Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: Will The Real Ron Paul Please Stand Up!
Loading...

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Friday, October 19, 2007

Will The Real Ron Paul Please Stand Up!








WILL THE REAL RON PAUL PLEASE STAND UP!

Ron Paul a Conservative, Constitutionalist, libertarian, or is he, and let me get this out of the way right up front, an idiot or nut, or some combination of the components? I’m not sure whether it’s stupidity or insanity, senility or a master plan, but he is definitely not consistent!
After this research, (129 Pgs. Text_28,217 words), I feel like I need a BIG BUTTERFLY NET.

If you go looking for semblance of consistency, a thread of tightly woven philosophy you are in for a long night.

But here’s the thing: He’s pissing off all the right people. And for that reason, a lot of people can’t help getting a serious case of the giggles whenever they hear his name.

Ron Paul is the lunatic fringe Presidential candidate of the 2008 election season. He’s gained a lot of traction among some very narrow segments of the voting public because his positions can be summed up in pithy, easy-to-agree-with sound bites. Paul is against the war. Paul supports the Constitution. Blah blah blah. But an in depth, serious examination of Mr. reveals some very unsettling truths.

Of course, once people get a whiff of Paul’s actual policy positions, the typical reaction is a raised eyebrow followed by increasingly insistent requests to change the subject.

Ron Paul has called for the abolition of the Department of Education. Yeah, I know. Read that again. He wants to abolish the Department of Education, turning public education in America into an unsupervised free-for-all among the fifty states and countless thousands of districts.

He wants the United States to completely withdraw from NATO, and he wants us to end all foreign aid.

He opposed the various military actions of the past five years, sure, but his idea of an alternative was to grant letters of marque, essentially reviving the centuries-old notion of legalized piracy. The man’s insane.

That doesn’t even get into the dude’s fundamental contradictions. He says he’s a strict Constitutionalist, but he introduced a piece of legislation called the Sanctity of Life Act that would have summarily defined human life as beginning at conception, a power that the Constitution does not grant the Congress.

He also introduced the wonderful sounding We the People Act that would have unconstitutionally gutted the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

I think I’ve made my point here. I think we can all agree that Ron Paul is a crank.

But here’s my thing: He’s a very entertaining crank. Oh, not he himself. Listening to him speak is like watching a cat throw up; the remote possibility exists that something interesting might come out, but all you ever end up with is a nasty mess. But what makes him entertaining is how incredibly pissed off certain people get whenever Ron Paul’s name comes up.

Remember those self-described “small-government conservatives” who participated in the White House’s chaff operation in 2005 and 2006 through the “Porkbusters” initiative? The gang of pundits, bloggers and media personalities — or all three at once — who ignored the then-nascent Military Commissions Act of 2006 to focus on their fervent jihad against federal spending? Those guys? Yeah.

They fucking hate Ron Paul, man. Why? Because his ludicrously extreme positions are the logical conclusion of the political philosophy they embraced so publicly. You want to claim in front of the cameras that you’re all about small government? Fine. Explain why we shouldn’t get rid of the FDA, or shut the hell up.

It’s the small-government crowd that despises Ron Paul most fervently.

They’ve even come up with disparaging names for Ron Paul fans: Paulies, Paulbots, Pauliens, Paulites, Paulers and, my personal favorite, Paul Bearers.

Of course, Paul’s army of young, technologically savvy, not-all-that-bright supporters are ripe for scoffing parody. But the most vocal derision comes not from the people who should oppose Ron Paul on philosophical grounds, but those who, according to how they describe themselves, really should agree with him!

Ron Paul is the court jester of the 2007 political year. He makes a mockery of the reigning elites, not by pointing and laughing at them, but by emulating them so faithfully that everybody else points and laughs at him.

And the elites, of course, hate him. Because he puts them in an impossible position. They can’t disavow his philosophy, because it’s their own.

But they can’t embrace him, because he’s a crazy person. So what do they do? They call him names, inadvertently calling attention to him and making the rest of us point and laugh even harder.

But enough of this kind of talk; Ron Paul Is Wrong; But Not Totally Wrong…however enough so that he is a NO for me.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/27/17011/1637

All right, I’ve played fast and loose with the rhetoric and I would be critical of all writers who would do so with Dennis Kucinich and leave it like that on the table. I won’t hide behind that technique an offer you, for your own examination ample research source materials to evaluate Mr. Paul.

