IMO Ron Paul is the only candidate that truly cares about our civil liberties and is not in the pocket of special interests. He never voted for the war, he never voted for the patriot act, he always votes according to the constitution.
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
Yea! I really hope Ron Paul does good in the Republican primaries...but I know he won't. The Republican party has become too orthodox and he doesn't stand a chance....Maybe the Unity Party can help him.
"The harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph," Thomas Paine
You ARE joking, right? Ron Paul is a JOKE, bordering on embarrasing! Thomas Paine is likely ROFL as we speak!
I have heard many of Congressmen Paul’s arguments and ideas. I like some. I dislike others. I don’t support his votes on either the war or the patriot act. However he dose follow the Constitution and that’s what we need.
I think Dr. Paul will win this first NH Straw Poll sponsored by the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers to be held in Contookook, NH this Saturday. IMO he is head and shoulders above anyone else running or even considering running.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
He seems to be doing far better on line than in the Republican polls. Once Paul was asked about this, and he responded, "Well, maybe freedom is popular," You got to agree with that! :)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph," Thomas Paine
Yeah, I think Ron Paul has a serious chance. Even if the republican party big wigs don't want him to win, he is still being voted in by the PEOPLE. So it doesn't matter if he's "out of step" with teh party.. as long as he's in step with most americans (not even most americans! because most americans don't vote! but anyone who hears Ron Paul's message will be inspired to vote, because they will know that this time their vote is actually going to count for something. Ron Paul has a chance! His message is spreading like wildfire on the internet, and i think that it will transfre over to the real word eventually. I'm a member of a facebook group that raised over $40,000 for him and 2 weeks! this is from college kids! Ron Paul CAN win, but we all need to step it up for him! and for america!
Ron Paul on ABC News this Sunday
Presidential candidate Ron Paul will be interviewed for 15 minutes by ABC News' chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos this Sunday, July 8, on the program "This Week."
Tell everyone to tune in and watch, especially those who aren't decided how they will vote in the upcoming election. Also watch for an attempt to discredit him and his message as this is the MSM modus operani toward Dr. Paul.
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2007/070612.shtml
Excellent article about Dr. Paul by someone who has known him for over 25 years. Dr. Paul is a man of character, integrity and honesty, traits sorely missing in politicians today.
If you can't watch that ABC program, just watch this Youtube video:
______________________________________________________________________
"The harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph," Thomas Paine
I love Ron Paul, and I plan to vote for him in the Republican Primaries, but I honestly have to say that his chances of winning are dismal for several reasons. But that doesn't mean he can't make a difference. If he causes enough of a splash in the election, it will encourage other politicians to cater to his message and his voter base. It would be wonderful to see the GOP realize how far they've drifted from their small government ideals (Clinton is probably the most conservative president we've had since Reagan!) and start moving back towards them.
I think Ron Paul will do better than most people are giving him credit for, especially considering his campaign is nearly entirely grassroots based. I think Ron Paul's message is the way of the future, as pleasuretool pointed out hes very popular among the youth, but I just don't think hes right for the present. Its much more likely he'll pave the way for someone else to follow after him.
and I hope he goes away!
Alligator: All mouth and no ears. Well you are not going to be a happy camper come election day when the "moron" is elected President by a landslide. Who would be your choice alligator? Are your really Sean Hannity?
This fellow sounds like a man who fell out of a tree and landed on his head.
The talking heads don't seem to get it, but I thought you just might:
"Dear Charles, (Osgood - "CBS Sunday Morning")
Just thought I would check your side of the battle front to see how the war is going.
This week, the first week of 2024, I received an email from the U.S. State department that I found rather disturbing, and was hoping someone in the media would also find it disturbing. On Thursday I sent it to our self-proclaimed "Culture Warrior" friend, Bill O'Reilly, then followed-up with a call to his show on Friday. I was quite surprised to discover he didn't seem to "get it." (Show is available on pod cast.)
