ACTION

Hmm. Ok, can have debate.

Dr Ron Paul (father of #SenRandPaul) is great in core principles of economics, but weak by supporting isolationist foreign policy, and failing to protect our interests and allies around the world, including Israel, which is as nervous of #RonPaul as they are with #BarackObama and #WhiteHouse Administration.

In fact, former House Speaker #Newt Gingrich has Israel's strongest unequivocable support. And, unlike Speaker Gingrich, Congressman Dr. Ron Paul has not balanced 4 budgets, has not reformed welfare, did not craft Reaganomics with Art Laffer, Congressman Jack Kemp, President Ronald Reagan and Congressman and Speaker Newt Gingrich, did not lead the House of Representatives as Newt Gingrich did, nor work across the aisle with President Bill Clinton and convince President Bill Clinton to follow Reaganomics, which created another 16 million new jobs, on top of the 12 or so million gained under Reagan, thus presiding over the longest growth period in history.

Dr Ron Paul, where were you? Hello??

In the Libertarian Party trying to oppose military (which thru Reagan brought down the Soviet Empire) and legalize marijuana !! 

Which is Ron's other weakness, his amoral position regarding the role of government in "social issues". He is for allowing every man to do whatever is right in his own eyes, and therefore would take no stance to protect the unborn, and would be in as much trouble as Obama is right now with the Religious Liberty issues. We have Liberty, but within the bounds of guiding moral principles which the government is ordained by God to uphold and protect, those principles embodied within our constitution , bill of rights, and declaration of independence, for which America stands.

I have been thinking about the recent infatuation and flirtation with Libertarianism which we have been watching infiltrate the Republican Party and conservative think tanks in recent years. It is ok that we have open arms and try to be inclusive within our tent, but I believe that fair and frank discussions need to made about some of the core positions on issues which libertarians traditionally take, as I do not think that we should be so quick to adopt and swallow all of their tenets hook, line and sinker. The founders of our Republic were not looking at Right and Left , Conservative or Liberal as we do today, but rather, they were concerned with a "balanced government" that did not go too far to the extreme of either Totalitarianism on one end, or Anarchy on the other. I believe that Libertarianism leans too far to the Anarchy end of the teeter totter, and we need to at minimum start having frank discussions about this, lest we in our party become nothing more than fiscally ultra conservative left wing Democrats.

I understand that we in this Tea Party are not supposed to be focused on social issues, but are to unite on sound fiscal economic policy discussions, but we cannot ignore the fact that all platforms, even economic ones, have social consequences, and we must be constitutionalists and strict constructionists if we are pass on this great REPUBLIC of sound laws to the generations to come, and combat the degradation of our society at every level.

Here are some key issue stands taken from About.com for your review. Some of these issues I think we traditional conservatives can accept, while several others are surely problematic: (loss of tax revenues needed to pay off national debt, no social safety net, eliminate anti-trust laws, eliminate US Postal Service and make all government services privately controlled, eliminate all anti drug laws, legalize prostitution, end random police roadblocks, abolition of Selective Service and amnesty for draft resistors, pro choice, eliminate all marriage benefits, etc.)

*Fiscal Policy: The Libertarian Party opposes taxation in pretty much all forms, and deals with the revenue loss by opposing entitlement programs in pretty much all forms. This means that people keep more of what they earn, but it also means that there is no social safety net. And ambitious new proposals--such as universal pre-kindergarten and universal health care--are obviously not compatible with this objective.

*Corporations: Eliminate all federal subsidies to private corporations, as well as all antitrust laws.

*Public Services: Eliminate the Postal Service. Transfer all government services, from public schools to landfills, to private ownership.

*Property Rights: Would restrict public domain to immediate public use, and sell or give away most public property to private owners.

*Criminal Justice: Would eliminate all antidrug laws and legalize prostitution. Would end random police roadblocks.

*Free Speech: Would abolish the FCC and allow private ownership of broadcast frequencies. Opposes all restriction of free speech, including free speech restricted in the name of national security.

*Church and State: Calls for reduced IRS regulation and monitoring of tax-exempt churches.

*Second Amendment: Strongly opposes all gun control, as well as regulation of alternative weapon technologies (mace, Tasers, and so forth).

*The Draft: Calls for the abolition of the Selective Service System and amnesty for any citizen who has ever resisted the draft.

*Reproductive Rights: Pro-choice, but opposes all federal funding of abortion and most federal entitlements for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, including the child tax credit. Opposes involuntary or fraudulent sterilization.

*LGBT Rights: Opposes "don't ask, don't tell." Believes that marriage is a private contract, and should yield no government benefits regardless of the gender of the partners.

*Immigrants' Rights: Argues that borders should be open but surveilled--everyone who does not pose a threat to public health or national security should be allowed to enter the country legally. Would eliminate all federal benefits to undocumented immigrants.

Source:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/libertarianpolitics/qt/libert_platform.htm