Discussion of Working inside the GOP

RON is the only one with the record to show what he says is what he will do, and isn't just pandering. That, and the fact that he is the only one who never panders.
Perhaps but the good is not the enemy of the perfect. Just because Rand won't campaign on explicit non-interventionism doesn't mean deep down he doesn't support it. I agree with others that things are rather imminent and we don't have another generation available to not regain control of our govt but no matter how right Ron is about foreign affairs, the media is always there to trash him and make the outside observer run from the non-intervention standpoint. There isn't even a fair debate that's allowed to be played about it in the media or elsewhere. So, I can't blame Rand or someone similar to walk the line on that issue or maybe even offer lukewarm support. I doubt Rand would've been elected Senator if he quoted his dad ad infinitum on foreign policy. I wish things were different but they aren't.
 
I think Rand is the best Senator in the Senate. I really think he made a wrong move at minimum on the timing of the endorsement while his Dad's base, which funded his primary win, is still fighting for his Dad against Romney. I am not trying to open that up again. But I will let 2016 take care of itself when it comes.
 
Last edited:
The GOP is the path of least resistance. Ron Paul has stated that he would like to see his supporters continue with an active role of involvement in the GOP. I have not heard anyone from C4L, the Paul campaign, or any other connected organization suggest the idea of working in the Democratic party. If that is your desire to do so, you are free to choose whichever path you wish. However, the plan as it has been communicated is to work locally within the GOP.

Look I get that you disagree with the strategy, but this is the plan as most of us here understand is being communicated to us from Paul, Hunter, etc. If you choose to be an "independent activist" you are free to do so.

There are a lot of "Blue Republicans"...Dems who switched over to vote for Ron Paul because of his anti-interventionist stance. Do they just get tossed under the bus now or do you really expect them to want to become part of the GOP? And since when does Jack Hunter give us marching orders? I will take the independent activist stance myself.
 
There are a lot of "Blue Republicans"...Dems who switched over to vote for Ron Paul because of his anti-interventionist stance. Do they just get tossed under the bus now or do you really expect them to want to become part of the GOP? And since when does Jack Hunter give us marching orders? I will take the independent activist stance myself.

Blue Republicans can make their choice whether they want to continue to work for liberty candidates or not, and whether they want to be involved in the local GOP or not. Paul rec'd about 2 million votes in the primaries. Do you know how many of those people were "Blue Republicans"? Were there solely supportive of RP because of his FP stance, or did they embrace other small government issues?

Jack Hunter is employed by the campaign. If you watched his recent video he expressed how far we have come in the last 4 years, and mentioned a bunch of candidates that are worthy of support. As far as the "marching orders" Paul has expressed a desire for activists to work in the GOP to reform it. That is the next step as far as we understand it. No one is holding a gun to your head, so you can choose your own path.

Many have agreed with Paul's desire to see the GOP reformed. Someone referenced a poll that it had 66% support here. It would be nice if those of us who are on board with Paul's plan can discuss it without constantly having to defend it. Wouldn't it be far more profitable for those like yourself who don't want to follow the strategy to go off on your own and figure out what you all can do? Or are you intentionally trying to sabotage the efforts of those who are on board with Paul's vision?
 
Blue Republicans can make their choice whether they want to continue to work for liberty candidates or not, and whether they want to be involved in the local GOP or not. Paul rec'd about 2 million votes in the primaries. Do you know how many of those people were "Blue Republicans"? Were there solely supportive of RP because of his FP stance, or did they embrace other small government issues?

Jack Hunter is employed by the campaign. If you watched his recent video he expressed how far we have come in the last 4 years, and mentioned a bunch of candidates that are worthy of support. As far as the "marching orders" Paul has expressed a desire for activists to work in the GOP to reform it. That is the next step as far as we understand it. No one is holding a gun to your head, so you can choose your own path.

Many have agreed with Paul's desire to see the GOP reformed. Someone referenced a poll that it had 66% support here. It would be nice if those of us who are on board with Paul's plan can discuss it without constantly having to defend it. Wouldn't it be far more profitable for those like yourself who don't want to follow the strategy to go off on your own and figure out what you all can do? Or are you intentionally trying to sabotage the efforts of those who are on board with Paul's vision?
I'm certainly not intentionally trying to "sabotage" anything...just the opposite, in fact. I'm trying to KEEP our efforts from being sabotaged as they surely will by the GOP if we continue down this road!

