Ron Paul

-->
Congress

The indispensable Dave Neiwert has a post up about Ron Paul’s legislative record. Those who have the mistaken impression that Paul is not so right wing because of his stand on Iraq should read this post and be corrected.

Update: See also “White Supremacists Rallying Around Ron Paul’s Presidential Campaign.” No surprise. States’ rights, you know.

Update: Patrick Nielsen Hayden writes,

If you think “the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view,” that “the notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers,” that “the collectivist Left hates religion,” and that “the secularists [are waging] an ongoing war against religion…Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war,” gosh do I have a Presidential candidate for you! His name is Ron Paul.

Folks, the man’s a five-alarm whackjob. He only looks good to some because he’s running in a field of six-alarm whackjobs.

Share
9 Comments

8 Comments

  1. Desert Rat  •  Nov 12, 2007 @9:36 am

    The key word here is “federal”. To prohibit the federal government from funding or being involved in activities and controls that it has no business doing (not allowed in the constitution.) His position is that the states or the people should be making those decisions and NOT directed by the criminals in Washington, D.C.. The Constitution places a great many restrictions on what the federal government can actually do. But you know that… I think.

  2. maha  •  Nov 12, 2007 @10:53 am

    Desert Rat: Some of us think that the federal government legitimately may protect U.S. citizens from violation of their rights by state governments. Indeed, the 14th Amendment was specifically written for this purpose, even though this clear intention was subverted by some late 19th century SCOTUS opinions. Damn activist judges.

    Although it wouldn’t happen everywhere, if states were allowed to establish religions and criminalize abortions, many of them would do so, in essence setting up little theocracies in which citizens’ freedoms of religion and of their persons would be violated willy-nilly. If the federal courts or other federal organs are not allowed to intervene, in practice any of the Bill of Rights could be voided in those states. Again, this is a violation of the clear intention of the 14th Amendment.

    Exactly why “libertarians” are in favor of this is baffling to me. In essence, “libertarians” seem to be OK with having the jack boot of oppression on their necks as long as state and not federal government is wearing the boot.

    Ask any African American who lived under the old “Jim Crow” laws — states can be damn oppressive.

    In other circumstances, Paul seems to want to use the federal government to dictate policy to states, such as his support of a federal law that would bestow full rights of citizenship upon zygotes. Although that may sound fine (to some) in theory, in practice it renders pregnant women into brood animals who have been stripped of their 4th Amendment right to be secure in their persons.

    In short, bleep that. If that’s your idea of “liberty,” you can have it.

  3. ray  •  Nov 12, 2007 @11:04 am

    Dave Neiwert has repeatedly attacked Ron Paul but he has never let facts get in his way. Ron Paul introduced a constitutional amendment against flag burning because members of congress were submitting blantantly unconstitutional bills to prohibit flag burning. Ron Paul said due to the first ammendment a constitutional amendment would be needed. He then wrote one up, declared if they really wanted to ban flag burning they should do it the proper way, then he voted against it. This is his speech on the floor of the house.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/…aul/paul99.html

    He also introduced a resolution to go to war with iraq then promptly voted against it. Ron Paul has a history of rewriting unconstitutional legislation to make it constitutional and then voting against it.

    If you find something wrong with this let me know but Dave Neiwert is being intentionally misleading as he always has been. He has an agenda you know.

    Ron Paul has also written 6 books about using gold as money. That may be a good place to start to get his views on the subject.

  4. maha  •  Nov 12, 2007 @11:21 am

    Dave Neiwert has repeatedly attacked Ron Paul but he has never let facts get in his way.

    Dave is actually more careful with facts than most other bloggers. I’ve met him and consider him to be a personal friend, and I don’t take kindly to smears of my friends.

    Ron Paul introduced a constitutional amendment against flag burning because members of congress were submitting blantantly unconstitutional bills to prohibit flag burning. Ron Paul said due to the first ammendment a constitutional amendment would be needed. He then wrote one up, declared if they really wanted to ban flag burning they should do it the proper way, then he voted against it.

