Why I can never support Ron or Rand Paul

Wouldn't you assume that politicians devoted to frequent use of the word Liberty would also keep a close eye on any expanding, pervasive political ideology that extinguishes liberty at its core?

http://ronpaul1.blogspot.com/?cx=partner-pub-7311859719012289%3Alxng7o-kagn&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Communitarian&sa=Search#204

Are we who live for our liberty to become completely communitarianized without ever having even a minor public voice in this most wrenching of political transformations? Why is it that almost every American group associated with the word Liberty is clueless about communitarianism? I might dare to suggest now that maybe their role ends when the ultimate synthesis is complete. Naaaahhh. That's too Hegelian.

The President Talks by Ezra Klein, WA Post

Obama's latest speech is being defined as "communitarian" in the conservative news?

http://www.conservativeforchange.com/2010/03/obama-we-are-communitarian-not.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the_president_talks.html

Yet, Ron Paul told us today at lewrockwell.com that Obama's politics are called corporatism....

Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist. Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact
controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single-payer health care system.
Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges.” Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

Similarly, Obama's “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade. To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President’s agenda.

When he is called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term – corporatism – forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.

Using precise terms can prevent current debates from degenerating into dialectical arguments that lead everyone to the exact same compromise, called communitarianism. Why would Paul explain the merger between socialism and corporate fascism and then use the WRONG term to define the new balanced way of thinking?

Here's what happens when an American starts studying communitarianism:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/03/19/communitarianism-the-new-communism-reader-post/

More on Dr. Ron Paul for President

"Economic issues were what first motivated me to run for Congress back in 1976." Dr. Ron Paul http://www.ronpaulreasons.com/economy/

Why does Dr. Paul speak so openly about the IRS, WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA, and yet remain so silent about the UN Local Agenda 21 programme for economic and sustainable development?

It just doesn't make any sense how he could know so much about financial scams that rob us of our economic freedom and still be ignorant of the fully published, legally adopted "Re-building America" plans that implement the UN LA-21 scam across the USA (and the entire world).

Some will say he doesn't want to sound like a wacko... but the NAU has been dismissed as a "conspiracy" by President Bush. The NAU has already been designated a conspiracy topic relegated to the Alex Jones crowd, and Ron Paul has no trouble discussing it, does he? In most of the active online anti-NAU groups, there is a suspicious silence about the much larger, global documents that already control all the land, people, and resources in the former United States.

The 1992 Earth Summit and the adoption of UN Local Agenda 21 by all member states is the key to understanding why Americans live under a NEW standard of law. We've already changed into a global communitarian state that protects the community over the individual. Dr. Paul addresses none of this, not even in his writings on independence and sovereignty:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=American%20Independence%20And%20Sovereignty

Devvy's latest article at newswithviews gives me some insight into the primary obstacles to getting Ron Paul elected. It's a great article, but it doesn't answer any of my questions:

RON PAUL: RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE

By: Devvy, January 3, 2008

© 2008 - NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd333.htm

When I have time I'm going to check Paul's voting records on the critical legislation that helped local officials bring Local Agenda 21 Plans into our neighborhoods in 1999, namely the Violent Crime Act of 1994 (which established funds for 100,000 community COPS and Problem Solving Partnerships) and the Domestic Violence Act of 1995 (which established "reporting" principles for emergency workers who witnessed life-threatening things while inside private homes).

LA-21 was introduced by state legislatures as "Smart Growth," and it's been 100% successful. Maybe one of you would do this for me... I'm really curious to know if these programs were even adopted while he was a member of Congress (I remember he retired for a few years).

It's not that I don't want to support Ron Paul for President in 2008, nor that I don't appreciate his efforts to highlight some key covert communitarian actions over the last century, but if I am to support him, I have to answer these questions, many which should already be answered. Can anyone find Paul speaking on UN Local Agenda 21 Programme or on Comunity Oriented Policing Services (COPS, closely affiliated with HUD's Weed&Seed)? This would help me a lot.