Someone once mentioned that a majority of Ron Paul supporters are not active on this board, so that whole "66% support here" thing is not really relevant. Many Ron Paul supporters I know are fed up with the false two party paradigm. I have no idea what issues are important to that Blue Republican group, but once they saw their way out of the Democratic Party, I'm pretty sure they're not interested in joining up with a bunch of neocons on the hope that we can magically transform them into something more palatable.

Here's the link to their Facebook page, if you're interested in asking them how they feel about it: http://www.facebook.com/bluerepublican
 
The Party of Great Moral Frauds

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

For the past century and a half the Republican Party has gratuitously labeled itself as "The Party of Great Moral Ideas." The Party of Great Moral Frauds is more like it. The party began as the party of mercantilism, corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, constitutional subterfuge, central banking, and imperialism. Its 1860 presidential platform promised not to disturb Southern slavery; its first president supported the Fugitive Slave Act and the proposed "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery; the party committed treason by "levying war upon the states" (the precise definition of treason in the Constitution) and murdering hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens in order to destroy the voluntary union of the states that was established by the founding fathers. It refused to do what Britain, Spain, France, the Dutch, Denmark, Sweden, and the Northern states in the U.S. had done about slavery and end it peacefully. Instead, it used the slaves as pawns in a war that was about consolidating all political power in Washington, D.C. in general, and in the hands of the Republican Party in particular.

Three months after the War to Prevent Southern Independence ended the Republican Party commenced a twenty-five year war of genocide against the Plains Indians, killing as many as 60,000 of them, including thousands of women and children, and putting the rest in concentration camps. It did this, according to General Sherman who orchestrated this horribly immoral crusade, to "make way for the railroads" that were being heavily subsidized by the Republican Party. It also plundered the conquered South with exorbitant taxes and the legalized theft of vast tracts of property by party hacks for a decade after the war (so-called "reconstruction"), while doing virtually nothing for the freed slaves. It did nothing while as many as 1 million former slaves died of disease shortly after the war in the worst public health disaster in American history.

The Grant administrations were most known for the colossal corruption associated with the building of the government-subsidized transcontinental railroads that was finally made public during the Credit Mobilier scandal.

The Republican Party has always been about disguising a lust for economic plunder with phony ideas about "freedom," "Christianity," "equality," "civilization,"and other nice-sounding words. The War to Prevent Southern Independence allowed it to finally usher in the Hamiltonian "American System" of high protectionist tariffs for the benefit of Northern manufacturers at the expense of everyone else; a nationalized money supply with its Legal Tender and National Currency Acts; and vast amounts of corporate welfare, starting with the government-subsidized railroad corporations. It created the internal revenue system, invented dozens of new taxes, created the military/industrial complex, ran up historically high levels of debt, and destroyed the founders’ system of federalism or states’ rights as a check on centralized governmental power.

The war of genocide against the Plains Indians was a way of socializing the cost of building the government-subsidized railroads. Having succeeded in eradicating the Indians, the Republican Party next turned to tiny little countries like Cuba and the Philippines to plunder under the usual phony excuse of spreading "freedom" and "the American way" around the globe. The Republican Party claimed to embrace the message of Reverend Josiah Strong’s 1885 book, Our Country, which proclaimed a supposedly sacred American duty to "civilize and Christianize inferior peoples." They portrayed themselves as one big gang of Mother Theresas, selflessly sacrificing endlessly for the benefit of strangers in foreign lands.

A particularly galling example of this spectacular hypocrisy and dishonesty is the conquest of the Kingdom of Hawaii. By the early 1890s American businessmen had been in Hawaii for many years as corporate sugar and pineapple growers. Encouraged by the Republican Party’s aggressive and imperialistic foreign policy, they sought to get the Party to overthrow the government of Hawaii and make it an American province under their political control. They wanted to turn it into the perfect Hamiltonian corporate welfare state, in other words. As described by Gregg Jones in Honor in the Dust: Theodore Roosevelt, War in the Philippines, and the Rise and Fall of America’s Imperial Dream (p. 23):


On January 14, [1893] Hawaii’s Queen Liliuokalani attempted to curb the power of U.S. commercial interests in the kingdom’s legislature by promulgating a new constitution. A thirteen-member coalition of Americans called the Committee of Safety angrily resisted. Two members, Judge Sanford Dole and businessman Lorrin Thurston, met secretly with U.S. envoy John Stevens and plotted to overthrow the monarchy. The committee’s armed militia promptly seized key buildings, triggering the landing of American troops. The group set up an ad hoc government headed by Dole . . .