It is, however, a fact that he is a collection of contradictions that don’t add up well in the final analysis. I acknowledge that I have a thing for consistency and recognize where one person will see consistency as principled a spin artist on the other side will whip out word “ideologue”.

Arguments over the words, consistency, principled and ideologue have filled many an hour. I often initiate the debate with matters of life and death…that’s simple enough.

I hold that if you believe in the sanctity of life; you must be, logically: opposed to: abortion, capital punishment, war as an instrumentality of the state and euthanasia. That pretty much covers the basics from the cradle to the grave. On the other hand those who would hold that position could logically support: abortion, capital punishment, war as a state instrumentality and euthanasia.

You see the problem when you examine the two logical positions as we would see them defined as being either conservative or liberal advocacies in today’s world. We are inconsistent as hell, so I guess some measure of tolerance of Mr. Paul’s staked out positions is to be expected, respected and tolerated….I said some.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/030306bushimpeachment.htm
Republican Congressman Ron Paul has gone on record with his prediction that the impeachment of George W. Bush is right around the corner but warned that in the meantime the US was slipping perilously close to a dictatorship.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/100706impeachbush.htm
Republican Congressman Ron Paul says President Bush has presided over a system wide doctrine of violating the Constitution at every turn and that he should be impeached - but that likely Democratic efforts to do so will be in the interests of playing politics and not the health of the nation.

RON PAUL COMPETES FOR THE UNABOMBER VOTE

Now, Ron Paul often sounds like the most sane GOP candidate during debates. And who knows? Maybe he is. But that's not so much praise of Ron Paul as damning of the other nuts on the stage with him.

Ron Paul is a wacko. And I don't say that inadvisedly. Yes, there's the nuttiness of the generalized libertarian "eliminate the government/return to the gold standard" rhetoric, but the real kookiness lies in Paul's cozy relationship with the Patriot movement.

But Then You Have This..

RON PAUL INTRODUCES AMERICAN FREEDOM AGENDA ACT OF 2007 (H.R. 3835)

At The Daily Kos

At The Library Of Congress

CONTENTS WIKIPEDIA ON RON PAUL

1 Foreign policy

1.1 Nonintervention

1.1.1 Iraq

1.1.2 Iran

1.1.3 International organizations

1.1.4 Other interventions

1.2 Free trade

1.3 Secure borders and immigration

1.4 Terror response

1.4.1 Letters of marque and reprisal

1.4.2 Investigation

1.4.3 Rejection of conspiracy theory

2 Economy

2.1 Lower taxes and smaller government

2.2 Minimize federal interference

2.3 Importance of hard currency

2.4 Income tax resistance

3 Civil liberties

3.1 Habeas corpus

3.2 Domestic surveillance

3.3 Conscription

3.4 Prohibition/drug laws

3.4.1 Medical marijuana

3.4.2 Industrial hemp

3.4.3 Prohibition

3.5 Second Amendment rights

3.6 Flag desecration

3.7 Judge versus jury

4 Social policies

4.1 Abortion

4.2 Capital punishment

4.3 Stem cell research

4.4 Church and State relationship

4.5 Education

4.6 LGBT issues

4.6.1 Adoption

4.6.2 Marriage

4.6.3 Don't ask, don't tell

4.7 Health care

4.8 Environment

4.9 Social Security

4.10 Race

4.11 Veterans and the military

5 Technology

5.1 Network neutrality

6 Election law

6.1 Ballot access

6.2 Voting Rights Act of 1965

6.3 Civil Rights Act of 1964

6.4 State representation

6.5 Electoral College

6.6 Congressional appointment

6.7 Campaign contributions

7 Other issues

8 External links

9 References

The political positions of Ron Paul have been called conservative,[1] Constitutionalist,[2] and libertarian.[3] Paul gained his reputation as "Dr. No"[4] with his contrarian insistence on "never vot[ing] for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution",[5] along with his medical degree.[6][7]

Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention[8] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.[9][10] He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in response to the September 11, 2001, terror attacks,[11] but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists.

