Art Robinson is now the Chair of the Oregon Republican Party

[TaftFan]

EDIT-Here is ann article on it- http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i..._opponent.html

Remember when he lost the race in February? Well, there was a recall vote today and he won, according to a Facebook status I saw.



http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i..._chairw_1.html

[eduardo89]

Awesome news!

[Sola_Fide]

Great news.

[FSP-Rebel]

Groovy

[TaftFan]

Article.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i..._opponent.html

[Jackie Moon]

Wow, great news. You're quick too... I was wondering how I hadn't heard about this yet and then found out it just happened.

In case anyone doesn't remember, Oregon was one of the state's where they shut down the convention early when they found out they were losing.

Our people were still able to vote a majority of Ron Paul supporters as delegates to the RNC though, and Oregon was one of the state's to put Ron's name in for nomination.

So we already had a pretty good presence in the party, and now we have the Chair too.

[Sola_Fide]

I read Art's book. He is probably more liberty-oriented, more like Ron Paul, than anyone else in politics we talk about on these forums.

[TaftFan]

I read Art's book. He is probably more liberty-oriented, more like Ron Paul, than anyone else in politics we talk about on these forums.

Yep.

http://www.artforcongress.com/update...mon-sense-2012

[Keith and stuff]

I read Art's book. He is probably more liberty-oriented, more like Ron Paul, than anyone else in politics we talk about on these forums.

Great that he is running the ORGOP then. Tough I doubt he is as liberty oriented as the elected anarchist we talk about

[NewRightLibertarian]

Great that he is running the ORGOP then. Tough I doubt he is as liberty oriented as the elected anarchist we talk about

How's that guy doing?

[Keith and stuff]

How's that guy doing?

Which one? There are several in NH alone. 2 of them have been talked about here several times last year and this year. My guess is you are thinking of NH State Rep Tim O'Flaherty. He is doing great. He is the highest rated Democrat on the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance 2013 Liberty Rating. He was rated 8th best out of 400 state reps and higher than all of both the Republican leadership and Democratic leadership in the House. Even the Republican House Alliance (the constititionalish conservative group) gave him a 75.8%. That's well above what most Republicans got but only the 2nd highest rating by a Democrat as another got a 87.5%.

I'm excited to learn how Art helps bring the ORGOP in a liberty direction. I think there might be some good things possible in OR if the GOPers would just run candidates in western OR that are far left on social issues and pro-liberty on economic issues. Stuff like marijuana legalization, an income tax cut for the poor and middle class, lower pay for legislators and gambling deregulation.

[Jackie Moon]

I'm excited to learn how Art helps bring the ORGOP in a liberty direction. I think there might be some good things possible in OR if the GOPers would just run candidates in western OR that are far left on social issues and pro-liberty on economic issues. Stuff like marijuana legalization, an income tax cut for the poor and middle class, lower pay for legislators and gambling deregulation.

I agree, that's the way to sell it here. I think that anti-war, anti-wall street bailout, pro marijuana (at least medical), lower tax, cut waste/balance budget, pro-civil liberties, State's rights type Republicans would do well. The message of not letting people 3,000 miles away in Washington overturn decisions made by Oregonians would be popular.

And for as liberal as Oregon is... outside of the Portland area Republicans actually do well. The State House is split 50/50, and the last election for Governor was 49.29% to 47.77%.

So with the right candidates that will now actually get support from the ORGOP it should be possible to win here.

[Jackie Moon]

[angelatc]

thats excellent

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

You do know that Art is a creationist and is discredited as a scientist. I don't know why, but i think they will use this against rand. Nevermind, he'll make Oregon awesome.

[Sola_Fide]

You do know that Art is a creationist and is discredited as a scientist. I don't know why, but i think they will use this against rand. Nevermind, he'll make Oregon awesome.

Please link or explain how he is "discredited as a scientist". I will wait for you to post and answer...and you better back up your claim right now or it is going to be you who is discredited.

[TaftFan]

Please link or explain how he is "discredited as a scientist". I will wait for you to post and answer...and you better back up your claim right now or it is going to be you who is discredited.

Discredited by who? Maddow?

[eduardo89]

You do know that Art is a creationist and is discredited as a scientist. I don't know why, but i think they will use this against rand. Nevermind, he'll make Oregon awesome.

Darwinian evolution isn't scientific either, so what's your point?

[Sola_Fide]

Darwinian evolution isn't scientific either, so what's your point?

I agree, but the Roman Catholic church-state endorses evolution.

[eduardo89]

I agree, but the Roman Catholic church-state endorses evolution.

No, it doesn't, but it does not reject the possibility of evolutionary creationism. The Church cannot make infallible pronouncements on anything but Revelation, faith and morals. That said, Darwinist evolution has been categorically denounced as incompatible with Christianity by the Church:

All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism", the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves).

...

Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Venerable Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis

Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

Blessed Pope John Paul II

The Church condemns any version of evolution which omits the Creator, which reduces humans to mere animals, which rejects original sin, or which claims that we are descended from multiple humans and not just Adam and Eve.

Any scientific theory regarding human development must conform to the following beliefs which a Catholic must accept:

All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.
God was moved by His Goodness to create the world.
The world was created for the Glorification of God.
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation.
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity.
God has created a good world.
The world had a beginning in time.
God alone created the world.
God keeps all created things in existence.
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created.

