A new Meetup group dedicated to carrying out Ron Paul’s principles apart from the presidential election (and there’s plenty do on other levels and branches of gov’t!) has organized a rally against the REAL ID Act in Pittsburgh:
Why is it that for many people, they think that certain political ideas should go together by default? If one is pro-life, they must be for the Iraq war. If one is against the death penalty, they must be for (so-called) homosexual marriage. If one is pro-environment, they must be pro-choice. If someone is conservative politically, they are grouped with the conservative platform, and vice-versa. Shouldn’t we all know that this is not true?
Along the same lines recently, as far as I have noticed, Republicans (at least) have been toting the “united we stand†position. In other words, a Republican must be pro Iraq war, against any spending on health insurance, pro death penalty, pro-life, against environmental initiatives, for big business (especially the pharmaceuticals, big media, and auto manufactures), and against (so-called) homosexual marriage.
This is what is wrong with the American political party situation: one has to concede his or her personal position in order to meld into their respective party. I am not a cafeteria Catholic, but politics is too complex to blindly be led by all the fallible parties.
Hello,
Please read the following from “Evangelium Vitae” in which Pope John Paul II made a few ex cathedra statements:
Generally, I try not to debate politics because there is no party that can be guaranteed my support. Libertarians want no government so they can have all they can get. Communists want government that is the will of themselves at the top. Republicans want limited government so that rich people, including themselves, can be unrestrained in filling other rich peoples’ pockets. Democrats want more government so that they’ll have a right to steal everyone’s capital for themselves (they would really like to be Republicans). For the most part, the other parties not mentioned don’t have enough members to hear or talk about. I know my cursory analysis of the political parties above is probably an oversimplification of their platforms, but I don’t think I’m off target that much.
I’m with Anthony Gregory on whether Ron Paul should shift into a third-party run.
LewRockwell.com Blog: Re: Mike Holmes on Ron Paul’s Political Future
“The LP might have lots of problems, but the GOP is a coalition of murder-happy, central bankmongering police statists and we probably have more hope turning the Democrats back to its Jeffersonian, Clevelandian heritage than we do in returning the other party to a set of principles that it has never upheld, except rhetorically so as to blindside naive voters, give libertarian cover to their fascism and dirty the good name of free markets and individual liberty.”