He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.[8][12]

Civil liberties concerns have led him to oppose the Patriot Act, a national ID card, federal government use of torture, domestic surveillance, and presidential autonomy; he supports free trade, rejecting membership in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens,[13] and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty; he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

Paul adheres to the economic philosophy of the Austrian School of economics, which holds that increasing the amount of money in circulation eventually leads to economic ruin;[14] he has authored several books on the subject. He has pictures of classical liberal economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises hanging on his office wall.[15][16]

Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes.[17] He has pledged never to raise taxes,[5][18] and states he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget. He would totally abolish the individual income tax while achieving revenue neutrality, by scaling back the federal budget seven years.[19][20]

He would substantially reduce the government's role in individual lives and in the functions of foreign and domestic states; he says Republicans have lost their commitment to limited government and have become the party of big government.[21] Paul supports elimination of most federal government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service,[19] the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, and the Interstate Commerce Commission,[22] calling them unnecessary bureacracies.

He argues for hard money such as some form of silver or gold standard, and advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve central bank for many reasons, believing that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply.[23]

Now, I’m not going to leave that one alone! Those notions are so long deservedly buried that is hard for me to believe that someone is still seriously mouthing them, and that says volumes for me. An argument in the absurd will suffice for illustration. Let’s say that good ole Goldfinger did indeed make off with all the gold in Fort Knox and cleaned out the supply in the basement vaults of Manhattan, and no one knew. What would happen? Not a damn thing! Or let’s say I somehow got my hands on one of those $100,000 dollar bills with Woodrow Wilson on it used for and by banks in their transactions. Could I just walk in with it and tell the teller to pony up with $100,000 worth of gold bars for my private Brinks Truck outside. Hardly!

Then again it might a very unwise move on my part because by the time they carted my glittering currency out to the street we crazy people might have changed the price of it again…down…and dumb. Gold is as vestigial a reference point today as is our vanishing in evolution appendix. We could be using fancy lollipop sticks or pink bottle caps for the same purpose, admittedly not as appealing or romantic…Oh Well.

Paul supports states' rights, gun ownership, habeas corpus for political detainees,[24] jury nullification rights,[25] and a Constitutional amendment allowing voluntary and unofficial school prayer;[26] he also favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security,[27] expanding the free market in health care, recognizing private property rights for pollution prevention,[28] and increasing ballot access.[29]

Paul opposes the draft, the federal War on Drugs, socialized health care,[27] the welfare state,[30] foreign aid, judicial activism, federal death penalties,[31] and federal regulation of marriage, of education,[32] and of the Internet.[33]

He supports revising enforcement of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which he calls "decent", to focus on disruptive behavior and include members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues.[34][35]

He has voted against federal funding of joint adoption by unmarried couples, including same-sex adoption.[36] Paul calls himself "an unshakable foe of abortion",[37][38] and believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[31][39]

Oh there’s a good one…the states; if a Republican does not want to face the music on an issue it suddenly becomes a states right, a states responsibility…buck passing by another name.

Paul upholds George Washington's foreign policy of nonintervention, which avoids "entangling alliances".[40] Under this policy, war must be fought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as planned: "The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq."[41] Because Paul favors free trade rather than protectionism, by definition, he is not an isolationist but a classical noninterventionist in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson: "At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves."[42]

Paul objected to and voted against the Resolution authorizing war in Iraq,[9][10] and continues to oppose U.S. presence in Iraq, charging the government with using the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties.

He believes a just declaration of war after the World Trade Center terror attacks would have been against the actual terrorists, al Qaeda, rather than against Iraq, which had no connection to the attacks.[43]

Just when you get the urge to get on a good run, ready to play lawn mower and mow Paul down you have this…he’s not all bad or all wrong, right?

When America seeks war, Paul believes Congress must fully approve it with a complete declaration of war, which would allow all resources to be dedicated to victory.

That’s a little different than “Shock and Awe” followed by fumble, attrition and genocide…more akin to “The Powell Doctrine”.

