74 votes

UPDATE: For Romney Delegates: A Paulian Manifesto, final draft

You will need to be signed up for Google documents to view this article in its original -- and printable -- form. The text below is not as nicely formatted, but it will give you the idea. To read it most comfortably in Google docs, downsize the viewing window to the size of a typewritten page; the full page view is very awkward to read.
UPDATE Aug. 19: I've eliminated typos and added a couple different lines to the document--right at the start, and a couple paragraphs up from the end. If anyone besides me plans to send this out to delegates, send me an email and I'll send you the polished document, ready for printing, as an attachment. It will work with Word Perfect or Open Office swriter. I don't know about other word processing programs. If anyone is wondering, I'm sending copies to 155 of 170 California delegates (couldn't track down addresses for the other 15.)

Final draft:
An urgent inspirational message for all Republican delegates to the Tampa Convention from Conservative America. And your chance to win a prize . . .


"A man who is not a liberal when he is 20 has no heart. A man who is not a conservative when he is 30 has no brain.” A saying variously attributed to Georges Clemenceau, Winston Churchill, François Guizot, Disraeli, and George Bernard Shaw."

The Great Divide: Conservatism and Liberalism

Most of us, whether we consider ourselves "conservatives" or "liberals," have friends or family members "on the other side." And we know that most people, both conservatives and liberals, are well-meaning folks. They want only good things for their friends, their families, their countrymen, and for the world. They want only peace, justice and prosperity for others. But they disagree on how to accomplish this.

The liberal sees government as the Great Nanny of Society, charged with these duties:

  • To make sure everyone gets everything they really need,
  • To settle all their quarrels,
  • To protect them from anything that might hurt them,
  • And to stop them from doing anything naughty.

Liberals are compassionate, caring folk who believe that some Authority greater than ourselves is needed to take care of us all -- and that is Government. Government must be more than a referee who will stop people from harming innocents and who will arbitrate disagreements. Government must always act "for the greater good," to solve all the problems faced by "society." Liberals are "collectivists" in the sense that they believe that the interests of some collective -- call it "society" or "the nation" -- must always take precedence over the interests of mere individuals.

Conservatives, on the other hand, understand that most adults are perfectly capable of providing for their own needs. Conservatives, for the most part, are individualists who know that words like "government" and "society" are only words, abstract concepts which describe some number or organization of individuals. But only individuals actually exist. Only individuals can act to create prosperity or to solve any problem. The men who call themselves "government" are not a "higher authorities," gifted with greater knowledge or ability than mere individuals; they are just individuals like the rest of us. Their only distinction is their arrogant assumption that they know what "the people" need better than each individual knows his own needs, goals and desires.

Conservatives believe that the only "higher Authority" individuals may acknowledge is their God. Only when one is free to follow ones own moral conscience, free to live ones life according to ones own judgment, and free to keep the fruits of ones own labor -- only then will we be free to take pride in our lives and our worth as human beings. As individualists, conservatives believe in freedom and self reliance, and they understand the moral virtue in each person being responsible for his own life. Conservatives don't need a government to be their nanny, from cradle to grave. All they want from government is protection against robbers, con-men and foreign invaders, and to have a peaceful means of resolving disputes among themselves.

The Constitution of the United States was written to give us this kind of government, and nothing more. The first ten Amendments called the Bill of Rights were written to forbid and restrain the men in government from taking on themselves more powers than they were explicitly granted by the men who WON those rights for us, in the Revolutionary War that birthed our Republic.

As the Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"

Our Republic was founded by men who simply wanted government to protect our lives, our property, and our individual freedom to lead our own lives for our own purposes. The founders were not little boys looking for a nanny to supervise their lives. They were not beggars looking for someone to give them charity. They were not thieves, looking for a way to transfer someone else's hard-earned wealth to their own pockets. They were proud, self-reliant men who knew they could take care of themselves by their own hard work and honest trade. Their conservative tradition is our Republican tradition today.

Why people become liberals

Why is it that so many of our children turn into liberals? What leads them to believe that the only ways by which human beings can deal with one another are begging, bullying, stealing -- or government edict? Why can't they understand that being productive, trading our services and our products to others in a free market, is how we must earn our livings? We try to bring them up right, yet they never seem to learn to be self-responsible. And they always seem to come to the liberal viewpoint that if government doesn't order people do do something, it won't get done. Why?

Well, that's what we've taught them is true in their own lives.

In all the rich countries of the world, our children grow up depending on us, their parents, for all their needs. We feed them, shelter them, clothe them, we teach them to talk, and we love them.

Everything they have in their lives is a gift from us, or from their relatives.

A child may not learn for years that his needs and desires are not automatic claims on the wealth of his parents.

He is not expected to pay his own costs, and he is not allowed to be responsible for his own life.

Is it any wonder, that "self reliance" is an alien concept to our children? We have taught them to rely on us to support them and to make their choices for them -- for eighteen years.

Is it any wonder, that they develop an "entitlement" mentality? We have taught them that all their needs are our responsibility.

Is it any wonder, that some people never learn self-responsibility, and always look to some Authority to solve their problems? We have taught them that all a child needs to do is -- follow orders. We teach a child to be obedient to his parents and to his teachers and to his pastor and to anyone who works for Government. We teach him to obey Authority, and in return the Authority will give him whatever he needs or wants. He learns to depend on Authority, to guide his choices.

He learns to need it.

He learns to love it.

But turning a child into a passive little authority-worshiper is too big a job for parents to accomplish on their own. As it happens, they get a lot of help.

For hours every day, most children watch network television. They learn the culture of Hollywood and the morality of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. They learn the political issues of the day from liberal network newscasts. They learn that everything will be taken care of by the mysterious Authorities in Government. They soak in the mind-numbing noise, all of it laced with liberal cultural norms, for hours, passively sponging up whatever is said.

