Re: The Possibility of a Ron Paul Third-Party Run for President

Ron Paul is not stupid enough to run as a third party candidate...
This is a Pelosi/Reid/Obama wet dream that the article is
espousing...

On Jun 1, 8:24 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "Unfortunately, those delusional anti-Obama conservatives -- the ones who keep saying how important it is that we oust Obama, and that we all must get behind Romney -- do not understand that they want to get behind a socialist, mealy-mouthed politician who is really no different from Obama, except for the rhetoric, which means nothing in the real world."The Possibility of a Ron Paul Third-Party Run for Presidentby Scott Lazarowitz
> We are certainly at a crossroads in America, with Election 2012. The political ruling class has usurped many of our rights away, and stolen much of the private wealth and capital that had provided jobs and opportunities and had raised the standard of living more than in any other society.
> But the farce that these elections continue to be merely reinforces my point that such elections are mererearranging of deck chairs.
> The Ron Paul people have been following the rules at the state conventions and winning delegates to go to the national convention, while, apparently, the Romney people have been allegedly engaging incheatinganddirty tricks, the latest of which has been in my dreaded state, the People's Republic ofMassachusetts.
> But why Ron Paul is trying to get the nomination of a party that has been a socialist-neocon-central planning party for 150 years, I'll never know.
> The convention will be a Romney-coronationpolice state nightmare, especially for those who are there on behalf of Paul.
> As Lew Rockwelladvised, it may even be a good idea that the Ron Paul delegates not even attend the convention, for their own safety.
> My prediction is that Ron Paul's delegates will not be treated well there, and there will most certainly beagents provocateurstrying to provoke some kind of disruption that would then be blamed on Ron Paul.
> And if the nominating process actually does go to a second ballot in which Ron Paul delegates then give Romney a real challenge, theRon Paul peoplewill be accused of cheating, as though they didn't legitimately win their delegate status.
> But is all this worth it, especially given how within the national Republican Party many people are still hostile to Ron Paul's message of freedom, personal responsibility, and peace?
> That is why I still believe that Ron Paul should run as a third party candidate.
> Unfortunately, those delusional anti-Obama conservatives -- the ones who keep saying how important it is that we oust Obama, and that we all must get behind Romney -- do not understand that they want to get behind a socialist, mealy-mouthed politician who is really no different from Obama, except for the rhetoric, which means nothing in the real world.
> And then there are those people who think that a Ron Paul third-party run would harmRandPaul's chances in 2016, if he were to run for President at that time. "Yech," is what I have to say to that. And the reason for that is that electing any one of the current statists who support the status quonowwill just be a further kicking the can down the road which will definitely lead to the economic collapse, civil unrest, martial law and chaos that trend forecasters such asGerald Celentehave been predicting for a while.
> What really got me wasthis interviewthat was going viral, in which Rand Paul defended Romney's record at Bain Capital, but was erroneously being labeled as an "endorsement" of Romney. Most of the comments on that post show that many people in the liberty movement are still supportive of Ron Paul, would never vote for Willard Romney under any circumstances, and believe that a Rand Paul endorsement of Willard (or worse, a Rand PaulVP nominationwith Willard) would be a total sell-out.
> The truth is, therealRomney is not a "capitalist." He is a socialist. And it is that Romney-Obama socialism and central planning that have been destroying America for a century.
> But in their irrational cognitive dissonance and fear and panic of an Obama reelection, the "conservatives" say we must in solidarity all get behind the socialist Romney in November. But who is it exactly that the hysterical ones are supporting?
> Delusional Republicans and conservatives nationwide who are all getting behind Romney in November means this: They would be getting behinda"global warming" true believerwhowill consider carbon taxesand whoseenergy and environmental advisors are also true believers and energy-corporatists,someone who supported thesocialist Wall Street bailoutand is in factbought and paid for by Wall Street banksters,a governor whoraised taxeson businesses,someone whosupports the Federal Reserveand whowould reappoint clueless Ben Bernankeas Chairman,someone who believes that governmentshould mandatehealth insurance,a nanny-statedrug warrior, including thewar on medical marijuana,someone who said hewould have signedtheNDAAbill that Obama signed just months ago that should makeTea Partiersevenmorefearful of the tyrannical central planners in D.C.,and someone who supportsstrong governmental controlsoncivilian gun ownership(Given Romney's support of NDAA and his being a strong chickenhawk militarist, I'm sure that aPresidentRomney would make good use of the450 million rounds of ammunitionthatDHS has ordered.)