However, the original authorization to invade Iraq (Public Law 107-243), passed in late 2002, authorized the president to use military force against Iraq to achieve only the following two specific objectives: “(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."[44] Accordingly, Paul introduced legislation to add a sunset clause to the original authorization.[45]

During the 2003 invasion, he found himself "annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian. The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”[46] Paul's consistent opposition to the war expanded his conservative and libertarian Republican support base[47] to include liberal Democrats. For example, the Austin, Texas, Chronicle, an alternative liberal[48] newspaper, shifted its description of Paul from "erratic"[49] to strong and principled.[50][51]

Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle."[52] He claims the current circumstances with Iran mirror those under which the Iraq War began, and has urged Congress not to authorize war with Iran.[53] In the House, only Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution, which asks the U.N. to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating its genocide convention and charter.[54]

Paul opposes political organizations that he believes override U.S. sovereignty, such as the International Criminal Court, the U.N., North American Union(NAU) the World Trade Organization, NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. He supports withdrawing funds from and ending participation in such organizations.[55]

In a National Public Radio interview, Paul advocated a "moral statement" rather than direct intervention in humanitarian missions such as in Darfur or Rwanda.[56] Accordingly, he was the only "no" vote on House Resolution 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007.[57]

Paul is a proponent of free trade, but has opposed some "free trade agreements" (FTA's).[58] He calls NAFTA and similar proposals "international managed trade" agreements, saying they serve special interests and big business, not citizens.[59] He often proposes instead that the U.S. engage in unilateral free trade by the simple abolition of trade barriers at home (similar to Hong Kong's approach).

He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional.[58] He has also voted against the Australia – U.S. FTA, the U.S. – Singapore FTA, and the U.S. – Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that "fast track" powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTA's on the country's behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTA's.[59]

Paul believes that the government, neglecting a Constitutional responsibility to protect its borders, has concentrated instead on unconstitutionally policing foreign countries.[60] During the Cold War, he supported Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative,[61] intended to replace the "strategic offense" doctrine of mutual assured destruction with strategic defense.

Paul's immigration positions sometimes differ with libertarian think tanks and the official platform of the U.S. Libertarian Party.[62] He believes illegal immigrants take a toll on welfare and Social Security, concerned that such programs make the U.S. a magnet for illegal aliens, and that uncontrolled immigration increases welfare payments and exacerbates the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.[13] Paul's Congressional voting record earned a lifetime grade of B and a recent grade of B+ from Americans for Better Immigration.[63]

Paul believes all immigrants should be treated fairly and equally, under law, through "coherent immigration policy". He has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal immigrants because he believes it undermines the rule of law, grants pardons to lawbreakers,[64] and subsidizes more illegal immigration.[65] Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico. He believes it a folly to spend much money policing other countries' borders, such as the IraqSyria border, because he thinks the U.S. – Mexico border can be crossed by anyone, including potential terrorists.[66]

Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic citizenship.[67] He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and "end automatic birthright citizenship", in order to address welfare issues.[68]

Paul, calling the September 11, 2001 attacks an act of "air piracy", introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Letters of marque and reprisal, authorized by the Constitution, Article One, Section Eight, would have targeted specific terrorist suspects, instead of invoking war against a foreign state.[43] Paul reproposed this legislation as the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.[69]

Paul supports reopening investigation into the attacks to discover why the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not act on 70 internal field tips: "We had one FBI agent, I think sent dozens and dozens of memos to his superiors saying that there are people trying to fly airplanes but not land them, and nobody would pay any attention."[70] He would also investigate why the various intelligence agencies could not collaborate on information to prevent the attacks while spending $40 billion per year.[70][71] He has called the 9/11 Commission Report a "charade": "Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends."[72]

Paul does not believe the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were a government conspiracy and has explicitly denied being a 9/11 truther, arguing the issue is not a conspiracy but a bureaucracy.[70][71] He says detractors "try to twist what I say and turn it into that, and I think some of my supporters lean in that direction, but that's not my position."[70] Of the 9/11 Commission Report, he believes, "The main goal is to protect the government and to protect their ineptness - not ... to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war .... Some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn't something that was deliberately done."[70][73]

He does not think the government would stage such an attack.[74] When asked whether "9/11 was orchestrated by the government", Paul emphasized, "Absolutely not.;[75] John Gibson of Fox News, confronted Paul about "associating" himself with Alex Jones by being interviewed on his radio program, asking "Will you say right here and now that you completely disavow the 9/11 truth movement and the whole idea that the U.S. government was in on the 9/11 attack?" Paul responded, "Yes, I do."[76]

