I know a lot of us are fed up with WND, but I liked this interview Vox Day, a Christian Libertarian, conducted with Ron Paul. If you like it, feel free to give it a "Digg".
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56216
Interview with Ron Paul
Posted: June 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Vox Day
© 2007
What's your response to those who say you're not electable?
The idea of who is not electable is subjective. It's early. No one knows, and only one candidate will win, so everyone else will turn out to be not electable.
The nomination is completely open now because the party is in disarray, the base is unhappy and I offer them an alternative and a return to their tradition of true conservativism. I think I'm quite electable. I'm not placing any bets, but to argue that I'm not electable is just trying to dismiss someone they don't want to hear from. It's more rhetoric than anything else.
Do you believe in open borders? That's the libertarian position, after all.
Some libertarians believe in totally open borders. I don't. Remember, I was the Libertarian Party's candidate for president in 1988, and I ran as a right-to-life Libertarian. I don't support totally open borders because, although I think the federal government should be small, protecting borders and providing for national defense – which excludes occupying other countries – are two of its legitimate functions. I would beef up the borders and not worry about the borders in Korea and Iraq. It's ironic that we're taking border guards off our borders and paying them to go and train border guards over there. I do understand the libertarian argument. The more we deal with our neighbors, the better off we are. I like the idea of trade. I like the idea of free travel and friendship. When that happens, you're less likely to fight. But that doesn't mean anyone can come in and get easy citizenship.
My biggest argument is different than those who want to shoot anyone crossing the border. When you subsizide things, you get more of it, and we subsidize immigration. We need to stop that. I want to deny the benefits that draw people here.
Do you find the dichotomy between the excitement about your campaign on the Internet and the silence about it in the mainstream media to be a little strange?
I don't see it completely. I think that might be true of the three or four major networks, but on the national talk shows, the Bill Maher and John Stewart-type shows, we're getting a lot of invitations. I don't think we'd have that if we didn't have the Internet excitement. If we continue to do well, they'll be forced to follow and give us more attention. This is true of a lot of things; a lot of stories break on the Internet. The networks are usually pretty slow on picking up what's happening.
Do you think the endorsement of Rush Limbaugh would win you the nomination?
Oh, I don't think so.
Some Republicans criticize you for opposing the ongoing military occupations, since that's supposed to be a Democratic position.
There are some Democrats who oppose the war, although I oppose it in a different manner. They argue about tactics. My objections are strategic, philosophical and constitutional. The big debate recently was about whether you have a surge or not. I want to change the whole debate and not get involved in these insane alliances in the first place. There are a lot of arguments that support my position on non-intervention.
As a member of Congress, have you seen any evidence of attempts to merge the USA with Mexico and Canada?
I think they're working diligently for it, and that's why this administration is weak. They don't even believe in national sovereignty. It started with NAFTA, then SPP, and now they're moving to take the next step with this immigration bill. They're going to advance that effort to put the three countries together and have a single currency. Now that's something a president could do, is to let people know what plans have been made and express objection to them. I would work strongly against the North American Union.
Do you think being the only non-interventionist Republican helps your campaign?
I would think so. Of course, I see the philosophy as being very popular and commonsensical, and people respond to it. People like the message of the free enterprise system and letting people run their own lives with privacy. They are responding very favorably to minding our own business, and besides, we can't afford it.
For the complete text of Vox Day's interview with Ron Paul, visit Vox Popoli.
Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist church, and has been down with Madden since 1992. Visit his Web log, Vox Popoli, for daily commentary and responses to reader e-mail.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56216
Interview with Ron Paul
Posted: June 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Vox Day
© 2007
What's your response to those who say you're not electable?
The idea of who is not electable is subjective. It's early. No one knows, and only one candidate will win, so everyone else will turn out to be not electable.
The nomination is completely open now because the party is in disarray, the base is unhappy and I offer them an alternative and a return to their tradition of true conservativism. I think I'm quite electable. I'm not placing any bets, but to argue that I'm not electable is just trying to dismiss someone they don't want to hear from. It's more rhetoric than anything else.
Do you believe in open borders? That's the libertarian position, after all.
Some libertarians believe in totally open borders. I don't. Remember, I was the Libertarian Party's candidate for president in 1988, and I ran as a right-to-life Libertarian. I don't support totally open borders because, although I think the federal government should be small, protecting borders and providing for national defense – which excludes occupying other countries – are two of its legitimate functions. I would beef up the borders and not worry about the borders in Korea and Iraq. It's ironic that we're taking border guards off our borders and paying them to go and train border guards over there. I do understand the libertarian argument. The more we deal with our neighbors, the better off we are. I like the idea of trade. I like the idea of free travel and friendship. When that happens, you're less likely to fight. But that doesn't mean anyone can come in and get easy citizenship.
My biggest argument is different than those who want to shoot anyone crossing the border. When you subsizide things, you get more of it, and we subsidize immigration. We need to stop that. I want to deny the benefits that draw people here.
Do you find the dichotomy between the excitement about your campaign on the Internet and the silence about it in the mainstream media to be a little strange?
I don't see it completely. I think that might be true of the three or four major networks, but on the national talk shows, the Bill Maher and John Stewart-type shows, we're getting a lot of invitations. I don't think we'd have that if we didn't have the Internet excitement. If we continue to do well, they'll be forced to follow and give us more attention. This is true of a lot of things; a lot of stories break on the Internet. The networks are usually pretty slow on picking up what's happening.
Do you think the endorsement of Rush Limbaugh would win you the nomination?
Oh, I don't think so.
Some Republicans criticize you for opposing the ongoing military occupations, since that's supposed to be a Democratic position.
There are some Democrats who oppose the war, although I oppose it in a different manner. They argue about tactics. My objections are strategic, philosophical and constitutional. The big debate recently was about whether you have a surge or not. I want to change the whole debate and not get involved in these insane alliances in the first place. There are a lot of arguments that support my position on non-intervention.
As a member of Congress, have you seen any evidence of attempts to merge the USA with Mexico and Canada?
I think they're working diligently for it, and that's why this administration is weak. They don't even believe in national sovereignty. It started with NAFTA, then SPP, and now they're moving to take the next step with this immigration bill. They're going to advance that effort to put the three countries together and have a single currency. Now that's something a president could do, is to let people know what plans have been made and express objection to them. I would work strongly against the North American Union.
Do you think being the only non-interventionist Republican helps your campaign?
I would think so. Of course, I see the philosophy as being very popular and commonsensical, and people respond to it. People like the message of the free enterprise system and letting people run their own lives with privacy. They are responding very favorably to minding our own business, and besides, we can't afford it.
For the complete text of Vox Day's interview with Ron Paul, visit Vox Popoli.
Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist church, and has been down with Madden since 1992. Visit his Web log, Vox Popoli, for daily commentary and responses to reader e-mail.
