Republicans, Please!
Do everybody a favor and nominate Ron Paul for President. I may not subscribe to the same level of economic libertarianism as Mr. Paul, but I have to admire a man with such a fervor for freedom.
Do I think he has a chance? No. The religious right of the Republican party exerts an amazing amount of influence. Mr. Paul is also a civil libertarian. Oops. Somebody forgot to tell him that's not allowed. Apart from gun rights and the right to indoctrinate (implied), modern "conservatives" have no place for such a thing as civil liberty.
If the Democrats were to nominate a Clinton or Obama, Republicans could offer a Ron Paul to America as a welcome alternative. I would vote for him.
Just do it, don't make me beg.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
there is much debate about whether the North American Union (NAU) exists or not. Robert Pastor, the “father” of the NAU, is a real man. You can even read one of his articles in Newsweek -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11904430/site/newsweek/ -- if that’s comforting in any way.
This is the hard evidence that exists, regarding the plan for a NAU. Many links are included that lead to detailed documents --
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=VIV20061220&articleId=4216
and also
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16189
Author Jerome Corsi writes:
“Critics who argue that the NAU is a “conspiracy theory” are well advised to take a hard look at Robert Pastor. With U.S. policy toward Latin America, Dr. Pastor first approached the issue in writing (for the radical IPS, as we have noted), next as a university professor, and finally as a government official. Had John Kerry won the 2004 presidential election, Robert Pastor most likely would have emerged with a government position from which he could have pursued his NAU agenda. Given the re-election of George Bush, Dr. Pastor has surfaced within the CFR, an influential “think-tank” NGO whose history of impacting U.S. policy would suggest the CFR impact on SPP.gov could easily be more than academic.”
Testimony of Robert Pastor, to a Canadian government agency for foreign affairs (see http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/pdfs/PastorTestimonyCanada.pdf ) --
The tragedy of September 11th reminded us of our shared vulnerability. It also provided us with three distinct sets of choices on how we might respond. Each of the three countries of North America could choose to defend itself by retreating behind a fortress of tighter security and more barriers at the borders. This path would offer only a false sense of security, and it would reverse the remarkable progress made in the last decade in expanding trade and investment. More importantly, it would diminish the standard of living of all three countries. A second option is to act as we always have - handle one problem, one country at a time. This is the most likely course, but it is flawed, for reasons I will describe below. The third path is to lift NAFTA to a new level of cooperation. That is the direction I hope this Committee will take us.
What does that have to do with the price of a bagel in Singapore?
Post a Comment