One of the biggest problems this movement has is getting some to take it seriously.

The message of freedom and liberty is powerful, but the message needs more cohesion. Whether many of you believe it or not, Ron’s 2012 run started before the 2008 election was over. I have met some of the most enthusiastic and passionate people who are campaigning for him, including myself. His personal stance on most issues resonates with most Americans, whether they are democrats or republicans.

I think the campaignforliberty website needs a platform for RP and campaignforliberty to discuss the issues. I can’t tell you how many people online think RP is cool because they think they can do pot without consequences. That’s not what this is about. These people hurt the cause and turn RP into a Nader type candidate with the same old Nader message.

RP is about educating the masses to ensure survival of our liberties and our country in the most truest sense of the Jeffersonian spirit.

Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

“Resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to always be kept alive” – Thomas Jefferson

This is already a sticking point between traditional conservatives and the neo-cons that have been in control of the GOP – and I think it’s probably the biggest sticking point.

There’s a difference between something being wrong, and something being illegal. Abusing drugs is just plain stupid – but at this point, the drug laws are probably doing more harm than drug abuse would. It worked that way with alcohol prohibition.

If you’re committed to small government, you have to recognize that government probably shouldn’t even try to enforce morality. And that’s going to stick in the craw of a lot of otherwise good people like Huckabee, who seems to think the US Constitution needs to be amended to conform to the bible.

I like Huck – but I want him to keep his mitts off the Constitution.

The Democrats will say that they are for liberty at the same time that they are for wealth redistribution.

If you live in the boondocks, you are used to doing things for yourself. If you live in a big city, you realize that what one person does will have a BIG impact on many others. That’s the reason why urban areas are blue, and rural areas are red.

Most Democrats aren’t in favor of “income redistribution” as such, but they see a greater need for government services, and they believe – as Republicans have historically believed – that those who derive the most benefit from the government should pay the most for it.

3. Sound Money:
If we had sound money, the Paulists wouldn’t have any issue here. They see the gold standard as the means to an end.

Kevin Phillips was just on Book TV a day or three ago, talking about this, and he said the biggest reason you need a balanced budget is because legislators need a reason to say “No”.

Well, that’s part of it, but not all. Inflation is a really bad tax. It discourages saving and investment, which is where our wealth comes from.

Free markets: Once again, agreed. The only fix that I can see is major tax reform. I work in the oil industry and have been amazed at the amount of intervention that the government has in my industry.

There are no free markets at all. The major tax reform we need is replacing the income tax with VAT, and then saying “No” to finagling with VAT. There’s no real difference between taxing income and taxing outgo, except that taxing outgo is a lot simpler to do.

When we ship products overseas, they carry the burden of our income tax and their VAT. When they ship products here, the manufacturer gets a refund of VAT, and we don’t charge them income tax on their production. The result is that manufacturing flees the US.

5. Noninterventionist Foreign Policy:

The folks of Fort Wayne don’t pay the salaries of cops in Gary, and the folks in Bloomington don’t pay the salaries of the cops in Terre Haute. Why should we pay to station military forces in Germany and Korea in order to defend foreign lands? If they want our troops there, let’s get paid for it.

Paul supporters also need to listen to a bit of thought from those who believe that it is better to fight some battles as an away game.

How about not fighting the battles at all? We constantly have incidents like those involving the Pueblo and the Cole. This doesn’t seem to happen to Andorra, Bolivia, Chad, or Latvia.

1. Individual Liberty: I have some thought floating around on this, but haven’t figured out a way to communicate it yet. It would seem that all groups are in favor of liberty, but the flavor differs somewhat from group to group. The Democrats will say that they are for liberty at the same time that they are for wealth redistribution. A conservative sees that as an affront to liberty. The term is not particularly effective for communicating what the concerns are. Both groups need to work on the language here.

2. Constitution: I don’t think conservatives disagree with this. Where there may be a disagreement is how to get BACK to constitutional governance. And, of course, there may be some disagreement on what IS constitutional.

3. Sound Money: Once again, conservatives agree here. Where Ron Paul got into trouble with various Republican groups was his past support (and not backing away from it in his campaign) to return to the gold standard. The belief on the part of many economists is that would be a disaster.