This is how our children learn our culture, and this is how many choose their role models. They learn that if you want to be really rich, professional sports is the way to go. Or dealing drugs. Or selling sex. Or winning a game show, like American Idol. And they learn that "bosses" and "landlords" and "businessmen" are all fools or villains.

Now, think very hard. Ask yourself: when was the last time you watched a TV show which focused on people working really hard to earn a good living at some honest, productive job? Nah, that was BOR-ING, you switched it back to American Idol!

Some children learn that they can get the things they want by stealing or by being a bully. No matter how many times a child is told that stealing or using force are wrong, he knows the truth. He knows that his parents and his government teachers use force -- against him -- all the time. And if stealing is so wrong, how come people who work for government can take anybody's money against their will, and just call it "taxes?" And besides, isn't everyone entitled to have whatever they need, even if they have to take it by force? Isn't that how government works?

We FORCE our children to attend government schools for thirteen years, which should prove to any smart kid that "freedom" is a myth, and that people in government can do ANYTHING they want, to anyone. No matter how many times we TELL our kids that we live in a "free" country, every child knows the truth that HE is not free. He knows he must obey every command given to him by his parents and by his schoolteachers until he is 18 years old -- and he can only hope that the mysterious adult powers-that-be will not draft him into the military after that.

And what do the government teachers in the government schools teach our children? They teach that "the country" -- by which they mean the government --is the highest social good. They teach that our individual lives are of value only insofar as they serve "the country" -- the government. “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." President John Kennedy may have been a true patriot and war hero, but his words have been used ever since to indoctrinate our children into the cult of liberal government-worship.

The government teachers teach our children their liberal, collectivist version of history, which says that every problem faced by mankind - from hunger to disease to old age -- is a problem for government to handle. You can go through thirteen years of government schooling and never hear the idea that people are responsible for their own actions and their own lives. Government owes us all a living, don't you know? If you can't manage on your own, the great, kindly government will look after you.

Our children become liberals because we conservatives have failed to practice what we believe:

  • We believe in self responsibility, but we have failed to accept the responsibility of educating our own children.
  • We believe in teaching conservative values to our children, but we allow government to choose our children's teachers.
  • We believe in freedom, but we force our children to attend government schools for thirteen years.
  • We believe in the free market, but we make our own children dependant on what they can beg from us or steal from others.
  • We believe in teaching our children self-reliance and the value of productive work, but we have allowed the labor unions and their tame liberal politicians to forbid young people to work at real jobs.
  • We believe in paying our own way, but we have given up our principles to get "free public education" for our children.
  • We believe in raising our children to be upright and decent, but we use the sewer called "television" as a babysitter.

Our children become liberals, because we have failed them.

People become conservatives when learn three truths that liberals do not understand:

1. "Growing up" means making ones own choices and taking responsibility for the consequences.

  • We become conservatives when we GROW UP, and accept the responsibility for choosing the course our lives will follow.
  • We become conservatives when we decide to pay our own costs and take our own chances.
  • We become conservatives when we discover that most people get what they want from others by trading goods and services -- and that free trade works much better than begging or stealing. It also works better than waiting for government to pass a law which will force some unwilling taxpayer to give them something they haven't earned and don't deserve.
  • We become conservatives when we learn that earning our living by honest trade allows us to hold our heads up as free men, proud of earning our place in God's world.

2. Only individuals exist.

We become conservatives when we realize that all the words describing groups and organizations and numbers of people are just words.

  • Only individuals exist,
  • Only individuals can act, or think, or plan,
  • Only individuals have rights.
  • Only individuals are responsible to provide for themselves or for their families.
  • Only individuals can practice charity -- and the only charity they can practice is the giving of their own property. A politician who gives away property not his own does not practice charity, but theft.

The liberal, on the other hand, believes that "society" really exists, and that society, not individuals, must be responsible for charity, for raising children, for providing for aging parents, and even for providing for themselves. These are group obligations of the state. Where the conservative expects to pay his own way, the liberal wants the government to handle everything, and send the tax bill to "the rich."
Liberals love big government. They worship it. They believe it is the only way that "society" can solve all its problems.

Conservatives do not share that faith. They see government as the creator of more problems than it solves. They believe that freedom of choice will lead to the best solution of social and economic problems. Millions of ideas and efforts, each subject to trial and error and competition – in which the best solution becomes obvious by comparing its results to all others – that process will produce results that are far superior to what can be achieved by a group of politicians or a committee of liberal elitists. Conservatives believe that freedom works.

By contrast, liberals do not trust freedom. They are afraid of freedom. They are convinced that freedom may be all right in small matters such as what color socks you want to wear, but when it come to the important issues such as the money supply, banking practices, investments, insurance programs, health care, education, and so on, freedom will not work. These things, they say, simply must be controlled by the government. Otherwise there would be chaos.

There are two reasons for the popularity of that concept. One is that most of us have been educated in government schools, and that’s what we were taught. The other reason is that government is the one group that can legally force everyone to participate. It has the power of taxation, backed by jails and force of arms to compel everyone to fall in line, and that is a very appealing concept to the intellectual who pictures himself as a social engineer. Liberals say, “We must force people to do what we think they should do, because they are too dumb to do it on their own. We, on the other hand, have been to school. We’ve read books. We are informed. We are smarter than those people out there. If we leave it to them, they are going to make terrible mistakes. So, it is up to us, the enlightened ones. We shall decide on behalf of society and we shall enforce our decisions by law so that all the stupid people will not be allowed to make the choices we know are wrong for them. We are smart enough to run our own lives, but they are not. Fortunately for them, we know more about what is good for them than they know themselves. We are not only smart enough to run our own lives, we are smart enough to run theirs."

Liberals are so smart that they believe “society” is more important than mere individuals. And only they are smart enough to know what is best for “society.”

3. Using coercion against innocent people is wrong.

  • We become conservatives when we put our moral belief that each individual is responsible for his own life, together with our knowledge that only individuals exist, and conclude that government may not -- morally -- do anything it would be improper for an individual to do.
  • Because only individuals exist, the individuals who call themselves "government" have no special wisdom or moral authority to dictate to other men how to conduct their peaceable dealings with one another.

