win. They don’t. In the end, they lose like the rest of us because they have helped put someone of low character in a position to make decisions as to how many men and women will be sent to war. Let the funeral dirge continue for our once-great Republic. The casket is closed; the nails are being driven home. They are being driven there by some who think they have convinced others they have done a service for mankind.
Only one of the presidential candidates championed freedom, lower taxes, bringing our troops home, ending the foolish wars, and living in Peace. No, there were no winners in this latest debacle that was called a “primary election.”
Come November 6th, will we have a choice of one liar or another, or will we have an honest man to vote for? Will we be forced to choose the liar we distrust the least, or will we be able to choose for our next President a man who we can trust?
Photo credit: Cali4Beach (Creative Commons)
- “Live Free Or Die: This Is New Hampshire, No (Voting) ID Required” Conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe and his colleagues at Project Veritas…
- Spin Meter: Lawmakers’ Talk Of Cuts Is Just Talk If there’s one thing Republicans and Democrats in Washington say…