The "Committee of Safety" employed a paramilitary organization called the "Honolulu Rifles" who were allied with its puppet political party in Hawaii known as the "Missionary Party." (Sanford Dole was the son of New England Yankee missionaries who migrated to Hawaii from Maine). The Honolulu Rifles forced the king of Hawaii to sign a new constitution that was known as the "bayonet constitution" because the King was literally threatened with being gutted by bayonets unless he signed the document, "Godfather" style. The new constitution disenfranchised all Asians (considered part of an "inferior race" by the Republican business elite) and most everyone else except for affluent landowners, most of whom were Americans and their business associates. It imposed Sanford Dole as puppet president. His cousin James Dole shortly thereafter founded the Dole Fruit Company which prospers to this day.

But before the Republican Party could get the U.S. Congress and the president to formally annex Hawaii, Democrat Grover Cleveland took office (in March of 1893) and killed their proposal, condemning "the lawless landing of the United States force at Honolulu." Grover Cleveland was the last Jeffersonian president of the United States and the last good Democrat. This, however, led to the political rise of the bloviating idiot and Master Race theorist Theodore Roosevelt (TR), the favorite president of today’s neo-conservatives. "It’s difficult to write a bad book about Theodore Roosevelt," neocon Charles Kessler of the Claremont Institute wrote in that organization’s book review tabloid in 1998. To fellow neocons William Kristol and David Brooks, Kessler wrote approvingly, TR "figures as a patron saint of American nationalism and energetic government."

In October of 1895 TR proclaimed to the Republican Club of Massachusetts that "I feel that it was a crime not only against the United States, but against the white race, that we did not annex Hawaii three years ago" (Jones, p. 24). He said this in response to the complaints made by his close friend and fellow Republican, Henry Cabot Lodge, that the Spanish and British empires had been conquering "all the waste places of the earth" and Americans were missing out on the fun since they were not yet sufficiently imperialistic.

As president, TR perfected the Republican Party’s policy of economic plunder through imperialism disguised by humanitarian rhetoric. He denounced the Jeffersonian-minded advocates of peace as "senile," "idiots," and "unhung traitors" (Green, p. 162). As discussed in Jim Powell’s excellent book, Bully Boy: The Truth About Theodore Roosevelt’s Legacy, TR essentially declared the U.S. government to be the world’s policeman; warned against what he called "the menace of peace"; and targeted for war Cuba, Hawaii, Venezuela, China, the Philippines, Panama, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Canada. None of these military interventions or planned interventions had anything to do with national defense. "He asserted that the United States must intervene . . . when a nation failed to behave," wrote Powell. "All the great master races have been fighting races," Teddy Roosevelt the master race theorist proclaimed. It was in this way, writes Powell, that Teddy Roosevelt reinvigorated the "Party of Lincoln." I was Lincoln’s secretary of state William Seward, Powell reminds us, who wanted the U.S. to intervene if not conquer Canada,, Mexico, parts of Asia, the Caribbean, Cuba, Haiti, Culebra, French Guiana, Peurto Rico, and St. Batholomew.

U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler knew what he was talking about when he wrote in his famous monograph, War is a Racket, that "War is a racket. It always has been."
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo233.html
 
I'm certainly not intentionally trying to "sabotage" anything...just the opposite, in fact. I'm trying to KEEP our efforts from being sabotaged as they surely will by the GOP if we continue down this road!

Someone once mentioned that a majority of Ron Paul supporters are not active on this board, so that whole "66% support here" thing is not really relevant. Many Ron Paul supporters I know are fed up with the false two party paradigm. I have no idea what issues are important to that Blue Republican group, but once they saw their way out of the Democratic Party, I'm pretty sure they're not interested in joining up with a bunch of neocons on the hope that we can magically transform them into something more palatable.

Here's the link to their Facebook page, if you're interested in asking them how they feel about it: http://www.facebook.com/bluerepublican

I'll say it again one last time, because honestly this is getting boring.

Paul and others closely associated with him have talked about many times working within the GOP. If you folks don't want to do it, that is fine. Frankly, I have been at this long before most of you even heard of Ron Paul, so I am just going to continue what I am doing.

If others want to go to the LP, CP, form another party, sit out, stay home, only be activists when they feel like it, or whatever it really doesn't matter to me at all.