  • We become conservatives because it is not right for government to steal from one man to give the money to another.
  • We become conservatives because it is not right for government to murder people who have offered us no harm.
  • We become conservatives because it is not right for government to regulate how free and peaceable individuals choose to deal with one another, so long as no theft, injury or fraud is comitted.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

And as Ronald Reagan said, "If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth."

Freedom is the great and guiding principle of conservatism.

Our freedom is not a gift from government.

The rights to life, liberty and property are our natural rights, endowed by our Creator.

Conservatives understand that government does not bestow rights upon us; government is merely our agent, charged with defending our rights against those who would rob, defraud or injure us, and against foreign enemies who would injure or subjugate us -- and nothing more!

As set forth in our Constitution, our government’s only legitimate function is to protect our natural, God-given rights.
Government is not our business partner,
or our insurance agent,
or our doctor
or our banker
or our children's teacher.
Government is not our financial advisor
or our babysitter,
or our retirement planner,
Government is not our Mommy or our Daddy.

Government is a hired gun who is charged by his employer with only one job: to restrain men from injuring one another.

And WE! are his employer.

It is OUR duty to keep our employees from using their guns to commit the very evils they are supposed to prevent.

That is why our Constitution was written, and why the most important part of it is the Bill of Rights. Like the Ten Commandments, the Bill of Rights was written to be a list of "Thou shalt nots", limiting the power delegated to the government by the people.

As Ronald Reagan put it, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

And of all the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the most important is the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, which was specifically written to prevent our public servants from becoming our public masters. Our guns are our last defense against the men who forswear their oath to uphold the Constitution, and try to make themselves tyrants above the law.

The Second Amendment was not written to protect the rights of deer hunters; it was written to ensure that free men would always have the means -- the military-grade weapons! -- to fight would-be tyrants on equal terms.

The conservative dream is not of an all-powerful government controlling every aspect of our lives.

Our vision is one of individual liberty, of free men making their own choices to control of their own lives, their own destinies.

Our liberty is not a gift from our government. It is your birthright as a free man to:

  • Raise and educate your children as you see fit.
  • Defend yourself and your family with whatever weapons you choose.
  • Keep the money you have earned honestly, or spend it for your own purposes.
  • Use your own property as you see fit
  • Work for your own goals, and take your own chances
  • Be treated like a grownup who can pay for your own mistakes, not expecting other citizens to pay for your bad judgment.

How liberal government actually works

Compassion is the great virtue of liberals, and the great vice of liberal governments.

To the liberals, government is a substitute for parental authority. They expect government to resolve all the problems that irresponsible children – or irresponsible adults– cannot handle. Government then becomes the tool of their liberal compassion. And so, every ill that besets mankind must be attacked by government as a War on this or that.

This is the thinking at the root of the great liberal crusades of our time: Prohibition, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War to End War (that was WWI), the War on Smoking, the War for "Equal Rights" being fought on various fronts -- There is a War against Racism, a War against Sexism, and other Wars against Discrimination too many to count. And never forget the huge government bureaucracies charged with fighting the liberals' Wars on improvidence, hunger and ill-health, otherwise known as Social Security, Food Stamps, Medicare and now Obamacare.

But those of us who are a little older or a little wiser know that when people in government wish to practice charity, they must get the money from -- ultimately -- the taxpayers. So in the name of charity, government proceeds to steal money from innocent taxpayers, if necessary at gunpoint and under threat of imprisonment. Ironically, many of the taxpayers who must pay for the government's "generosity" may be in worse condition than the people government proposes to "help." Think of rich homeowners in Malibu getting special government loans to rebuild their multi-million dollar homes after mudslides or wildfires. Think of incompetent and dishonest bankers who get "bailed out" with taxpayer money when they lose the bank's money. Think of giant agricultural firms receiving farm subsidy money to produce genetically modified “food” that is not fit to eat. The list is endless, and one has to wonder how many of the recipients of government largess are actually impoverished -- and how many just have effective lobbyists.

Conservatives understand this. Liberals do not.

Has any of these continuing liberal crusades enjoyed ANY success? Or has government merely constructed enormous, inefficient bureaucracies which only make every problem worse? And except for Prohibition, has Government ever acknowledged that some "War" was a failure which should never have been started in the first place?

Once again, Ronald Reagan got it right: "Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth."

Once established, has any government bureaucracy ever won a War on some social problem? Or have the bureaucracies tasked with the problems grown larger every year? This answer should not surprise us: bureaucrats are simply looking after their own interests. If they ever succeed at their stated mission, they would be out of work! Why be surprised that they never succeed?

People in the private sector earn their money by selling consumers goods and services that they desire, and if they fail in that task, they lose their jobs. Government bureaucrats, on the other hand, get paid whether they fail or not – and the more they fail, the more they will be paid to combat "the growing social problem!"

The liberal never understands that the failure of government programs is inevitable, because the programs are designed never to succeed. They are designed only to grow, to consume more resources, and to employ more bureaucrats. The liberal never understands that "government solutions" to social problems always make things worse.

Now the liberals tell us that we must support new Wars. We must wage War on Global Warming, despite dubious evidence that such a phenomenon actually exists, that is is actually caused by human action, or that it would be a bad thing if it did exist.

We must wage War on Illiteracy (call it "No Child Left Behind"), despite the fact that before Government demanded a monopoly on educating children in the 1840’s, Americans were the most literate people on earth, with a literacy rate over 95 percent. And today, thanks to our great public education system, fewer than 70% our high school graduates can read their own diplomas.

We must wage War on Obesity, to control what and how much people are allowed to eat.

We must wage War on Secrecy, because only terrorists need to fear having government snooping at will through their bank records and monitoring every click of their Internet use. If you object to that, YOU must be a terrorist! Anyone who objects to something called "The Patriot Act" must surely be the opposite of a Patriot!

