Agreeing With Liberty vs. Supporting Ron Paul
Some Ron Paul Delegates to the RNC Convention are going to sue the RNC.
A slate of Ron Paul backers elected to the Republican National Convention that will be held later this summer in Tampa have sued the national party for the right to vote for their chosen candidate.
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in California, the 132 delegates — representing 18 states and accounting for more than 5 percent of the total number of delegates elected to vote in Tampa — allege that the RNC violates federal law by requiring them to sign pledges to back a certain candidate. The RNC’s “Unit Rule,” which restricts delegates’ voting options, illegally limits their vote, they say.
Its the Rule 38 thing.
Any resource wasted arguing with each other inside the tent, instead of defeating the socialist President and his lapdogs in the Senate like Amy Klobuchar is helping America commit suicide.
This is why people like me don’t trust “the liberty movement” as a whole. I’ve had a great discussion with someone via email about this and found a good way to explain it.
There are 2 sorts of Ron Paul folks. Category 1) the people who agree with some of what Ron Paul says. Category 2) The people that think Ron Paul will be President.
I myself fall into the first category. I don’t agree with everything, but with some and while I am not a Ron Paul person, I do think he reminds Republicans of some good habits we have forgotten. With some better tactics, by goodness, maybe people would listen rather than having spent 30 years in Congress or running for President have have no real progress to show……. I debate that only Ron Paul believes these things or that he invented them, but that’s not the point of this post.
The problem for Republicans (and Ron Paul people in the first category) are the people in the second category. The likes of Ron Paul people who are bringing this lawsuit against the RNC. And closer to home, people like the queen B of the Paul camp in MN Marrianne Stebbins or Kris Broberg & David Gerson for example.
Stebbins seems to be on a personal mission to use the Ron Paul movement to destroy the Republican Party. The hostile take over plan is putting incumbent Republicans at risk. Her goal is to install herself or a puppet for her as MNGOP Chair next Spring. Her operatives hold some senior positions in MNGOP leadership and they have ZERO intentions on assisting endorsed Republicans win this November. I’m sure Stebbins has no problem with the RNC wasting valuable resources defending itself from this Ron Paul lawsuit than having that money used for something like, oh say, exposing the sham that Amy Klobuchar is a centrist Democrat.
Gerson & Broberg are challenging Congressman John Kline. Mind you both live in CD5 and could take on a Progressive (read socialist) Democrat Congressman named Keith Ellison, but instead they aim to send the Republicans a message because they know they can’t win. Their goal is to tell Republicans in CD2 who they can and can’t support and have Represent them in Congress instead of taking on the national spokesman for what they say they oppose.
Now, while it is key for us to point out the differences between these two categories, I can’t quite overlook how Category 1 worked with or gave power and credibility to category 2. But for the purposes of not being forced to have Amy Klobuchar vote on my behalf in the United States Senate, its key not to hold every Ron Paul person responsible for the actions of a few.
Maybe if we set aside some of the bitter feelings and help people like Kurt Bills, maybe we can get back to the 2010 state of mind in the conservative wing of the grassroots and win this year and set the table for the next MNGOP leadership election cycle in the Spring.
We are giving the people of CD 2 an option other than John Kline. We are not and can not tell anyone what to do!
The people of CD 5 have a fine option to Keith Ellison in Chris Fields if they so choose. The people of CD 2 lacked a good option for John Kline.
If you live in CD 2 and are disappointed in John Kline’s support of TARP, Cash for Clunkers, restoring farm subsidies, casting the deciding vote on socialized prescription drugs for medicare, voting for limits on our free speech, indefinite detention of US citizens without trial, granting government more control of the internet and Real ID — now you have one; David Gerson, someone who will truly support the constitutional role of the federal government.
We may lose, we may win, but we are not forcing anyone to do anything we are offering a choice. Your view that we are forcing anything is ridiculous.
The only people that can use force legally is the government and no one can use it successfully in the long run.
Kris
Despite your misstatements and distortions of Mr. Kline’s voting record, he is and remains the best hope of having a conservative Republican represent us in Congress. Over 6 years, a handful of votes among thousands? And saying “we may lose, we may win” isn’t nearly good enough. If you can’t guarantee me a win with your candidate, forget it! You are right, you can’t tell anybody what to do, and that means the voters will make up their own mind. You can’t win under those circumstances because you can’t even convince people who consider themselves constitutionalists already.
