The Republican Liberty Caucus

I am praying and asking everyone on the Baptist Board to pray that you add me to your ignore list, Grubbs. Every profile of Ron Paul says that he favors states rights on the abortion issue and he himself said that the federal government has no authority on this issue, yet you are obsessed with your own wisdom on this point and insist that my disagreement with you is my personal sin. I pray that you put me on your ignore list in the name of Jesus.

 

Well, Ron Paul does not support the GOP platform of 1980 as inserted by Ronald Reagan. Nor does Ron Paul support the GOP platforms on abortion of 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004--all of which are the Reagan platform calling for a constitutional amendment, as everyone knows. Also, everyone knows that Ron Paul says that it is not a federal issue.

And that is all that I have ever said.

If you hate Rudy, that is fine with me, but he is good ole boy, and I have merely said that I am leaning towards him and nothing more except that he would have to agree to run on the Reagan platform.

As for the Republican Liberty Caucus, they are libertarians who operate inside the tent of the GOP but they have their own ideology and do not support everything that a Reagan Republican supports.

So I have never taken the position that you are praying about in the first place, Rufus, but I assume that it is your hostile way of saying that you agree that I have a personal sin for saying what you said that Paul promotes states rights on abortion.

If Ron Paul's supporters preach nothing but hatred for those who do not support libertarianism and call opposition to Ron Paul a sin, how do they think that Ron Paul can win a Republican nomination or carry the GOP?

Rudy has the support of the Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi and former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith so there are some big names in the Indiana Republican Party for Rudy but I have not heard of anyone in Indiana being for Ron Paul and Indiana has the number one Republican Party in the USA in that we have voted for the GOP presidential candidate in Indiana every year since 1964. So the GOP has carried Indiana for the White House for the last 40 years and we are Main Street Republicans here and in primary discussions we do not accuse people of sin over an intellectual disagreement, but then I am not a Fundamentalist either.

 

Clearly, Rudy would have to promise to run on and support the Reagan GOP platform in order to get the nomination.

By the way, leaning just means that if you had to make a choice you probably would choose that person. It is a technical term used in polling and it does not indicate approval or support but merely a probable (primary) vote and things stand today.

Rudy was in Indianapolis this week and had lunch at a Jewish deli just south of downtown and raised $250,000 at an evening dinner. He was a big hit here because as a New Yorker he knew how to act in a big city like Indy and how to address urban issues.

The Indianapolis newspaper said this about the Indiana GOP:

"McCain is backed by Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter and Gov. Mitch Daniels. Daniels has also, though, praised Giuliani. He said he was unable to meet with him Wednesday but did speak with him by phone.

"Romney is supported by Secretary of State Todd Rokita and Republican National Committee member Jim Bopp."

Rudy said in Indy according to the Indy newspaper, "I think this thing will go up and down, I don't know, four or five times before it's over, maybe a year from now," he said. "An early stage like this, nobody's a front runner, nobody's behind. Everybody has a chance."

A lot of conservatives here in Indiana seem to like Newt but I myself think that he is a dark horse but perhaps Paul is a stalking horse for Newt.

Newt would probably run on the Reagan abortion platform.

 

Yes, thank you, J Newman!

I agree with your post. I agree with your viewpoint on sodomite unions, and commend you on the choice of the word "union" as a good term with which to tackle that issue.

The only flaw in the foundation is that, as someone has said, the constitution is all sail and no anchor. This wiggle room has allowed the supreme court to do as they please and the problem was first noticed with the Dred Scot decision ruling that a human being was property.

So we seem safe for the time being on the issue of sodomite unions, as you brilliantly term them, because the wealth and political power of sodomites has not extended to the extent that it has in Canada, Belgium, Spain, and Holland. The federal government has told the Mormons that marriage was one man and one woman. It the long run a constitutional amendment would be a good idea to stop both a reprobate court and a more powerful sodomite community.

On the issue of abortion, I think that a constitutional amendment is necessary as soon as possible. Some states, and I give Vermont as an example, are so liberal that they would vote for abortion. In the war against abortion, only total victory will do. In a sense, the battle was begun on July 4, 1776, when this nation declared that our rights are God-given and our rights include the right to life.

I support the Reagan platform against abortion.

 

Sorry, Terry

Sorry, Terry, the problem was that my personal enemy accused me of personal sin for saying correctly it turns out that Paul does not support the Reagan platform because Paul is a libertarian in ill-fitting clothes.

Anyway, he is already history because Fred Thompson has entered the race, leaving Ron Paul to the Libertarians of the Republican Liberty Caucus and the Peroutka supporters in the Constitution Party.

I am leaning towards Thompson now so that should anger the right-wingers even more and I imagine that I will get another lecture about how sinful that I am. And I use to think no Fundamentalists were as bad as Catholics at intolerance but let's just say that 98 percent of Fundamentalists are nice. However, fewer and fewer liberals are nice nowadays as they see their obscene wealth declining.

 

You have to admit, Ken, that if Thompson did enter the race for President that it would deny your candidate any hope whatsoever. Not only does he support Bush on the war but he also supports the Reagan platform. That would leave the anti-war crowd with the opportunity to switch to the Democrat Party, the anti-war party since the 1960s.

Perhaps, on the issue of peace and war, the so-called Republican Liberty Caucus will swith to the Democrat Party and finally get some clothes that fit them properly.

 

Ron Paul is anti-war in Iraq and also anti-death penalty. That alone makes it curious as how the Fundamentalists could support someone who will not execute murderers. Ron Paul does not stand on the Republican Platform on abortion written by Ronald Reagan in 1980 and contained in the platforms of 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004. Although Ron Paul cannot win any primary, he does represent a total rejection of Reagan.

The ill-fitting clothes of Ron Paul betray him for what he is. Wasn't he the founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus?

 

Yes, thanks!

You know, Terry, I have had my fill of Libertarians here in Indianapolis and I am not the only Republican to say so. They have cost the GOP a couple of victories in this Congressional district in years past before white flight hit Indianapolis, which is now a Democrat city in a Democrat county. The Libertarians are unwilling to take a stand against the drugs, prostitution, and sodomite prostitution that is sweeping openly over Indianapolis right now--they want all those things legalized when the streets are no longer safe for a lady after dark with these things illegal.

I have never agreed with Libertarians that there should be no death penalty or that there should not be a federal constitutional amendment to end abortion. I think that the Republican Liberty Caucus is a lost cause. I don't think that Fred Thompson is very exciting but I do believe that he is a true-blue Reagan Republican.