HAARP Technology, Etzioni, and Ron Paul

Somebody arrived at the ACL after doing a keyword search for: "HAARP Etzioni." Sometimes I can't resist going to see what our visitor's search returns were, and these two words together really grabbed my interest. Following search terms is also one way I keep up on what's being published in my "field." For instance, following "HAARP Etzioni" led me to this academic paper:

Technology, Power, Polictics, Outer Space, and Ethics: Notes Toward a New Paradigm, by Richard W. Chadwick

Richard Chadwick, professor? of Political Science, University of Hawaii presented this as a draft for an ISA panel. This is a great introduction to the communitarian ideology of merging and blending of everything into a new Paradigm that's the neo-science of global politics. Chadwick explains the ultimate challenge now, to us ("as a species"), is whether or not we can transcend our current identities so that we can "see collectively."

Many American university professors and politicians speak frankly of their support for Etzioni's ideas in their published academic presentations. If our Anti-communitarian thesis exposes Etzioni's ideas as unoriginal and treasonous, then what are we to make of authors who promote his ideology throughout their calls for a "new theory?" Chadwick explains his position as an international communitarian at the bottom of page 18. As a fan of Dr. Etzioni, I wonder if he is familiar with the new term: neo-communitarian?

RE: Requests to show our support for the Ron Paul "rEVOLUTION" -
I've included a link to Ron Paul from the ACL Links page since we built the site. Even though my Democratic adviser/friend Nancy Rising advised me against him, I always liked him. I liked his speeches and I learned important aspects of American political thought from him.

As the co-founder of the Anti-Communitarian League, I cannot endorse any candidate who does not openly discuss communitarian political issues, by name. I've heard many excuses for why Dr. Paul does not use the term when he's discussing his platform, but none of them satisfy my need to know his bottom line on the theory of communitarianism. His article on the Third Way made me very happy when I found it several years ago... because he was one of the only people in the Congress who I found to know what the 3rd Way was designed to accomplish.

Hillary Clinton used the term communitarian to describe a political ideology in an interview last month (somewhere in my blog archives). That was the perfect opportunity for Paul to ask, in the press (or the press could ask it if it were really free), "What is a communitarian? What did Ms. Clinton mean when she used that term to describe how she views Iowan political society?"

If anyone can show me a direct citation of Ron Paul using the actual term "communitarian" to identify which unconstitutional programs and treaties he will disentanle us from, or anything about whether he will fire the eleven identified advisers named as "Communitarian thinkers" in the White House, I will put Ron Paul banners (and the quotes) ALL over my websites. Why can't the Paul campaign answer my questions? Does Ron Paul have an opinion on communitarian law? I'm almost positive he knows what the term means, but maybe he doesn't, I really don't know.

I know many Americans blow communitarianism off as tin-foil hat theory. Maybe after 14 years in Congress Rep. Ron Paul never even met Dr. Etzioni and never sat on any comittees with any of the hundreds of U.S. Congressmen and women who have signed or endorsed the Third Way/communitarian platforms. Maybe nobody told him the U.N. Earth Charter, according to a Harvard Law professor, is a communitarian document. Maybe he never heard from a Berkely law professor that the Kelo decision was a "benign communitarin decision." Maybe he doesn't know WTO ruling are ALL based in EU Communitarian/Community Law. And maybe I don't want to endorse anybody for president who doesn't know and speak about these things.

Alaskan Republicans may support Ron Paul

Alaskans may nominate fringe candidate
(the word "fringe" is used just in case we think he's an approved CFR candidate)

http://ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=7479052

by Channel 2 News Staff
Monday, Dec. 10. 2007

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- In a poll conducted Monday, Dec. 10, Channel 2 News asked which GOP presidential candidate Alaskan Republicans plan to support in the Super Tuesday caucus.

A slim majority of respondents support Ron Paul, a Texas congressman known for wanting to abolish the IRS and opposing the Iraq War. (Ron Paul is better known for his strong constitutional voting record and his non association with the CFR-Bilderberg groups, the United Nations clansmen, and Skull & Bonesmen.)

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who's surging in national polls as well as Iowa caucus polls, came in a close second.

Which Republican presidential candidate will you support in Alaska's caucus? Rudy Giuliani -- 14% Mike Huckabee -- 22% John McCain -- 9% Ron Paul -- 29% Mitt Romney -- 9% Fred Thompson -- 12% Other -- 6%

All polls conducted by Channel 2 News and KTUU.com are unscientific. (No kidding)