For those that are interested in getting involved in their local GOP and need some tips, I will be more than happy to help you out. Feel free to PM me. I am sure there are others that are in this thread that can be equally willing to help you.
 
Blue Republicans can make their choice whether they want to continue to work for liberty candidates or not, and whether they want to be involved in the local GOP or not. Paul rec'd about 2 million votes in the primaries. Do you know how many of those people were "Blue Republicans"? Were there solely supportive of RP because of his FP stance, or did they embrace other small government issues?

Jack Hunter is employed by the campaign. If you watched his recent video he expressed how far we have come in the last 4 years, and mentioned a bunch of candidates that are worthy of support. As far as the "marching orders" Paul has expressed a desire for activists to work in the GOP to reform it. That is the next step as far as we understand it. No one is holding a gun to your head, so you can choose your own path.

Many have agreed with Paul's desire to see the GOP reformed. Someone referenced a poll that it had 66% support here. It would be nice if those of us who are on board with Paul's plan can discuss it without constantly having to defend it. Wouldn't it be far more profitable for those like yourself who don't want to follow the strategy to go off on your own and figure out what you all can do? Or are you intentionally trying to sabotage the efforts of those who are on board with Paul's vision?

Did someone die and make you Ron Paul's spokesman? I get the emails. I'm an individual with my own mind and I am hardly sabotaging anything. I assume people on here are not sheep and can decide for themselves how to proceed.
 
I'll say it again one last time, because honestly this is getting boring.

Paul and others closely associated with him have talked about many times working within the GOP. If you folks don't want to do it, that is fine. Frankly, I have been at this long before most of you even heard of Ron Paul, so I am just going to continue what I am doing.

If others want to go to the LP, CP, form another party, sit out, stay home, only be activists when they feel like it, or whatever it really doesn't matter to me at all.

For those that are interested in getting involved in their local GOP and need some tips, I will be more than happy to help you out. Feel free to PM me. I am sure there are others that are in this thread that can be equally willing to help you.

How old are you and how long have you been at it?
 
I'll say it again one last time, because honestly this is getting boring.

Paul and others closely associated with him have talked about many times working within the GOP. If you folks don't want to do it, that is fine. Frankly, I have been at this long before most of you even heard of Ron Paul, so I am just going to continue what I am doing.

If others want to go to the LP, CP, form another party, sit out, stay home, only be activists when they feel like it, or whatever it really doesn't matter to me at all.

For those that are interested in getting involved in their local GOP and need some tips, I will be more than happy to help you out. Feel free to PM me. I am sure there are others that are in this thread that can be equally willing to help you.
I hope you didn't break your arm patting yourself on the back like that. :rolleyes:
 
I hope you didn't break your arm patting yourself on the back like that. :rolleyes:

My point being that this notion of working in the GOP is nothing new to a lot of folks - which is the reason some of us were in here, i.e. to assist those that were new to this whole thing at becoming more effective. So, I am sorry if you are put off by age and experience, but there are some people in this world that consider those valuable.

Some folks here have never stepped foot inside a political meeting of any kind, so dialoging with people that have done is countless times is a good thing.
 
Well, aren't you the old-timer? I started working in the GOP in 1984. :rolleyes:

Great - so maybe instead of crapping all over Ron's plan you can lend your assistance to those that are interested. Or is it your mission to talk everyone out of it?
 
Great - so maybe instead of crapping all over Ron's plan you can lend your assistance to those that are interested. Or is it your mission to talk everyone out of it?
YES, it IS my mission to talk everyone out of it (glad you finally realized that!) I strongly feel the GOP is going to sabotage the progress we've made here. It may be true that we got where we are because Dr Paul was able to get his message across in the GOP debates (in the small amount of time they allowed him to speak), but I feel like we've ridden this GOP bus as far as we can. We should leave them, and they deserve it.

P.S. I didn't stay long in the GOP; I left in 1988...something always bothered me about the Bush family.
 
Last edited:
YES, it IS my mission to talk everyone out of it (glad you finally realized that!) I strongly feel the GOP is going to sabotage the progress we've made here. It may be true that we got where we are because Dr Paul was able to get his message across in the GOP debates (in the small amount of time they allowed him to speak), but I feel like we've ridden this GOP bus as far as we can. We should leave them, and they deserve it.

So really your issue is with the direction that Paul has laid out for us.