The First Vatican Council in 1869 when addressing science and evolution pronounced infallibly:

On God the creator of all things:

If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.
If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.
If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self-determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.
If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

So no, the Church does not endorse Darwin but leaves open the possibility of theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism which is not incompatible with Scripture.

[Sola_Fide]

So no, the Church does not endorse Darwin but leaves open the possibility of theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism which is not incompatible with Scripture.

As usual, you are wrong. The Catholic Catechism # 337 says:

God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creatorsymbolically as a succession of six days of divine 'work,'concluded by the 'rest' of the seventh day.

This is wrong because no where in the Scripture is it explained that the work of creation is to be understood as symbolic. God gave the six literal days as a pattern for the Jews to follow (resting on the seventh). Saying the genesis account is only "symbolic" leaves the door open for millions of years and leaves the door open for Darwinism.

Then it goes on to say:

On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to 'recognize the inner nature, the value, and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.

So it even connects this unbiblical idea that Genesis is symbolic with our very salvation. You MUST believe in evolution and millions of years according to Rome because the subject of Rome's view of creation is "truth revealed by God for our salvation".

Rome is Satan's perfect counterfeit to the true gospel in every way. It uses Christian sounding words while it denies the fundamental truths of Christianity. This issue of creation is no different.

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

Darwinian evolution isn't scientific either, so what's your point?

nothing, just a paranoid concern. I recently binged on a bunch of political stuff, and "denialism" has become a small but increasingly powerful smear.

[FrankRep]

You do know that Art is a creationist and is discredited as a scientist. I don't know why, but i think they will use this against rand. Nevermind, he'll make Oregon awesome.

Rachel Maddow, is that you?

Ron Paul is a Creationist too. Yep. One of those evil Christians you despise.

[Feeding the Abscess]

http://www.artforcongress.com/issues/national-defense

Art or someone representing Art agreed with a commenter who stated support for pulling out of international alliances... aside from Israel.

I'm not really sure how steeped Art is in the philosophy of non-aggression, as opposed to (mostly) falling on the correct side of an issue due to possessing a modicum of common sense. A Gary Johnson, of sorts, with obviously different value systems. Which is nonetheless a vast improvement over essentially everyone else in the Republican party on the national level.

If my fiancee and I decide to leave California for Oregon, I suppose this would be an added bonus.

[devil21]

Good for Art! Thanks for the post OP.

Looks like the libs are foaming at the mouth over his win in comment sections. When you're catching flak you know you're over the target!

Art needs to get Rand out there for a fundraiser asap. Ron endorsed Art and they are friends.

[LibertyEagle]

Wait! Isn't he part of the generation that some can't wait to die off so that the younger generation can fix everything?

[helmuth_hubener]

Wait! Isn't he part of the generation that some can't wait to die off so that the younger generation can fix everything?

Yes, he is part of a generation which:

a) by and large holds extremely unfortunate views, and
b) is too old for those views to change in any significant way on any significant scale.

The older generation hates Ron Paul; they are by far the most anti-Ron Paul demographic. The older generation consumes the most mainstream media. The older generation loves the military. The older generation will continue state-worshiping until the day they die.

Of course, this in no way impugns Art Robinson. He is an outlier, as are we all.

[tod evans]

Yes, he is part of a generation which:

a) by and large holds extremely unfortunate views, and
b) is too old for those views to change in any significant way on any significant scale.

The older generation hates Ron Paul; they are by far the most anti-Ron Paul demographic. The older generation consumes the most mainstream media. The older generation loves the military. The older generation will continue state-worshiping until the day they die.

Of course, this in no way impugns Art Robinson. He is an outlier, as are we all.

There are way more of us than you think....

[helmuth_hubener]

There are way more of us than you think....

No, I think I have a pretty accurate idea. Even if there were ten times as many liberty-lovers over 55 as I estimate, the over-55 demographic would still be by far the most liberty-hating demographic. And of course they are by far the most resistant to ideological change.

The strategic conclusion that follows from these simple facts is simple: focus resources on converting the young. Ignore the old, or as LibertyEagle would put it, wait for them to die. This is just basic common sense. Go for the low-hanging fruit.

Ron Paul followed and follows this strategy. Tons of college campuses, zero retirement communities.

[LibertyEagle]

No, I think I have a pretty accurate idea. Even if there were ten times as many liberty-lovers over 55 as I estimate, the over-55 demographic would still be by far the most liberty-hating demographic. And of course they are by far the most resistant to ideological change.

The strategic conclusion that follows from these simple facts is simple: focus resources on converting the young. Ignore the old, or as LibertyEagle would put it, wait for them to die. This is just basic common sense. Go for the low-hanging fruit.

Ron Paul followed and follows this strategy. Tons of college campuses, zero retirement communities.

It's not accurate to say, "as LibertyEagle says", as I was quoting some of the foolish younger generation in their comments.

Whether you like it or not, it is the older Americans who vote. Ignore them and you will lose. Where this movement has been losing them has been because of a lack of understanding marketing 101. You talk to people about what concerns them; not just what you want to bloviate about. And no, their hot item is probably not going to be getting high or free sex. There are still a lot of Americans out there who want their country back. They have to be shown how that can be done without scaring the ever loving crap out of them that what you are suggesting wouldn't be much worse than the crap they know we already have.

By the way, did you realize that Ron Paul is part of that older generation?