    Dave actually links to the flag amendment bill that Ron Paul introduced, which makes him a lot more careful with facts than you are. This bill would have permitted states to ban flag burning, in essence voiding the 1st and 14th Amendments in those states by legislative fiat. This bill never made it out of committee, according to the LOC THOMAS records.

    This is his speech on the floor of the house.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/…aul/paul99.html

    The link doesn’t work.

    He also introduced a resolution to go to war with iraq then promptly voted against it. Ron Paul has a history of rewriting unconstitutional legislation to make it constitutional and then voting against it.

    Constitutional in his opinion, which is extremely questionable.

    If you find something wrong with this let me know but Dave Neiwert is being intentionally misleading as he always has been. He has an agenda you know.

    To speak plainly, Dave is a good and honest man who has written several books on civil liberties and the dangers of right-wing extremism. You would probably learn a lot from reading them.

    Ron Paul has also written 6 books about using gold as money. That may be a good place to start to get his views on the subject.

    Remarkable. The word “crackpot” does come to mind.

  5. rhys  •  Nov 12, 2007 @11:39 am

    If the Federal Government is here to protect our Rights, then they do a terrible job, and I would have them stop. For instance, everyone who believes the Federal government ought to be able to step in and protect First Amendment Rights also believes that States and the Federal Government may violate Second and Tenth Amendment Rights. Why does the Federal Government protect my Right to free speech, but not my right to keep and bear arms?. And there is no doubt that keep and bear means to own and carry, and arms are any kind of firearm including automatic rifles.

    Why would the Federal Government protect my Right to Due Process, but not my Right to organize my State into a theocracy? After all, MA used to have a church tax; a clear violation of the First Amendment. But, if you doubt that I have the Right to organize my State into Communist or Theocratic rule, here is the Tenth Amendment to the Constituition:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Here are the only powers prohibited to the States:

    Article1;Section 10:
    “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

    As you can see, the reason why the the Federal Government must uphold the Second Amendment and must refrain from interfereing with my ability to own automatic rifles, is that States have the Right to engage in War with foreign nations if they are invaded or in imminent danger.

    My point: A Federal Government determining its own Jurisdiction makes its discreation and not the Constitution the limit of its powers. This brings the tyranny of the majority. I would rather be tyrannized by my State, so I can protect myself by moving to a free State, than be tyrannized by my Federal Government requiring me to flee the country for protection. Why do you think the Norther States were for the Civil Rights Act? They didn’t want blacks to flee the southern States and settle in the northern States. So, they forced integration in the south in an attempt to keep blacks out of the north.

  6. Darel99  •  Nov 12, 2007 @11:45 am

    No news here just some left wing blogger seeking web traffic.

    Just keep moving

  7. maha  •  Nov 12, 2007 @12:22 pm

    If the Federal Government is here to protect our Rights, then they do a terrible job, and I would have them stop. For instance, everyone who believes the Federal government ought to be able to step in and protect First Amendment Rights also believes that States and the Federal Government may violate Second and Tenth Amendment Rights.

    You must be utterly ignorant of American history and know absolutely nothing about the long and hard fight of several generations of LIBERALS that enable people to enjoy their rights as U.S. citizens with less interference from either public or private powers.This job is not finished, but we’ve come a long way. “Libertarians,” as I’ve said, want to give state government the right to oppress them wholesale. You people must hate yourselves.

    Ron Paul wants to reverse the 14th Amendment without going through the Constitutional amendment process and allow states to violate the rights of U.S. citizens within their jurisdictions. You are too stupid to see that, but I am not.

  8. maha  •  Nov 12, 2007 @12:23 pm

    No news here just some left wing blogger seeking web traffic.

    Believe me, dude, I DO NOT WANT traffic from the likes of you. I get enough traffic on my own, thank you very much.

    Which is why I’m closing comments. I don’t have time to waste trying to converse with semi-educated dittoheads.

1 Trackback



    About this blog



    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    The Mahablog

    ↑ Grab this Headline Animator



    Support This Site





    site design and daughterly goodness

    eXTReMe Tracker












      Technorati Profile