John Gibson does not accept Paul's explicit disavowel of the truth movement and continues to claim Paul believes the government staged the 9/11 attack: "9/11 truthers evidently raised millions for Ron Paul. Why doesn't he just admit that he's with them, blaming the U.S. government for the 9/11 attacks?"[77] Paul says both Jones and Gibson "try to put words in my mouth."[76]

Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. He supports the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve.[78] Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!'".[79] He has said that he would completely eliminate the income tax, and would accomplish this by shrinking the size and scope of government to its constitutional limits.
As Congressman, Paul has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the 16th Amendment.[80] Paul has signed a pledge not to raise taxes or create new taxes, given by Americans for Tax Freedom.[18] Paul has also been an advocate of Employee-owned corporations (ESOP).[81] In 1999, he co-sponsored a bill titled The Employee Ownership Act of 1999 which would have created a new type of employee owned and controlled corporation (EOCC). This new type of corporation would have been exempt from most federal taxes.

John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, an organization that promotes lower tax rates, has said, "Ron Paul has always proven himself to be a leader in the fight for taxpayer rights and fiscal responsibility... No one can match his record on behalf of taxpayers."

Paul has been called a "Taxpayer's Friend" by Berthoud's organization every year since he returned to Congress in 1996, scoring an average percentage of 100%, tying for the highest score (averaged from 1992 to 2005) among all 2008 Presidential candidates who have served in Congress, along with Tom Tancredo.[82] National Federation of Independent Business president Jack Farris has said, "Congressman Ron Paul is a true friend of small business.... He is committed to a pro-small-business agenda of affordable health insurance, lower taxes, tort reform, and the elimination of burdensome mandates."[83]

Paul has stated: "I agree on getting rid of the IRS, but I want to replace it with nothing, not another tax. But let's not forget the inflation tax."[84][85] He has advocated that the reduction of government will make an income tax unnecessary.[86] In other statements he has suggested that a national sales tax may be one possibility if all taxes can not be eliminated.

Paul's opposition to the Federal Reserve is supported by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which holds that instead of containing inflation, the Federal Reserve, in theory and in practice, is responsible for causing inflation. In addition to eroding the value of individual savings, this creation of inflation leads to booms and busts in the economy. Thus Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions.

He has stated in numerous speeches that most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the central bank because it funds many government activities. He says that to compensate for eliminating the "hidden tax"[87]of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.[88][89]

His warnings of impending economic crisis and a loss of confidence in the dollar in 2005 and 2006 were at the time derided by many economists, however events in 2007 seem to vindicate his positions

Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market process.[90] He also endorses defederalization of the health care system.

Paul was one of only three members of Congress that voted against the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In a speech on the House floor, Ron Paul stated that the act "imposes costly new regulations on the financial services industry..[that].. are damaging American capital markets by providing an incentive for small US firms and foreign firms to deregister from US stock exchanges".[91]

In an interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Paul said he favors ending the United States Post Office legal monopoly on first class mail delivery by legalizing private competition.[92]

In 1982, Ron Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U.S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has voiced concern over the dominance of the debt-based monetary system and called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through a gradual re-introduction of hard currency including both gold and silver.[46] A commodity standard binds currency issue to the value of that commodity rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the commodity.

Ron Paul supports the gold standard to prevent inflation.[93][94] The Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in their monetary role by Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and 6, and Section Ten, Clause 1, "The Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal tender." The Commission also recommended that the federal government "... restore a definition for the term 'dollar.' We suggest defining a 'dollar' as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine."[95]

Paul has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions.[96] In 2002 he proposed legislation abolishing the Federal Reserve Board, enabling “America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold.”[97] He opposes dependency on paper fiat money, but also says that there "were some shortcomings of the gold standard of the 19th century ... because it was a fixed price and caused confusion."

He adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."[98]

Paul suggests that current efforts to sustain dollar hegemony, especially since collapse of the Bretton Woods system following the United States' suspension of the dollar's conversion to gold in 1971, exacerbate a rationale for war. Consequently, when petroleum producing nations like Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela elect to trade in Petroeuro instead of Petrodollar, it devalues an already overly inflated dollar, further eroding its supremacy as a global currency. According to Paul, along with vested American interests in oil and plans to "remake the Middle East", this scenario has proven a contributing factor for the war against Iraq and diplomatic tensions with Iran.[99][100]

In an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News, June 26, 2007, in speaking of income tax resistance, Paul said that he supports the right of those who engage in non-violent resistance when they feel a law is unjust, bringing up the names of Martin Luther King, Lysander Spooner, and Mahatma Gandhi as examples of practitioners of peaceful civil disobedience, but he cautioned that those who do should be aware that the consequences could be imprisonment.[101]

He said that current income tax laws assume that people are guilty and they must then prove they are innocent, and he believes this aspect of tax law is unfair. However, he said that he prefers to work for improved tax laws by getting elected to Congress and trying to change the laws themselves rather than simply not paying the tax.

Paul broke with his party by voting against the Patriot Act in 2001; he also voted against its 2005 enactment. He has said, "Everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America."[72] Paul opposes reintroducing the draft, and has spoken against torture[102] and the apparent abuse of executive authority during the Iraq War to override Constitutional rights.

In the first Republican debate in California, Paul stated that he would never violate habeas corpus,[24] through which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. This is also a pledge in the American Freedom Agenda signed by Paul.[103]

Paul has spoken against the domestic surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency on American citizens. He believes the role of government is to protect American citizens' privacy, not violate it.[104] He has signed the American Freedom Agenda pledge not to violate Americans' rights through domestic wiretapping.[103]

Paul is opposed to reintroduction of the military draft.[105] In 2002, he authored and introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives expressing that reinstatement of a draft would be unnecessary and detrimental to individual liberties, a resolution that was endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union. [106] In the 110th Congress, he has proposed a bill which would end Selective Service registration.[107]

Paul was Co-Sponsor of H.R. 2592, the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana and is affirmative to the question "Should marijuana be a medical option?"[108][109] The federal government's involvement in this industry has led to regulatory conflict with the states that have made it an option, such as California after passage of Proposition 215.

Paul believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow hemp farming.[110] He contends that this would help North Dakota and other agriculture states, where farmers have requested the ability to farm hemp for years.[110]

In 2005 he introduced H.R. 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005, “to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana, and for other purposes”.[111] This bill would have given the states the power to regulate farming of hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the United States.

On February 13, 2007 Paul introduced H.R. 1009, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007", with nine original co-sponsors: Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jim McDermott (D-WA), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).[112] The Economist wrote that his support for hemp farming could appeal to farmers in Iowa.[112]

Paul sees prohibition of drugs as ineffective. "Prohibition doesn’t work. Prohibition causes crime." He believes that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem, "We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime." The Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general.

Ron Paul believes in personal responsibility, but also sees inequity in the current application of drug enforcement laws. "...when people commit violence whether they’re under the influence of drugs, prescription drugs, illegal drugs or alcohol they should be punished severely. We shouldn’t be putting people in prison for life with no chance of getting out… that never have committed a violent crime. At the same time we hear of cases where murderers or rapists get out after five or ten years or never even go to prison, it doesn’t make any sense."[113]

When asked about his position on implementing the 10th Amendment Republican Congressman Ron Paul explained, "Certain medical procedures and medical choices, I would allow the states to determine that. The state law should prevail not the Federal Government." Speaking specifically about DEA raids on medical marijuana clinics Paul said, "They’re unconstitutional..." He went on to advocate states' rights and personal choice; "You’re not being compassionate by taking medical marijuana from someone who’s suffering from cancer or AIDS… People should have freedom of choice. We certainly should respect the law and the law says that states should be able to determine this."

The only 2008 presidential candidate to earn Gun Owners of America's (GOA) A+ rating, Paul has authored and sponsored pro-Second Amendment legislation in Congress. He has also fought for the right of pilots to be armed.

In the first chapter of his book, Freedom Under Siege, Paul argued that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense. When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant."[114] Paul believes that a weapons ban at the federal or state level does not work either. "Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer. "[115] Rather, he sees school shootings, plane hijackings, and other such events as a result of prohibitions on self-defense.[116]

In June 2003, Paul voted against a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.[117]

Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. "The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand of government through the common-law jury is as old as the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.). The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle and incorporated it into our Constitution." He notes that this democratic principle is also stated in Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man", Supreme Court of the United States decisions by Chief Justice John Jay, and writings of Thomas Jefferson. Paul states that judges were not given the right to direct the trial by "instructing" the jury.[118]

Paul is pro-life, and calls himself an "unshakable foe of abortion." He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction - in accordance with the federal Constitution.

Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling a late abortion performed during his residency, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”[119] During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights.[120]

Paul has said that the 9th and 10th amendment to the United States Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue".[121]

Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[122] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[123] In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[124]

In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade," Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure". He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in these areas to no longer be binding.[125] He once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.”[126]

Paul stated in August 2007 that at the state level "capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime," but that he does not believe that the federal government should use it as a penalty.[127]

In Tavis Smiley's All-American Forum debate at Morgan State in September 2007, Paul stated: "Over the years I've held pretty rigid to all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion of the death penalty. For federal purposes I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted, and today, with the DNA evidence, there've been too many mistakes, and I am now opposed to the federal death penalty."[128]

Paul considers the stem cell debate to be another divisive issue over which the federal government has no jurisdiction:

"Those engaged in this debate tend to split into warring camps claiming exclusive moral authority to decide the issue once and for all.

On one side, those who support the President’s veto tend to argue against embryonic stem cell research, pointing to the individual rights of the embryo being discarded for use in research. On the other hand are those who argue the embryo will be discarded any way, and the research may provide valuable cures for people suffering from terrible illnesses.

In Washington, these two camps generally advocate very different policies. The first group wants a federal ban on all such research, while the latter group expects the research to be federally-subsidized. Neither side in this battle seems to consider the morality surrounding the rights of federal taxpayers...."[129]

Ron Paul voted NO on a bill banning human cloning at the federal level. [130]

Ron Paul has consistently advocated that the federal government not be involved in citizens' everyday lives. This includes issues concerning religion. For example, he believes that prayer in public schools should neither be prohibited nor mandated at the federal or state level. [131][132]

In a December 2003 article entitled, "Christmas in Secular America", (previously erroneously referred to as "The War on Religion") Paul wrote, "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.

On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state.

Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."[133]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[123] If made law, this provision would allow displays of religious text and imagery by state, county, and local governments

Rep. Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level. He opposes the federal No Child Left Behind Act, voting against it in 2001 and remaining opposed to it as an ineffective federal program.[134]

Paul has proposed the use of education tax credits, included in his bill the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612), which provides a $3,000 tax credit to families to choose their own schools. He has also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, which would provide for a tax credit for up to a $3,000 donation to the public or private school of the taxpayer's choice, which would provide accountability and more money to America's schools from a local level.[135] Paul has also proposed tax credits of $5,000 per year for each family, which could be used for any school-related expenses, whether the children of the family attend public or private school or are home-schooled.[136]

Paul has rejected government-issued vouchers in favor of education tax credits. Paul supports the right of state and local school districts to implement education vouchers according to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, but he does not believe they should exist on a federal level. He says that vouchers are given to certain students favored over others, and it is not fair for some middle-class parents to have to pay their child's own way at a private school while other parents' children are selected for government voucher programs.

He says that in their current form, vouchers are a form of welfare given to some over others; they would be worthwhile if they resulted in an equal amount of money being taken out of the public school system, but the end result is usually more money on both vouchers for private schools and more money for the public school system. He says that vouchers would only work if they gave public schools some competition and forced public schools to get better, but when the public school gets all the money it would have and more even with vouchers as competition, the public system has no reason to get better.[135]

Congressman Paul says that when voucher proponents say that students have a right to a good education and give vouchers as the answer, it means that private schools must fall under federal regulations to ensure that they are meeting students' rights. He says that if given the choice of which private school to attend, parents may choose to use their taxpayer-voucher to attend a school objectionable to some, such as one run by, for example, the Nation of Islam, and for that situation not to happen, government control over which schools are acceptable for vouchers would have to be injected.