Here is what I sent to Bill:
"Dear Bill,
This just in. Over the holidays I had contacted the U.S. Information Agency, and The U.S. State Department to see if the Declaration of Independence is available from either of those sources in Arabic. Read for your self. It's not! The real question is: "Does the United States still believe in what it hopes to impose on Iraq."
In my opinion this is the core question/problem, even where the Culture War is concerned!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: United States Declaration of Independence [Incident: 061229-000185]
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2024 09:39:27 -0500 (EST)
From: U.S. Department of State
Reply-To: U.S. Department of State
To: jferris154@mac.com
Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support
center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.
Thank you for contacting the State Department.
Subject
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Declaration of Independence
Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Response (Support agent) - 01/03/2007 09:39 AM
Thank you for contacting the U.S. Department of State.
You might want to try googling it. Unfortunately, this is not a document that we have.
Sorry we were unable to help.
Thank you again for contacting us.
Question Reference #061229-000185
---------------------------------------------------------------
Date Created: 12/29/2006 11:30 PM
Last Updated: 01/03/2007 09:39 AM
Status: Solved
[---001:000710:59340---]
Bill, perhaps if only our State Department spoke their language, and really believed in what we claim we stand for, it wouldn't be necessary for our War Department to rely on bombs, bullets, and gallows, at least, not in the first instance. Seems like "... a decent respect for the opinions of mankind... " would have made dropping pamphlets a better alternative!
As for your part, may you know the thrill of victory as a "Culture Warrior!"
James Jay Ferris - Golden Valley, NC
P.S. I was working in Germany when the Iron curtain came down, and Eastern Europe was crying out with questions as to how to be free. I asked the State Department then if they had the "Declaration" in the German language. The answer was that they only had it in French, Spanish, and English. :-\ (The irony was/is that the first time it was published it was in German.) Even then I was reminded of a book written back in the 60s by an FBI man. It had "Treason" in the title. Perhaps you remember it. What has been betrayed, and by whom?
I hope to call in tomorrow, just thought I would provide the evidence ahead of the call."
So Charles, now I'm wondering if anyone on your side "gets it." Here's the problem as I see it. If this country is intent on bringing the "culture of freedom" to other cultures and nations. Wouldn't it be better to start by communicating in their native language, the reason and principles of our own existence as a nation, rather than to start with more violent means?
Perhaps I'm just old fashioned, but that seems like a no brainer to me, no matter which side of the culture war you happen to be on.
This is so patently obvious that I can only conclude the powers that be in this country, either the media powers or the other governmental powers have already repudiated the stated reasons for this country's existence. In short, it has become apparent that the "U.S. Declaration of independence" is no longer considered politically correct. This being the case, the next obvious question is,
"Whose idea of freedom are we trying to drop on Iraq?"
Shouldn't this kind of question be an acceptable part of the public dialogue, unless of course freedom has already lost the war even in this country? If we ourselves no longer agree on what we stand for, does it really make sense to be bombing others to get them to stand for the same thing?
Just one more observation:
The reason for the existence of governments stated in the "Declaration" is the securing of rights to life, in a sense the power to live. What occurs to me is that, as Dams secure the power of water, Governments secure the power to live. When a dam leaks or breaks, it doesn't make sense to work on the problem downstream rather than upstream. The stated reason for our existence is upstream of our history. The refusal to go there to work on the problem becomes more and more suspect with each passing day. Surely, like Rodney Dangerfield, "... the opinions of mankind... " have already noticed.
Whatever happened to the "... respect..." part of the deal?
Terrified, but not with what's going on overseas,
James Jay Ferris"
I think Ron Paul will get a majority of his votes from the Muslim voters.
Apparently, Ron Paul is the only candidate that can read (the Constitution). He doesn't think of the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome, but as the supreme law of the land. I am skeptical of his chances, but he is definetly educating people. If not Ron Paul, perhaps one of his pupils at a later date (if we have time for a later date). The libertarian philosophy is gaining ground.
IMHO, the libertarian philosophy in general and Ron Paul in particular have pretty interesting points about internal policies, but have no clue about international affairs. They want to reason with maniacs. They have no idea how to confront enemies.