No doubt many of these Wars do address real problems. What distinguishes a liberal from a conservative is whether or not he believes government is the proper tool to fight the problem. Where the liberal charges madly at every dragon in sight, a conservative pauses to count the cost -- not only the monetary cost, but also the cost in liberty.

The Conservative Ideal of Government

In his 1963 acceptance speech as the Republican nominee for President, Barry Goldwater said,

"We see in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And -- And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We don't seek to lead anyone's life for him. We only seek to secure his rights, guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.

“This Republican Party is a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists.

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Conservatives understand that all men are individuals, and the men who call themselves “government” have no special power to do things which we cannot do for ourselves, except only one: only the men in government have the power to use force against others, without legal consequence. And of all the ways by which men may deal with one another, force is the very worst. Force means using threats and using guns to make a man do what he will not do willingly. So understand this clearly: government is not the friend of liberty. Your liberty to do as you choose ENDS when government drafts a law forcing you to do what you are told. That is why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written by the Founding Fathers. They wanted to restrain government from destroying the liberty they sought for themselves, and for us, their descendants and the heirs of their conservative tradition.

Conservative laws -- and liberal laws

Conservatives understand that some laws are necessary and proper:

  • those which prevent men from injuring one another,
  • those which prevent men from stealing from or defrauding one another.
  • those which provide for the common defense.
  • and those which allow men to peaceably settle their disputes in court.

But most laws are not of this sort. Most laws are crafted by "liberals" to enforce some notion of "social justice" or "public welfare" which always seems to mean: "special privileges for special interest groups."

And those laws accomplish the exact opposite of the good laws:

  • Bad laws allow some men to injure innocent others with impunity.
  • Bad laws punish people for "crimes" which have injured no one.
  • Bad laws steal from some men and give what is stolen to others.
  • Bad laws have turned courts of law into courts of lawyers, giving the legal profession the power to plunder productive people at will.

Government has the rightful power to defend our freedom against those who threaten us with harm or fraud. The liberal would grant it more powers, which are actually destructive of freedom. A government which wishes to protect people from the consequences of their own improvidence, laziness, lack of foresight, or plain stupidity must do so by forcibly taking wealth away from those who have been thrifty, hard-working, wise and clever. But if men are to be penalized for their virtues and rewarded for their sins, what sort of society will grow from the seeds we are planting?

The kindly liberals believe that it is government's job to give the people whatever they need. But if one man's need entitles him to raid another man's checkbook, through government taxes and redistribution, there will be no end of "needs." When "needs" are more important than property rights, men must continually fight the government to defend what is theirs from all the claims of "need." Or one must use government as a weapon to advance ones own claims of need, to ensure that one gets any benefit at all from living in society. In either case, every identifiable "group" must war against all the others, for a share of the taxes government seizes from us to redistribute. Liberalism makes every group the enemy of every other group.

Conservatives have a different idea, one based on the idea that government should serve your liberty -- not your needs. "Liberty" means the freedom to make your own choices. By moral right, each of us has:

  • the freedom to do anything that does not harm others,
  • the freedom to sell any service or product to any willing buyer, on any terms that are mutually agreeable,
  • the freedom to keep the fruits of your labors, or spend them as you choose.
  • the freedom to worship as you choose, and educate your children as you choose.
  • the freedom to practice charity as you choose, for only such causes as you consider worthy.

But with these freedoms comes responsibility:

  • You may act as you choose, but you are NOT free to escape the consequences of bad choices.
  • If you squander your earnings and find yourself destitute, you will NOT be entitled to use the government's tax collectors to pay off your mistakes.
  • If you can find anyone sympathetic to your plight, you may beg for private charity.
  • Or you can learn that your life depends on making good choices, and straighten yourself out.

For free men, the virtues of hard work, thrift, foresight and wisdom are not only encouraged, they are the necessities of life. Because if you insist on making bad choices, you CAN kill yourself.

Self-responsibility is the price of freedom.

In The Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater wrote,

"The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to the men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: 'I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel the old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is needed before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.'

Republican delegates, you hold it in your power to make -- or break -- the Republican Party. In recent years, our party has lost its way and betrayed the conservatives who are its heart. We are become a party run by so-called “neoconservatives” To advance a liberal agenda of world domination, and unlimited Executive power, far indeed from our conservative tradition of limited, Constitutional Government and respect for individual rights.

We conservative Republicans are not stupid. We know we have been betrayed of our rights and of our national sovereignty. We know that our economy has been “outsourced” to Asia, and that the global bankers of the Federal Reserve have debased our currency to just 3% of the value it had before the Fed was established. Many of us have already left the party by simply sitting out elections.

We are tired of being told that we must always vote for one more "lesser evil."

We are tired of lying politicians who speak of freedom while shredding the Constitution and giving away our national sovereignty to international bankers and globalist organizations.

You, our Conservative delegates, hold it in your power to return America to Constitutional limited government, to sound, non-inflatable currency, to peace with all nations, and to prosperity. The answer to our country’s present woes is not more and bigger government, more wars, more TSA airport gropers, more socialism, more bailouts, more government spending, more regulations or more controls. The answer is -- freedom. At the beginning of this message, I promised you a chance to win a prize. And so you do: YOU have a chance to WIN a free country! Go ahead, laugh. But it’s true.

One candidate understands these principles, and has fought for them all his life. Do you have the guts to join him?

For the sake of your own future,
your children’s future,
the future of your country,
the hope of the world --
please choose wisely.

Thank you.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I think its a very good

I think its a very good treatise. However, I don't think it breaks through the cognitive dissonance of neo-con voters sharply enough. They probably thought you are talking about George W Bush when you wrote this. At the same time, its subtlety is a strength in that all of our more heavy handed materials have not seemed to make a dent on these people, so its worth taking another tactic.