> Now, is Rand Paulreally surethat he wants to get behind that kind of candidate in the 2012 presidential election?
> Ron Paul is none of those things.
> But, most of all -- and this is where Rand Paul is wrong in that aforementioned interview -- Willard Romney is no "capitalist." Norealcapitalist would impose insurance mandates on people by the force of law.
> Norealcapitalist would implement a health insurance bureaucracy called the "Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority." Or evenconsider"carbon taxes," and so on and so on.
> Dr. Paul is the true capitalist in his support of truly free markets, private property, and the sanctity of voluntary contracts under the rule of law.
> Remember now, the zombie Republican Convention Romney fanatics -- part of thereal "Tinfoil Hat" crowd-- the ones who will be attempting to shut out the Ron Paul delegates, will be supporting one of the mostsocialistRepublican candidates in a long time.
> One big difference between Obama-Romney and Ron Paul: When the economy does collapse and there is civil unrest, both Obama and Romney will impose atreasonous, civil liberties-crushing, due process-free federalmartial law, but Ron Paul willnotdo that.
> Instead of the Obama-Romney unconstitutional, un-American martial law,Ron Paulwould (at least I think he would) restore to the people their God-given right to protect themselves form aggressors, from burglars, looters, rioters, muggers, thieves, rapists and other violent criminals.
> Imposing martial law against the American people would pose even more of a threat against our security than rioters and thieves themselves, by unleashing an already out-of-control government-security complexand militaryonto innocent civilians.
> The military has long been thePresidents' personal army, just as the American Founders feared.
> In a society of true common sense and the preservation of freedom, thecivilianswould be armed, and the employees of government would not. Threats from foreigners would be met with immediate resistance from an armed, vigilant public.
> Statist Presidents such as the two Bushes, Clinton and Obama and their minions have been making that go the other way to the point of the currenttyrannywe have today, with their disarming of the American people, and their starting of wars of aggression and provoking of foreigners to make us less safe, their spreading the military across the globe and weakening our actual security.
> Romney wouldcontinue that pathtoward greater weakness by way of theneocons' delusional hegemonic fantasies.
> Now, if Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination for President at the convention, then, as Justin Raimondo hassuggested, Paul really ought to run as a third party candidate, either as an Independent, or perhapsGary Johnsoncould step aside and let Dr. Paul run as the Libertarian Party candidate.
> However, as prominent voluntaryist Carl Watner hasstated, attempting to restore freedom via the political electoral process is futile, as the use of the State's own apparatus of institutionalized aggression ends up serving the State's own ends. You cannot force people to be free.
> Which is not to say that we can't elect Ron Paul who would at leastdismantle immediatelysome of the federal government's most egregious grasps on our persons and property.
> You see, unlike the current and past socialists and statists who have ruined America, and who promise further ruination,Ron Pauldoesn't want to use the political system to implement some political agenda or program. Unlike those other politicians who want these political offices because they crave power and control over others,Ron Pauljust wants us to have ourfreedom.
> No, Dr. Paul wants to be elected to the presidency todismantlethe unconstitutional extensions of the President's executive power that Obama and previous Presidents have given themselves without the approval of the people's representatives in Congress, Paul would fire all the czars, and repeal many of the federal government's intrusions and encroachments into our lives and liberty.
> Now, some people are worried that a Ron Paul third-party run would harmRandPaul's political future, Rand's potential for a 2016 presidential run. First, America can't wait that long for a restoration of our freedom. And also, honest people ought not be concerned withpoliticalcareer-planning.
> Ultimately, what Americans need to do is engage in mass non-violent resistance. They need to withdraw their consent of all the economy-destroying, liberty-crushing socialist policies that these bureaucrat imbeciles have imposed on us.
> As Carl Watnerpointed out,The goal of voluntaryist resistance is to abolish the political power structure and its success or failure in obtaining that objective rests squarely on the degree to which its strategy succeeds in delegitimizing the State and in inducing people to withdraw their support from the government. Its major strategies rest on education (which heightens public awareness of the evils of the State) and in persuading large numbers of persons to refuse to cooperate with the government … Voluntaryists must structure the conflict situation with the government in such a manner that the government becomes responsible for the resulting actions. Mass non-cooperation and widespread civil disobedience present a "resist or abdicate" dilemma to the government. In resisting voluntaryist demands, the government becomes responsible for its own repressive acts. In abdicating, the government not only loses face but political power.http://reasonandjest.com/blog/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.