4. Free markets: Once again, agreed. The only fix that I can see is major tax reform. I work in the oil industry and have been amazed at the amount of intervention that the government has in my industry.

5. Noninterventionist Foreign Policy: “Paulites” did get angry when the rest of us called this “isolationist”. But WE got angry with Paulites calling their isolationist policies “noninterventionist”. This is a major sticking point issue and is probably the one that would require the most work to make Ron Paul supporters happy. I certainly think that Ron Paul supporters have some things to bring to the table here. But I think that Paul supporters also need to listen to a bit of thought from those who believe that it is better to fight some battles as an away game.

We are not far apart, particularly as the Republicans (or rather the American electorate) seem to be purging the “moderate” part of the Party and leaving the conservatives. I think we will be able to accommodate each other.

As for the main platforms and why Paul supporters feel disaffected, I would like to elaborate on Gregg’s list.

1. Individual liberty
All parts of liberty, from the second amendment, to the freedom of speech are cherished.
The main difference comes in the form of sacrificing liberties for national defense. Ron Paul’s supporters believe that those freedoms should not be given up even during times of war. A platform built on defending all rights even in times of war would go a long way towards bringing Ron Paul supporters back into the fold.
2. Constitution
Ron Paul and his supporters wish to put an end to the current way the constitution is viewed. It is not a piece of paper but a set of rules laying down what the government CAN do, not what it CAN’T. The original intent of the constitution is believed to be the listing of ALL powers afforded the government, all else are given to the people. Currently that belief is backwards, with people only using the constitution to describe what the government can’t do.
3. Sound Money
The huge deficit spending perpetrated by the government is a very large problem to supporters because it goes against traditional conservative thought and will eventually cause a huge problem for our country (we already spend a large portion of government money paying off interest). In this regard many conservatives are FURIOUS with the Republican Party. Under the Republican congress and presidency government spending has grown faster than at any point in history. This is a party that ran on small government ideals. Ron Paul supporters want to see a dramatic cut in spending and curb the growth of our nation’s debt.

4. Free Markets
Paulites support free markets in every regard, deregulate all areas of business is how they feel. This is one area where they and many Republicans agree. Unfortunately during this current crisis that platform is under attack on all sides. Remaining strong and supporting free markets is important. Free markets also include free trade. We should not need special agreements to trade freely with other countries, it should be assumed and we should eliminate tariffs and other restrictions that support otherwise.
5. Noninterventionist Foreign Policy
This is not isolationist foreign policy, arguing that it is will only anger Paulites. What it does mean is that we should trade with all nations freely, it is the best way to show them the power of freedom and free markets, and that we should respect other peoples’ rights to govern their own countries, even when their decisions fly in the face of what is best for the US. Only intervene militarily as an utterly last resort.

These five pillars of The Campaign for Liberty are the important parts of the overall platform. I think most Ron Paul supporters are sensible enough to see that the Republican Party’s ideals are far closer to their ideals than the Democrat’s and most with a few concessions would gladly help the Republican Party; that is how I feel anyway.

Barry Goldwater would say the party doesn’t appear conservative at all. It’s full of what he condemned as “me-too Republicans” who want “representation without taxation”.

How about we make a deal to support REAL Republicans who conform to at least 80% of our platform?

The only consistent Republican platform since Truman was in office has been support for Nixon, Dole and the Bushes.

The official party platform is adopted at the national convention after the candidate has been chosen, and it pretty well conforms to what the candidate wants.

I think this is where the difference truly lies.

If the Republican party supports those who LOOK just SLIGHTLY conservative, then the party doesn’t appear conservative at all – just a former shell of itself and full of RINOs.

How about we make a deal to support REAL Republicans who conform to at least 80% of our platform?

A GOP candidate that looks just slightly more conservative than the Democratic candidate should be able to count on the support of all Republicans, and many of the independents. However, the support may be passive; you’ve got to give people a reason to crawl out of a toasty bed on a frosty November morning.

I’ve been saying all year that Obama appears to be a far more conservative candidate than many Democrats (or for that matter, many Republicans) wanted to believe. And now, they’re yelping over on Daily Kos and Huffington Post because it’s turning out that I was right about that.