Ventura 2012

Cognitive dissonance is the enemy

that I wanted to avoid. That's why I didn't even mention Ron Paul by name. I wanted to get folks saying "yes, yes, yes, yes" along with my points, rather than confronting them on issues where we might disagree. It's a long essay, because bringing people around to Paul's point of view by this method takes a lot of doing. I hope I hear back from some of the people I sent it out to, find out what they thought of it, if they bothered to read it.

Anyhow, glad you liked it.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Heads up, folks

If anyone besides me plans to send this out to Romney delegates, NOW is the time to print up some copies and get them in the mail.

At least 75 of you liked this enough to give it a thumbs up. Did you like it enough to DO something with it? Track down your state delegates, and SEND it to them. I've already done California. The other 49 states are up to y'all.

Send me an email via the DP contact form on my account page. I'll send you back an email with the finished document, ready for printing, as an attachment. It will work with Word Perfect and Open Office swriter -- other word processing programs, I'm not sure.

This is how to track down your state's Romney delegates.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Mob Mentality

Everyone go to Tampa and show your support of Dr. Paul. When the Romney delegates are outnumbered and it becomes clear that Dr. Paul is the choice of the people they will awaken from the media induced coma they are in. People believe what they hear and do as they are told. The most important thing is to be just like everybody else. The media has led them to believe that Ron Paul supporters are outcast who don't have a prayer. Tampa will be the moment of truth.

Is this supposed to win

Is this supposed to win Romney delegates over to Ron Paul? Why doesn't it mention Ron then?

"One candidate understands this."

I'm giving delegates credit for having at least two brain cells to rub together. I'm trying to introduce the underlying foundation of Paul's philosophy to them, without naming his name. As delegates come to understand what "conservatism" means, it will become crystal clear to them that it does NOT mean "Romney." Or any of the other Big Government boys.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

In order for this to be useful in persuading Romney delegates

it should be printed off and used to wrap free subs with.

To bribe the delegates.
Romney/Ryan free subs in Wisconsin.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."


This is great, thank you for taking the time to read this. A lot of middle age and older people who vote will take the time to read and think about this.

Also could you consider making a Google Page account? Like a simple free web page so people don't have to have a Google account to read it? Thanks, if not, I can put one up later.

Romney delegates

will be bored with it after 2 sentences.

Romney delegates are not idealists.
They are hard nose politico's.
We could do with a few more dp's with a sense of realism and pragmatism.

Voted down.
You might like it. You probably like it a lot.
Non Ron Paul people won't.
180 degrees in the wrong direction to persuade.
It will turn the Tampa delegates against us (the vast majority).

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Romney supporters

Are of two sorts: the hard nose politicos and the "good citizens," who think they're doing the right thing.

The hardcore politicos are basically influence-dealing gangsters. You can't reach them with anything but a checkbook or a baseball bat.

The others have been listening to too much conservative talk radio, and watching too much FOX. But they're well-meaning folks. The essay is for them. Because I'm betting that you're wrong about the gangsters being the vast majority.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

I am going by speaking with over 200 well meaning folk

GOP voters
family people
christian people
middle class people

I found around 15 or 20 who were willing to listen, but even they were not interested in this. They were turned OFF, not ON by it.

They have been told by Fox that Romney is winning, Dick Morris plucked some numbers out of thin air and they bought it. lol

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

In what "this" were they not interested?

Are you saying that you gave copies of this essay to 200 people? And they were turned off by the essay?

Or they were turned off by speaking to YOU?

Hard to imagine, huh?

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

I am saying that, I am saying they are not interested

in idealism.
In fact it switches them off.
They have been told for 20 years that Libertarians are nutters by the media, particularly Fox.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Cyril's picture

Seems pretty elaborate.

Seems pretty elaborate. Honest, I'd need some more time to read it more attentively and provide useful criticism, if any.

Here's a (significantly) shorter one for the same audience of Romney delegates :

"True Republicans Read The Constitution and Defend It.

Thank You for We, The People."

Or something like that ;-)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


The best way to persuade people is to present your ideas in terms that they already agree with. Giving them orders is what puts their backs up. Yelling "Defend the Constitution" at Romney delegates is not a primo strategy.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Great Read!

I feel the quote in the beginning should be credited just one of the historic figures mentioned. Winston Churchill would be best:

  1. He was a Conservative politician
  2. An officer in the British Army
  3. Only British prime minister to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature
  4. And Apparently...

  5. First person to be made an Honorary Citizen of the United States

Its far too long, for sure but I'm going to re-read it and see how short i can make it. With your permission i will post it on my facebook.

Hit me back if its alright.

~Good Night, And Good Luck~

Do as you like.

The actual earliest author of that quote was evidently Francois Guizot. Unfortunately, no one has ever heard of him.

A ten-paragraph essay with one boring paragraph is too long. A ten page essay with no boring paragraphs is a perfectly acceptable length. Be careful what you cut; there's a dramatic flow to it as well as a logical structure.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

What about authoritarian conservatives?

I enjoy this essay, even posted it on Facebook for discussion, but you seem to be equating libertarianism with conservatism, which leaves out the conservatives who identify with authoritarianism. I daresay many conservatives believe that government should limit choices.

Honestly the right-left/conservative-liberal mindtrip is outdated 1-dimensional thinking, which is why I've been encouraging people to try tests like this...

The Political Compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

I'm not fond of the wording to many of the questions, but it illustrates what the conservative-vs-liberal spectrum cannot - that our country is becoming increasingly authoritarian, and many - whether liberal or conservative - have a love of freedom in common.

Conflating libertarianism and conservatism

is exactly what I intended to accomplish. I want traditional conservatives to "get" that "real" conservativism is about liberty. I figure it's only fair: originally, the term "liberal" referred to the philosophy now known as libertarianism. The term was stolen by statists who aspired to cloak themselves with a more appealing label. I find it amusing to pull the reverse whammy on "conservatives." If the authoritarian conservatives feel unhappy and disenfranchised -- that's just too effing bad. Let them steal someone else's name.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

IF this is intended for Romney Delegates...

Then its exactly the language they speak.