Their solution for today's US is to follow the general pattern of 17th - 18-th century (note to Ron Paul, it was a Tripoli War against Muslim Terrorists of that time conducted by the same people, who wrote US Constitution).
What escapes them is that in 18th century US was out of reach of any enemies from other continents, terrorists (if such things existed at that time) could kill only under dozen people before they will be lynched at the spot and that world trade, USA benefited from, was policed by UK Navy.
All these preconditions are gone.
I would agree that Ron Paul's ideas on the middle east make me nervous, but no more so than anyone elses. The last three presidents we've had didn't exactly do a bang up job either. We might Be better off if we had done nothing. What I understand of his view on militant Islam is that we should leave them alone, not reason with them, and the place to confront our enemies is at our border. I think we should probably stretch that out a bit farther than the border.
My view on Iraq is the same one I had the day we invaded. I remember watching the news and saying to myself "It will take ten years to get out with any success, and the American people no longer have the stomach for it". If we are not going to stay the ten years, we might as well get out now.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, he isn't perfect, but he is a one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind, and he is running for President, not King. There is another branch of gov't to moderate his views.
What I understand of his view on militant Islam is that we should leave them alone, not reason with them, and the place to confront our enemies is at our border.
Unfortunately for that theory, we need an international trade going on and militant islamists unopposed will soon take over one crucial piece of world real estate - Persian Golf with all its oil. It is also spreading into another crucial piece of world real estate - European Union.
I think we should probably stretch that out a bit farther than the border.
Yes, much farther.
While civil liberties are essential to our concept of freedom, I believe the issues that threaten our freedom go beyond a focus that merely treats the symptoms. IMO government has become awkward and wasteful for it has grown too much and its purpose has become unrecognizable in many respects. However, I am unwilling to throw away the wisdom of our predecessors because we are focused on the mistakes. I believe we need to correct the mistakes by changing them to fit new circumstances. A broad statement that assumes we will be better off to discard all the changes that history has invoked, dooms us to repeat those mistakes.
I don't believe for one second that our constitution is static and has just one interpretation that never changes. If that were the case, the judicial branch would not have been created and provisions would not have been incorporated into the constituion to amend it to fit the changing times. The American milieu of today is different from yesterday. We cannot simply deny the context of our times. To do so is to retreat to a modern day form of isolation that believes ignorance is bliss. I shudder to think that people are willing to sacrifice the long term survival of freedom for the momentary bliss of reliving a past that is no longer there. The Libertarian fallacy is to ignore the changes in the progression of civilization.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
The Bill of Rights reflect the BASIC RIGHTS that are required for both individual freedom and to still maintain a Republic that benefits most people in most instances. There is no "Perfect" govenment, because people are not perfect. It's amazing it works as well as it does. The "Great Experiment" is a success.
All people in government try to maintain and expand their powers over the masses. They may believe it's for the best, or it may be to make their job easier. For instance, the reason the Feds wanted the Domestic Spying law changed last month to where no Judge is required for Taps or Warrents is because "Probable Cause" is getting in their way. It's too difficult to prove when people are innocent, so just remove it, change the law. And they did.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution exists to keep the Central Government from gaining too much power over it's citizens. Our Founders were smarter than us. Th only thing that has changed is technology. People are exactly the same. They are power hungry and greedy. Never give up ANY rights or Civil Liberties. It will only lead to an eventual popular uprising at best, or a revolution at worst.
This nation has had three popular uprisings, a Civil War, a failed Coup, and the original Revolution. And thats in less than 200 years, WITH the Bill of Rights. The people in this great Nation will not tolerate a government that attepts to consiladate it's power. It's being attempted now and the people themselves and the individual States are beginning to get wise.
The government now assumes everyone is guilty, and you must you're not.
You have to prove you are who you say you are because they assume you are lying. God forbid you carry cash to by a used car. When they confiscate your cash, you have to prove you had a legal reason for carrying $2000, before you can get it back. It cost more than it's worth and it literally takes years. Again, it's assumed you were doing something illegal. No Probable Cause necessary, no investigation, just "your obviously guilty of something".