Honestly, I think it would be foolish, as there are tons of candidates and elected official within the GOP that need our support right now, and along with that there are plenty of folks waiting in the wings to run for offices next year and the following. The more that activists like us can be involved, and make the conditions favorable to their runs for office the better chance we have of packing the state legislatures and congress with libertarian-conservatives.

Leaving only puts activists on the sidelines, or worse yet chasing windmills with a 3rd party. Sure we can have folks that are at this part time, and work for candidates they like when the election cycle comes up, but improving the conditions for these candidates by having liberty-minded people serving at the local level as committeeman, etc is highly beneficial. I made mention many times of my own county, if my county was controlled by neo-cons or moderates, I highly doubt that the county GOP would be organizing a fund raiser for our State Senator. It is because there have been folks like you and me working here locally for many years that we have a strong enough presence within the GOP that we are able to influence the county committee as a whole, and hold an event like this.
 
come on tbone, you have specific people you want people working for, within the GOP, who aren't specific people Ron Paul has endorsed, you want your list adopted. THat is fine, you are hardly the only person here trying to 'direct' Ron Paul supporter energy and as long as you are not directing it AGAINST acting for Ron, I, for one, don't have a particular problem with you making your pitch. But listening to Ron's suggestions and following you are not one and the same thing. I see no reason why those who do want to work in the GOP shouldn't work with you as they will be working with others, but you are kinda pushing the idea that your idea is Ron's idea and they aren't exactly identical.
 
come on tbone, you have specific people you want people working for, within the GOP, who aren't specific people Ron Paul has endorsed, you want your list adopted. THat is fine, you are hardly the only person here trying to 'direct' Ron Paul supporter energy and as long as you are not directing it AGAINST acting for Ron, I don't mind. But listening to Ron's suggestions and following you are not one and the same thing. I see no reason why those who do want to work in the GOP shouldn't work with you as they will be working with others, but you are kinda pushing the idea that your idea is Ron's idea and they aren't exactly identical.

Actually most of the people on that list (at least the congressional candidates) were mentioned in the Hunter video. Oddly enough Hunter even makes mention of the fact that people that agree with us 9 times out of 10 are our allies and we should support them. He even made mention of the work Rand has done with Lee and Demint (two names which are vilified on this site more than Obama's name) Paul hasn't endorsed anyone at the state level, so state candidates are a moot issue in regards to Ron's endorsements.

If you look at the RLC list I posted, it is a fine group of folks that pledge to a set of principles that most people in here should agree with. It is a small government, non-interventionist, personal liberty platform. Is everyone of those candidates perfect? No. But if someone is looking for absolute perfection then they will never be satisfied. It does not appear that Ron Paul is looking for perfection, and the Hunter piece again states how people who agree with us on most issues are good folks to support.

And in reality, people can only do real work at their local level. Sure they can donate money to candidates outside their area, or they can click "like" buttons if that really does anything --- but the real work is done right in your own county. Whether it is knocking on doors, attending meetings, running for office, or other activities - the real work of talking face to face with voters is in large part done at home.
 
Last edited:
come on tbone, you have specific people you want people working for, within the GOP, who aren't specific people Ron Paul has endorsed, you want your list adopted. THat is fine, you are hardly the only person here trying to 'direct' Ron Paul supporter energy and as long as you are not directing it AGAINST acting for Ron, I, for one, don't have a particular problem with you making your pitch. But listening to Ron's suggestions and following you are not one and the same thing. I see no reason why those who do want to work in the GOP shouldn't work with you as they will be working with others, but you are kinda pushing the idea that your idea is Ron's idea and they aren't exactly identical.
This point you made about "directing Ron Paul supporter energy" is exactly what worries me about the GOP going forward. I'm not suggesting that tbone has anything but the best intentions, but we all know that there are others within the GOP who are wolves in sheep's clothing. Just as we've infiltrated them, they will infiltrate our liberty movement. It's probably already happened.
 
This point you made about "directing Ron Paul supporter energy" is exactly what worries me about the GOP going forward. I'm not suggesting that tbone has anything but the best intentions, but we all know that there are others within the GOP who are wolves in sheep's clothing. Just as we've infiltrated them, they will infiltrate our liberty movement. It's probably already happened.

If there is someone who does not live up to their promises, then we have the power to run against them and/or vote them out. There is a remedy for that.

Of course, the more people you have on your parish's GOP committee the better. You can have influence over the endorsements, talk directly with candidates so that you can get a feel for where they stand on important issues. If someone then does not pass the smell test, then the committee can place their time and money in other directions.
 
Back
Top