THey haven't been awoken to the falasy that is liberal/conservative left/right labels.


Dear Delegates

I too have written a piece designed to be handed out to Romney delegates. It's shorter and was written recently for this purpose:

Dear Delegates,

The point of being a Republican rather than something else is worth remembering. There's no room on the other side for any thought of limiting the taxing power of the state, nor of limiting state power in any meaningful way whatsoever. In the GOP, or so the story goes, at least we debate how much to limit government and how much to cut spending and taxes, not whether it needs doing. It still motivates and justifies being a diehard for a huge part of the base. But a huge problem has developed, has it not; the distinction has all but lost its meaning.

The logic of liberty is impossible to refute, because it's the only path leading to and properly accommodating a practical, just, accurate view of human nature, human action and the basic requirements for a stable, civil society. Private property; sound dollar; privacy, you know, the basic tenets of Western progress as opposed to communism and collectivism. This is why the imperfect Constitution still provides the most viable and practical unifying principles for us to rally to when the rafters rattle. This is why you take an oath when assuming office.

I humbly suggest those who argue otherwise have no business calling themselves Republicans, or informed conservatives, for that matter... especially in a time of supposed “war.” Perhaps you've noticed by now, libertarians will generally stand tall for the fairness, justice and morality an oath venerates, and against the manipulative lies, fraud and eventual violence that rob it of meaning. If that offends you, face it, it's you that has a problem... worse, maybe you are the problem. If so, put this little bit of truth down and back away, believe me, you can't handle it.

So, young voters and delegates, are you going to take this bullying? You who are assuming the burden of funding the retirements, medical care and drugs for very well fed boomers, all social benefits, welfare for the rich too, enormous subsidies for counterproductive agricultural fascism like the ethanol scam, more bailouts for those too connected to fail, more wars costing American lives on behalf of other nations, more off-budget empire building, more mindless regulations...

You who are on the hook for e-trillions in unpayable, double-leveraged credit default swaps and moldy Fannie Mae paper piling up in the back hallways at the Fed, plus interest. .You who, if you proudly join the military, might be sent who-knows-where to randomly shoot brown people, including non-combatants; then watch as lessons never learned return flag-covered, more families destroyed, more veterans killing themselves than ever before, for what? Democracy? Cyber-megalomania? Oil? … Guilt?

To suggest that anyone's freedom is served by this is beyond ludicrous, and quite provably false. Now the neocon war jackals (O's bosses, too, which is why he never closed Gitmo, only pulled a few troops out, delivered anything but hope and change) want to attack Iran, even though both Israeli and US intelligence confirm there is no bomb program (although with continual intimidation, sanctions and threats, now they might try). Just more tail-wag-the-dog “regime change” operations in the service of our empire-building “friends” on the other side of the world, who have enough nuclear weapons of their own to obliterate Europe and Asia... the same backstabbing thugs who deliberately tried to sink the USS Liberty in 1967 and murdered 34 US sailors, injuring 171.

You, (“Yeah, you!”)... spied upon relentlessly; never look up at the drone and frown, kid, they'll know. Face it, this is your “social contract,” whether under Obama or Romney, only you didn't have to sign your name, they already have your “consent,” soon enough your DNA and maybe an RFID chip in your hide.

What would cause the “Home of the Brave” to cast aside our most cherished birthright, liberty? No need to even think about anyone's unthinkable complicity or negligence in the Great Intelligence Debacle (or GID, my preferred term for 9-11). It makes no sense whatsoever way before you ever get to those unanswered questions. Every one of those bootlicking chickenhawks should have been fired, and you know it, and they know it.

The GOP would now stand on much higher moral ground if it had cleaned its own house. Instead we got lies and coverups; the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act of '06; a Marxist president; outrageous, unchallengeable executive orders; NDAA; Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus destroyed and a gutted Constitution. It doesn't matter one whit if it was all a big plot or not, the end result is the grandest jail-break power grab in all of world history.

Denying the will of the people
Why would even sanctimonious, authoritarian pissants violate every oath, ethical guidelines, basic fairness, Robert's Rules, Jesus' teachings and the traditions and well-being of their own party, to prevent a fair outcome in the primaries? So that they can promote and defend torture and indefinite detention, murder without due process, war without congressional declaration, snooping without warrants, police back-shooting handcuffed citizens and serving less than a year in jail?

How do they not admit that what they really prefer to liberty and justice for all, is a vicious, unconstitutional, totalitarian POLICE STATE, against the wills of the vast majority of the American people! Thus destroyed are entire centuries of progress against tyranny since the Magna Carta suggested that the people should be sovereign over the king almost a thousand years ago.

How can the American people and especially sensible Republicans bootlick an unlimited, unchallengeable oligarchy which is openly, violently hostile to every legal principle and tradition of over two centuries of constitutionally protected limited government and individual liberty? How can the law schools of America stand mute as every single statutory safeguard and firewall against tyranny is ignored, cast aside, removed, overturned, dismantled, misinterpreted or subverted? What vile, godforsaken excuse for a moral code condones torture and the murder of children and civilians, during war or otherwise? Not Christian. Not Jewish. Not atheist. Not even Muslim, except for certain radical interpretations.

What kind of pathetic, hypnotized, cringing moral midgets oppose none of this? What definition of patriotism includes relentless total surveillance without warrant or cause? What definition of the First Amendment means we should demonize and persecute journalists and whistleblowers? What innate fear of inadequacy drives this mad über-authoritarian paranoia that thinks it's going to run the entire world with supercomputers, drones and ninja swat teams? And the real lying has not even started yet!

If you don't want your brightest minds in the streets like the Occupiers, then how dare you attempt to exclude them from the legitimate political process? Haven't the holy rulemakers been insisting we work within the system ever since the first doubts were expressed about the direction of this government? Why only now have a problem with anyone bringing crowds of new people to GOP meetings and working to get a candidate nominated in the proper, fair and legal manner they themselves have developed and fine tuned over decades, to express and achieve the will of the grassroots? Sour, hypocritical grapes.