Again, for the third time, the FBI was caught abusing National Security Letters, and gathering illegal inforamtion through fishing expeditions. These Rights exist to protect us. We should actually INCREASE our protection under THE Constitution, not decrease it to compensate for technology.
We are not the criminals. Anyone who breaks the highest law in the land is.
I don't disagree that there have been recent abuses of civil liberties. As an ex-NSA employee from many many years ago, eavesdropping on domestic communications was always a big no-no. However, the question about the role of Ron Paul is about more than just the Bill of Rights. My point is that simply dismantling the government creates more problems than it solves because we would be removing much wisdom based on the context in which America operates.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Founding documents like the Declaration of Independence contains concepts about rights that are not static and must complement and add to the civil liberties contained in the Bill of Rights.
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.
We are witness today to rights that are evolving. Healthcare for all is one good example. While it may not happen today, tomorrow, or the next, rest assured that we will no longer be able to deny people this basic right. The juggernaut is coming. It can either roll over us or we can embrace the idea and shape it appropriately.
All our liberties found in the Bills of Rights will not be static once they become redefined in terms of what their relation is to the right to basic healthcare.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
I'm sure your right about health care. The piglets are squealing loudly. I would predict that regardless which party(ies) is(are) in control of the gov't in January '09, by January '10, we will have some form of UHC. As unconstitutional as it is. Even giving the Declaration of Independence legal weight it does not own, it says we are endowed by our CREATOR with the right to PURSUE happiness. The only other legal authorization that comes close is "Promote the general welfare". Right next to that in the Constitution is "Provide for the common defense". If congress was authorized to fund the general welfare, as it is clearly authorized to fund the common defense, wouldn't it say "Provide for the general welfare"? But I digress, we pay little attention to the Constitution, and UHC may be the nail in its coffin.
We will have firmly planted our feet on the road to socialism, or fascism, since there is little difference. They both abdicate more power to the gov't.
Dr Walter Williams presents a very good litmus test for what is a right and what is not. "The exercise of your rights requires no action on my part".
I really don't see this "progress" as a problem. I know it isn't socialism or facism. It becomes an issue when government takes it upon itself to act without the consent of the governed. To me the words, "Of, By, & For" the people is where the authority should emanate from. If it does not emanate from the people, then we must stand up against the pretending authority. I see this U08 movement as a step in that direction.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Then shall we have all our needs fulfilled by the gov't of the people, by the people and for the people? Where is the line drawn? At what point do we stop stealing private property at gunpoint in order to "fulfill the needs of the people"? Housing? Food? Transportation? Sex change? Liquor? Is there some other way to finance UHC? How do we resolve the conflict between one's set in stone right to private property, and a pie in the sky "right" to health care? Does this pass Dr. Williams test? If taxes are not raised to support it, then will the debt rise, or shall we miss an opportunity to keep more of our property? Will handing the responsibility for our health to the gov't not increase it's power? What other definition of socialism is there? Is not the control of a thing the same as ownership?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, Phil. That's why the Constitution restricts the power of the fed gov't to Article I section 2, a very short list.(and UHC ain't on it)
Now that I think about it, it's not one foot on the road, we will be running down the highway.
But I digress again, It is inevitable. Alexander Tyler warned us 400 years ago. Think I'll go have another drink.
Like it or not, the people in this country have merged together and formed a government. A constitution was created as the guide to operate that government. People can and do change the constitution. Your value judgements about which rights are set in stone and which are not is merely your personal opinion. Courts interpret the constitution because its application is not clear. No one's private property is stolen if the people decide everyone must contribute. Its as simple as that.
Socialism is where you don't get to own private property.
You don't want a line. You want absolutes in a relative world!
Ownership of private property is a man made creation. We come into this world with nothing and we leave with nothing. Everything in between is relative.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
"Like it or not, the people in this country have merged together and formed a government" and they adopted a Constitution, and agreed it was the supreme law of the land.
I have seen no amendments reagarding health care.