The GOP needs to define itself, for sure, and the most important single thing they need to do is to demand honesty and integrity. Nobody wants to vote for a crook, no matter what his ideology.

Second, they need to define themselves as the party of small government, and mean it. If you keep spending under control, taxes will follow. If you don’t keep spending under control, we’ll pay the price, whether it’s in the form of taxes or inflation.

And they need to point out that a consequence of small government is freedom and responsibility, whether citizens want it or not.

If you keep it just that simple, then it’s simply a matter of finding honest and capable legislators and executives, who endorse those principles, who have common sense, and are pragmatic. Candidates don’t have to be perfect, because the opposition won’t have perfect candidates, either, but if you have a short list of requirements, then it’s a lot easier to focus on what really matters.

Of course a lot goes into the details and those are very broad brushstroke items. For instance, while most Republicans (even most Democrats) want “Sound Money”, few apart from Mr. Paul were supporting returning to a gold standard (or even other similar standards).

I suspect we would have to get a bit more specific to harness that energy of the Paul voters. But we would also have to have some level of “compromise”. But the question remains if a Paul supporter would be assured of a xyz candidate working toward what they would consider Individual Liberty and Free Markets, could they be enthusiastic even if the candidate supported an “interventionist” foreign policy?

I don’t know. But we are going to have to figure out how to make our coalitions if we want to build a stronger party.

1) Individual Liberty
2) Constitutional Government
3) Sound Money
4) Free Markets
5) Noninterventionist Foreign Policy

(taken from the “Campaign For Liberty” website)

The last one is where I believe the most contentious difference between conservatives and libertarians lies.

Yes? And when did that start?

In 1974 when Bob Casey defeated him?

In 1976 when Bob Gammage defeated him?

He started the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE) in 1976 to publish “Dr. Ron Paul’s Freedom Report”. If you check back issues, it’s pretty consistant in philosophy over the past 30 years. Dr. Paul didn’t change his positions to become acceptable to the Libertarian party; he’s been there all along.

One of my observations about those who are “scared” of the “Paulistas” is that, if they were honest, they might admit that they feel threatened by the involvement of the newcomers.

I’m not scared of Libertarian ideas. It’s people like Dick Cheney who scare me, people who think that once you’re elected to office, you’re allowed to loot the federal treasury for your own benefit and the benefit of your buddies at Halliburton. It’s people like Pat Robertson who scare me, people who think that laws should enforce their own religious doctrine.

Libertarians believe in the Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd amendment, like so many neo-cons do, and not everything except the 2nd amendment, like so many liberals do.

People like Tim McVeigh, ought to scare us, but there are loons of every political persuasion. We’re not going to see the Libertarian agenda passed in its entirety, because there are so many entrenched interests that will fight to prevent that – but it wouldn’t be a bad idea if people who fervently support the constitution were to wrest control of a major political party.

Since the GOP was the party of conservatism before the late 1960s, it seems like a better choice – to me. The neo-cons like Dubya, who talk about smaller government, but expand it like crazy when they get a chance, those are the ones who won’t be happy with the Ron Paul brigade.

jewish dominated media in this country

Perhaps it’s different for you, Up in Canada, but in the US, that’s not the case.

Ashkenazi jews are above-average in IQ tests, and they value education and literacy, so it is inevitable that they would be more common in publishing and communications than in, say, farming. However, they hardly “dominate” the media.

Ownership of the major media is mostly with public corporations, which are primarily owned by pension plans. Management includes both jewish and gentile leaders.

Steve Case, a gentile, put together the AOL/Time Warner merger and led the company.

Disney, which owns ABC and ESPN, was founded by Walt Disney, well-known for his anti-semitic views.

Rupert Murdoch, an Australian gentile, put together the News Corp group, which owns Fox.

Katharine Graham, who built the Washington Post group, was a Lutheran.

Thomas F. X. Beusse, head of Westwood One, is Roman Catholic.

The Hearst family is Roman Catholic.

Ann Cox Chambers is United Brethren in Christ.

Charlie Ergen is gentile.