I am in no way mis-stating or distorting John Kline’s voting record.
How would you know? Since you don’t believe you are lying, you must believe what you are saying is the truth. But the fact that you characterize those votes as you do, without the full context being known and, in at least one case, saying something that is clearly not true if you actually read the legislation, I consider misleading.
And again, just because your guy disagrees with those votes and intends to be a Constitutional purist doesn’t make him electable. Simply put, John Kline is a better representative, compared to the voting population of his district, than your guy.
I know you want to believe that the NDAA vote did not really allow for military arrest and indefinite detention of US citizens without a vote but many serious people and organizations do think so. I have read it and it says what it says.
The ACLU agrees.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA
This federal judge ruled the provision 1021 unconstitutional. Pretty hard to say it doesn’t mean what it says when a federal judge agrees.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/18/local/la-me-gs-national-defense-authorization-ruling-20120518
Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Lindsey Graham.
Lindsey Graham, “When they say ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/ron-paul-lindsey-graham-ndaa-detention-american-citizens_n_1213339.html
I don’t want to believe it either, but we best not give government the benefit of the doubt or it will be too late when we find out we were wrong.
That should read: I put vote, not sure why.
I know you want to believe that the NDAA vote did not really allow for military arrest and indefinite detention of US citizens on US soil without a trial but many serious people and organizations do think so. I have read it and it says what it says.
The ACLU agrees.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA
This federal judge ruled the provision 1021 unconstitutional. Pretty hard to say it doesn’t mean what it says when a federal judge agrees.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/18/local/la-me-gs-national-defense-authorization-ruling-20120518
Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Lindsey Graham.
Lindsey Graham, “When they say ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/ron-paul-lindsey-graham-ndaa-detention-american-citizens_n_1213339.html
I don’t want to believe it either, but we best not give government the benefit of the doubt or it will be too late when we find out we were wrong.
“I have read it and it says what it says. ”
And it says right there in black and white “does not apply to US citizens” I don’t know how a judge or anybody else can say that it says something exactly opposite. More to the point, I can’t imagine our conservative Congressman Kline voting for such a thing and, if he did so without knowing about it, not admitting to the mistake. Since he has defended his vote by referring to the clear and unambiguous language of the bill, it hardly seems grounds for a challenge to his candidacy.
Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here’s the text that says so
http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html
This article breaks down the meaning of that section. I am truly sorry to tell you it really does say it. Mitt Romney even acknowledged in a Republican debate that it in fact says that in the NDAA and said he would sign the bill but not use this power against US citizens. In fact all the candidates acknowledged this meaning in that debate.
Michelle Bachmann denounced this section of the bill and voted against its final form.
John Kline voted for it, knowing what it said, but even if he didn’t know what it said his continued denial is an offense that along with his other poor votes on big issues is disturbing enough to me to warrant his defeat.
Kris
So, when it says that “nothing in the law is affected” by a bill, it gives vast and sweeping unconstitutional powers to the government? Who is it having trouble with English? Even if what your article says is true regarding the interpretation of the forgoing clauses, it clearly does not change existing law on the subject, so your problem is NOT and cannot be the NDAA, but the existing law (perhaps the Patriot Act, but more likely the unlawful and unconstitutional depredations of the Obama administration. Get rid of that lawless lot and we’ll be just fine, but you won’t do it by getting rid of outstanding patriots like Congressman Kline. I wish we had more like him.
Thank you, Residual Forces, for another excellent analysis of politics in MN. You are right-on! These are the 2 categories of Ron Paul supporters in MN. Category 1 are freedom loving Americans. Category 2 may very well be non-Republicans who are Libertarians in favor of everything being legal, e.g. prostitution, abortion, currently illegal street drugs, removal of safety features, etc. They likely will not vote for most Republican candidates on the ballots this Fall. Many are merely anarchists who have found a “savior” in Ron Paul much like the Germans found solice in the message of Hitler. I’m not saying Ron Paul is like Hitler. And I am not saying the Ron Paul supporters are Nazis. I’m saying they are blinding following his messages, because they like what they hear. It isn’t all common sense, but they don’t care.
An excellent summation, GOPNeighbor!
Most Paultards don’t give a rats ass about the Minnesota GOP. To them, the GOP is means of advancing their weirdness.