Private property rights are set in the the stone of the 5th amendment. Health care rights are floating around in the air, hot air.
The courts "interpret" the Constitution when it's application IS clear.
If 218 representatives, 51 senators, 1 president, and 5 justices (275 people) decide they want my property to fund someone elses health care, and I don't voluntarily give it up, they will send thugs with guns to take it. Sounds suspiciously similar to armed robbery.
But there ARE absolutes in a relative world. It would greatly reduce the cost of health care if we executed every one over the age of 45. Shall we?
If the gov't is going to control the health care industry, they own it in all but title.
We come into this world with the love of our parents, if we are not unlucky.
We leave this world with hope for our posterity, if it hasn't been stolen.
I know, Alexander, I know, I'm wasting my time.
It isn't stealing unless the court says it is. The court of last resort is the Supreme Court. Arguments against specific legislative actions is up to courts to interpret because they decide the meaning and application of the Constitution. That is how it is set up. So, before a claim that the government is stealing has any legal basis, we have agreed that the Supreme Court will have the last say.
Now, the fact that the people, or the government, want you to contribute to a health care system that you say is not legal, does not make that action, in and of itself, stealing. Legislators have the authority to legislate. They are acting within their authority. There is a timeline here that needs to play out to determine the final legal status of their action. The mere fact that the government wants to proceed with something does not validate nor invalidate any claim to the contrary. The burden to show that any government action is illegal, when they are acting within their legislative authority, shifts to the complainant.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
I said nothing about a "legal" determination of theft, but an "actual" one.
The criminals that make up the majority of our gov't will legislate, and adjudicate, whatever is politically expedient. Hence Mr. Tyler's warning, and the need for a fundamental adherence to the Constitution, which we will not likely see again.
Okay, lets go with your perspective. The question then becomes whether the concept of individual civil liberties within a larger group are incompatible. Does freedom and rights permit the two to co-exist? From your previous posts you concede the need to have a line drawn. Presumably it is a line over which neither side can enter without permission. However, the line drawn can't usurp the authority of government to make laws and levy taxes. I think there will always be times where the rights of the group and the individual conflict. Whenever there is a line to separate areas of autonomy, there are bound to be areas approaching the line that become increasingly gray ground. This will be true no matter how clear we think the rules are. I think that is true for two reasons: 1) Ideals by their nature are more illusory than are concrete physical lines (even physical lines are indeterminate since one can not conceptualize the demarcation on either side of the line), and 2) Meaning is not a static concept for terms like civil liberties, rights, laws, etc. Epistemological concepts must be placed in a context when they are applied.
And I don't believe it is the group that is always in the wrong either. Individuals can take action that are perceived to be harmful to the group. However, rules are established that give people the benefit of the doubt. Are we to do any less when it comes to perceiving that the group has overstepped its bounds?
Phil
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://unity-usa.org
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
I hold Dr Walter Williams in high regard, so I will defer to one of his demarcations between the individual and the nation.
(paraphrased)
Given that taxes are no more, or less, than armed robbery(actual, not legal), funds collected as taxes should only be used for those activities absolutely necessary to the survival of the state. For instance, to "provide for the common defense".
(end)
You are correct in your description of the gray area near the line. The individual states should, and do, test this area often, giving us an opportunity to vote with our feet. The fed gov't should only approach it under the direst conditions, threatening to the survival of the nation.
Health care is a convenience. It allows us, in some cases, to live longer, healthier lives. If these benefits make it a right, then I suppose I have a right not to work for a living. Having no degree, most of the available employment is physical in nature and detrimental to my health. If I had known I had a right to a healthy life, I would not have become a pipefitter, and worn out my hands, knees, and shoulders. I would have stayed home and let the state support me. Hell, if I had done that, I wouldn't need health care. It would certainly have promoted MY welfare. To bad for the poor sucker(silly boy has a BS) next door who has to support me.(That's where the word "general" comes in.)