Demonizing those who would clean up Washington
Isn't it time for all of them to stand for what they believe in and admit, truth be known, that it's not justice, fairness, liberty, ethics, principles, the Constitution or for that matter, the desires of those grassroots Americans? Instead, party, power, privilege, paranoia, authority, spin, influence, secrecy and insufferable hubris reinforced by fear, are far more important to them. Of course the damned FED needs auditing, it needs abolishing! It's been a no-brainer for 100 years; how do you think we got in this mess? Without a moral compass, regardless of declared piousness, their horned fingers will never willingly release the levers of power.

Why else would they derail, deflect, subvert or remove every possible sunset provision, limitation, budget cut and exception to increasing their power? Why do they scream bloodily at every line item cut from the hyper-bloated-bubble military budget as though you were sawing their private parts off? America has 15 battle groups in addition to the 1000+- military bases worldwide. In these hard times for so many Americans, can't we just as effectively intimidate the world with, say, 10 battle groups and 500 bases, and use that money to bail out someone other than corrupt banks and brokerages? What?.

Why, if you believe in anything but totalitarian oppression, would you remove language placed into the NDAA that would have excluded American citizens on American soil? Why mount attack after attack after attack (SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, ACTA, TPP, etc.) on the independence and freedom of the internet, unless you intend to control/spy on all communications, forever? Why would a serious opposition candidate for president never even mention these outrageous violations of constitutional government?

Their jackboots weigh heavy on our minds already; because next, throats. This is the black hole of megalomania that is now swallowing our kids' and grandkids' futures. This is what the Republican party has become, without the liberty movement it is trying so hard to smear, disenfranchise and jettison... trouble is, it might be about to dump its margin of victory, if any!

So why would Romney's longest list of best principles and promises not mention constitutional rights nor the basic privacy of our homes? Anyone who thinks liberty and democracy can be achieved or served by institutionalizing tyranny is sociopathically insane, and deserves neither a moment of our time, nor an iota of our respect nor a dime of our money. President Bush really did say in a room of Senate personnel and aides confronting him over warrantless spying on Americans, according to Doug Thompson of Capital Hill Blue, Dec. '05: “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!”

This has never been repudiated by any Republican who owns both a mouth or pen and a conscience, to my knowledge. How much has this cynical nihilism already cost America? No wonder Obama won. Easily deluded Democrats are nevertheless smart enough to be scared to death. Their preference for socialism over Armani-suited megacrooks enabled by corrupt police state enforcers, doesn't automatically make them stupid or evil.

Personally, I believe the GOP has rendered itself unelectable until it addresses and exorcises its logical and moral inconsistencies and disowns its war crimes and toxic baggage. The GOP is supposed to be the home of better ideas. The Tea Party coups against establishment mossbacks are a clear sign that it can’t have business as usual (congrats, Ted Cruz!). However these are mere baby steps in the right direction.

Determine your own future
There is still time for those who prefer liberty to slavery to affect the course of history, but the current destination is now clearly visible if the linear inertia is not overcome now. There is still time to right the financial ship that is rapidly sinking in debt, but the destination is now clearly visible if the linear inertia is not overcome now.

Ron Paul is the only leader in either party with a plausible plan to address each of these two profound crises. Either dilemma can and will end this grand triumph of human energy, integrity and liberty that we call America, if not corrected immediately, but it can be done. This is no time to wimp out, whether anyone you know believes you, agrees, approves or not, you incorrigible sovereign individualist!

Okay, Ron Paul didn’t win this nomination battle (yet), but he and the libertarian movement did win the intellectual war, capturing in addition to many state party positions, the hearts and minds of thoughtful, intelligent young and old voters who think beyond kneejerk media catchwords and empty clichés. So either honor these ideas and the man who brought these valuable thought processes to your table, or reject them at your peril.

Whether Ron gets his well-earned fifteen minutes or not, the cat herd is way out of the bag, scattering to the winds. It makes normal people who can think wonder what it is the Romney statists are so childishly afraid of, I know because I've asked quite a few. If Mr. Romney is not smart and confident enough to open the big-tent flap and make temporary peace with this rapidly growing, intelligent, dedicated cadre of freedom activists, then he does not deserve to win. Our liberties, such as they are, will remain in the hands of a leftist charlatan with nothing to lose.

Before even being coronated Romney has proven to be such a horrid campaigner that the party, were it planning to win rather than cut off it's nose to prove a point, would dump him in a heartbeat. Ryan is the guy that says let's cut 5 trillion from Medicare and social spending but not one cent from unconstitutional military adventurism and international bullying..

there is no downside to voting your conscience rather than fulfilling the sanctimonious oath you may have taken to become a delegate, as revealed by RNC counsel in 2008 and illuminated by FOX19 truthteller Ben Swann, on YouTube and DailyPaul. There's no point, and certainly no fun, in not trying to do the right thing for your future, for liberty, and for America.

I assure you, it will be more fun to be a changer of history than a victim of it.

Libertarians can always remain more confident, level-headed, even understanding of the most deeply felt opposing viewpoints, because we are not panicked. I'm sure losing power is horrifying, but we have seen the Bill of Rights voided, and yet we remain committed by principle to non-violence in pursuing political and social goals. It is those who refuse to accept limitations on their actions that should suffer uncertainty for their careers and futures, especially when they are the ones initiating fraud and violence in an obscene scramble for absolute power.

This elitist 2% of whatever it is floating on top of the rest of us better wake up and realize we are the best friends they have when all the crimes are finally added up. Many of them “meant well,” so we don't propose to shoot or beat or even jail most of them, just to fire them and herd them out the door, where they can perhaps enter a new “field” of endeavor, as in growing their own food. Why should their pensions be in any less danger than ours?