A thing most refuse to recognise is that those who put together our Constitution, aside from many being geniuses, lived in a unique period in history. The monarchies were slipping, and a vacuum was being created, but did not yet exist. They had personal experience with dictatorship, and knew what a gov't should NOT BE ALLOWED to do. They also realised that there were certain limited functions a gov't must BE ALLOWED to do. What they VERY CAREFULLY wrote down was a description of a gov't limited in authority to do only that which is necessary to preserve the nation, with a "Bill of Rights" that restricted even that authority.
I'm ranting again, sorry Alex.
Health care is a convenience? Disagree. I believe it is an inalienable right much as the right to freely practice one's religious beliefs.
Taxes are armed robbery? Disagree. Though I do believe there is a difference between just and unjust taxes.
Therein lies our difference.
So my question to you is, where can two people like you and me find agreement and both be willing to support a Unity08 platform that may not include our personal choice of candidates?
Phil
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://unity-usa.org
While good leaders are hard to find, great leaders know how to serve.
Health care is a convenience? Disagree. I believe it is an inalienable right much as the right to freely practice one's religious beliefs.
Is safe reliable cas also an inalienable right of every person in US?
Do we have inalienable right to were designer's cloths?
How about inalienable right to were an 18K gold jewelry?
How about inalienable right to some diamond to go with that jewelry?
And at least one bedroom per person should also be provided to everybody by US government (out of your taxes, of course).
Nope, don't believe those other things are rights.
Phil
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://unity-usa.org
While good leaders are hard to find, great leaders know how to serve.
We may NEVER agree, as I will ALWAYS hold the right of the individual superior to the power of the state. While I continue to support the Unity08 effort, for the time being, I will withhold my support for any platform, or candidate, until I have seen the final draft, the nominated candidates, and weighed alternatives, however hopeless they may be (I hold H. D. Thoreau in high regard also). I am not a "moderate" centrist, I am a "radical" centrist. To my mind, a moderate centrist position will result in a combination of the evils of the right and left, encourage us to even more so "vote themselves largess from the public treasury" and lead us a step closer to tyranny. I would prefer a gov't that attacks only half my liberty.
Not to ignore the progression of civilization, but to eliminate the regression of our gov't. We've got phone taps, silent searches, confiscation without due process, "free money", searches on "probable cause", corporations are people (thank you), eminent domain is for "benefit" instead of "use", self-incriminating tax returns, "promote" means the same thing as "provide for", the effective repeal of the 9th and 10 amendments, and on and on.
I agree, our Constitution was made flexible, by amendment, not by contorted "interpretation". It happens everytime we have a military conflict. People get scared, or nationalistic, and start throwing their rights out the window. Not realizing that without those rights, we are no better than our enemies. Fewer lives would be lost if we surrendered.
I agree that most Libertarians favor isolation too much. I nevertheless prefer it to imperialism.
I propose some corporation might have a colony on Mars by now if not for the interference and thievery of our gov't over the last 75 years. It's always been a problem, but the abuses have been growing exponentially since then.
You have probably done so, I find it remarkable that most of the time when the gov't is trying something I think is dubious, If I look to the Constitution, It's not allowed. We are so far over the line, we can't see where the line is.
John Ashcroft made a very good point while speaking at the NRA today about changing existing or making new laws. He believes the ultimate test should be: "Does this Enhance our Liberty and Freedom?". If the answer is "Yes", then it passes. He also made it clear that the present Administration has got it wrong and there is now more of a demand for Privacy and Anonymity than before. This is because "The Role of Security is to Enhance Our Liberty, not Restrict It". Where are these guys, when we need them?
Civil liberty seems to have taken on a different meaning to most of government these days. Here is one example of how government outlook is different from that of our past government: http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm We have the largest incarceration per capita in the world and it is mostly for made up crimes.
I don't trust the neocons, repubs, or democrats anymore. I am hoping that Ron Paul will eventually run on an independent ticket. He has already said he would not do that, but I can hope. Anybody who thinks Ron Paul is a nut job, then they are watching too much "brainwashing cable TV". I believe he would protect and uphold the constitution/Bill of Rights better than anyone. I do not agree with everything he stands for, but the issue of civil liberties is an extremely important one.