Ron Paul's ace in the hole could be a Sword of Damocles...
If Ron's name is not placed in nomination and he is not allowed to speak at the convention in spite of having control of five state delegations as required, we may correctly surmise that the GOP has rotted beyond redemption already. It's probably possible for LP presidential nominee Gary Johnson, the former pro-legalization governor of New Mexico, to allow Ron to either replace his VP nominee Judge Jim Gray, or take the VP spot himself with Ron as the nominee. They are potentially on the ballot everywhere. I hope they have already discussed some kind of deal back before the primaries, in case the GOP refused to sober up.

Most importantly, there are many thousands of freethinking, independent and uncommitted young people who have achieved voting age within the last cycle. Having survived mind-numbing public school and then ignored mainstream media thought-control, many have observed quite clearly how both corrupt party machines have hypocritically redefined fairness and justice. And how they have merged into a terrifying uni-monster of debt, war and brutal social control which allows no dissent. The LP has been around since 1972, always potentially the third way that everyone has been screaming for and trying to reinvent for the last 4 decades. Maybe that's where we will have to go to get a little justice.

My guess is, these youngsters are itching to deliver a blow for Liberty, symbolically of course, one way or another! Godspeed, kids!

"To the morally inverted, war appears as a quick, clear path to the top." -- Preston Parker

I have not been able

To finish the article yet. Not due to bordem but rather due to my kids. I will read it entirely after they go to bed.

Do you need help printing this to get it to establishment delegates or are you putting it here hoping we will do that ourselves? Either way I'm a willing participant. I will be in Tampa all week.

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

That's the right question to ask. And how to find delegates.

*** If you can get the email addresses of any Romney delegates, send it to them. I have no idea how to get such addresses. If anyone does, TELL US!

*** If you're going to see Romney delegates in person in Tampa, bring along copies to give them.

*** Hunt down the mailing addresses of your state delegates, and send them copies (do it soon!) I'll be doing some of that myself, in California. If you're willing to do this, here is how to find delegate mailing addresses:

1. Find out the names of your state delegates by going to your state's Secretary of State website, search for election results, and locate the names of the elected Republican delegates. Write down the names on a spreadsheet.

2. To find the delegate's City and Zip Code, go to the Federal Elections Commission website, here, and type in the name of one of the delegates from your list -- pick one with an unusual name. That will take you to a list of people with that name who have made political contributions. The delegate will have made a $900 contribution to the 2012 GOP delegation. Write down the delegate's city and zip code from the listing on your spreadsheet.

3. Now it gets easy: while you are on the FEC contribution page for the delegate, you will see the (state)2012 GOP Delegation highlighted in blue. This is a link. Click on it, and you go to a list of ALL the people who have contributed to the state GOP Delegation. You should be able to find ALL your state delegates on that list! Work your way down the list, filling in cities and zip codes on your spreadsheet.

4. To find the actual home address of each delegate, I recommend using Whitepages.com Type in each name and its zip code -- usually hits right away. Sometimes there is no result -- in that case, try Zabasearch, advanced search, using the delegate's name and city.

I've pretty much finished the California delegates -- I got 155 out of 170; couldn't find addresses for the others.

To persuade the delegates to read the 12-page document (6 double-sided pages -- you can send it for 44 cents), Just write their first name at the top of the document and "Enjoy!!" Fake 'em out.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose


Excellent job, (typo, change 'or' to 'of' near the very end.
I happily read all the way through.


You must be a fast reader.

You must be a fast reader.

"Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear." - Benjamin Franklin


I would love to post this on The Blaze, but The Blaze will not allow google to post, and the sheeple on The Blaze will not click a link to the Daily Paul. Is there another link to get this?


Google or here. Why don't you just cut and paste direct to the Blaze?

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Almost Perfect

But has some logical holes as well.

For example, "Conservatives believe that the only "higher Authority" individuals may acknowledge is their God." That statement seems to exclude agnostics and atheists or contradict their stance. Moreover, Ayn Rand and her followers would argue that religious right and collectivist left share the same morality - sacrificing an individual to an abstract entity (god, community, society) that cannot collect sacrifices (therefore, central planners and special interest groups step in to collect instead.)

History of religion shows that religious sacrifice can be plugged into anywhere since morality of sacrifice is the morality of any collective, left or right. If Marxists were religious and allowed the Church to be the part of the communist party, its priests would had claimed Jesus was a true Socialist (see Christian-Socialist parties in Europe.) If free-market capitalists were for big government with church at its center, the priests would had claimed Jesus was a true capitalist. Jesus (thru priests) was "approving" all wars in Europe up until and including WWI under all sorts of political tyranny at the time. Church has never questioned state authority as long as the church was not assaulted. But Church originally banned capitalism as usury.

Claiming that Jesus was an individualist in today's sense is a STRETCH one can only pronounce with a blush. His true followers are more preoccupied with the world beyond this one. Sure, among church goes, we have the full spectrum - from hidden atheists to true believers, but that is beside the point. The same goes for any religion that supersedes rational thinking with faith or feeling.

Therefore, when many in GOP see RP as a fake Christian, we may feel shocked, but this is obvious to them. They have proved to us they would rather settle with a Mormon...

Jesus the indvidualist

The case for Jesus as an advocate of individual liberty was made much better than I ever could, by Rose Wilder Lane in The Discovery of Freedom. She also makes a case for Moses and Mohammed. One of the true classics of liberty, available online for a free read. Recommended.

As for the rest of your comment -- mostly it made me chuckle. I'm an atheist myself. I chose to slant this essay to the broadest common denominator for those Republican delegates who are sincerely concerned about the welfare of the country. Sincere religious people and decent folk of all persuasions are my target audience here. The influence peddlers are unreachable by moral argument.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

I really wish the term

I really wish the term "Liberal" was stopped being used pejoratively. I understand that most of your audience is FOX watching brain dead zombies and FOX has done an excellent job of muddying the waters here, but there's no reason we should continue doing the same thing.
Your title, "The Great Divide: Conservatism vs Liberalism" would be better written "The Great Divide: Libertarianism vs Collectivism"...

Remember where the term libertarian comes from...