He asserts that colleagues have mentioned before that to take vouchers, religious schools would have to seek government accreditation under the Department of Education. He argues that this would in effect be a forced accreditation process because schools that choose not to take part will not be seen as having the "government's seal of approval" and may go out of business. He points to how the federal government has used federal funding for universities to tell universities what policies they must accept, and that the government would try to do the same with private schools.[135]

Paul has sponsored a Constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools.[137]


In 1999, Paul voted in favor of prohibiting the allocation of federal funds on four unrelated amendments to a House appropriations bill for the government of the District of Columbia.[138] One of these amendments (H.AMDT.356 to HR 2587) would have prohibited "any [federal] funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage."[139] The amendment would have prevented federal money from being spent on vetting or registering the adoption of a child to any unmarried couple, same sex or heterosexual, in the District of Columbia.[140] [141]

Paul opposes "federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states.[142] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. He spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, which limited the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[142][143] Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[144] Paul stated that "Americans understandably fear" the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage.[145] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[146]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation."[123] If made law, these provisions would allow states to prohibit sexual practices and same-sex marriage

In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Rep. Paul said about the United States military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:

"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."[35]

Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge troops for being homosexual if their behavior was not disruptive.

Paul has called for passage of tax relief bills to reduce health care costs for families:[147]

He would support a tax credit for senior citizens who need to pay for costly prescription drugs. He would also allow them to import drugs from other countries at lower prices. He has called for health savings accounts that allow for tax-free savings to be used to pay for prescriptions.[148]

H.R. 3075 allows families to claim a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for health insurance premiums.

H.R. 3076 provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system.

Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals who pay taxes can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

H.R. 3077 creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities.

H.R. 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child.

Paul voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, which would allow the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to get the best price for drugs provided in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.[149]

Rep. Paul believes that the more government interferes in medicine, the higher prices rise and the less efficient care becomes. He points to how many people today are upset with the HMO system, but few people realize that HMOs came about because of a federal mandate in 1973.[150]

He also points to the 1974 ERISA law that grants tax benefits to employers for providing insurance but not individuals; he prefers a system which grants tax credits to individuals.[151] He supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system, saying in an interview on New Hampshire NPR that the present system is akin to a "corporatist-fascist" system which keeps prices high.

He says that in industries with freer markets prices go down due to technological innovation, but because of the corporatist system, this is prevented from happening in health care. He opposes socialized health care promoted by Democrats as being harmful because they lead to bigger and less efficient government.[152]

Paul has said that although he prefers tax credits to socialized medicine, he would be willing to "prop up" the current systems of Medicare and Medicaid with money saved by bringing troops home from foreign bases in places such as those in South Korea.[153]

He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, including Codex Alimentarius (some proposals he opposes would require a prescription for vitamins).[154]

Ron Paul believes that polluters are aggressors, and should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. In a radio interview with Dennis Miller, Paul cited the failure of environmental protection under collectivistic countries that do not respect private property, and the effect of private ownership:

";... the environment is better protected under private property rights... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property.... Too often, conservatives and libertarians fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, 'Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us.... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute.' So I don't particularly like that method."[155]

He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between and among the state(s) or region(s) concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."[156]

In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, he co-sponsored a bill preventing the US from funding nuclear power plants in China.[157] He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[158]

Rather than bureaucrats in Washington giving subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, he believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[158] He also sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[159] Paul believes that nuclear energy is an alternative that should be considered, because it is a clean and efficient fuel and could help with powering efficient electric cars.[158]

Paul believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow hemp production and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue. Hemp can be used in producing sustainable biofuels.[110] This would help North Dakota in particular; the state has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[110]

Paul voted against bills in both 2004 and 2005 that would shield a Saudi Arabian royal family-owned group from liability for a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into the groundwater in New England. A Saudi-owned lobbying group spent more than $1.5 million lobbying Congress since 1998 to limit their liability for the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), for which cleanup costs in New England would be billions.

The bill included $1.8 billion for federally-funded cleanup of New England municipalities and another $2 billion to give to companies to help them phase out the additive. The provision was inserted into President Bush's energy bill of January 2004 by Majority Leader Tom Delay; the bill also included federal subsidies for oil, coal and gas. The Saudi company said that they should not be liable because they had been required to use an additive and it was more expensive to use the other possible additive, ethanol, in New England.

Taxpayers for Common Sense said the measure was a "gift horse" for the Saudi-owned company and would subsidize foreign oil regimes in a bill meant to reduce dependence on foreign oil.[160][161][162]

Paul says that Social Security is in "bad shape... the numbers aren't there"; funds are depleting because Congress borrows from the Social Security fund every year to fund its budget.[158] He says that he is one of the few members of Congress who has voted for so little spending that he has never voted to borrow from existing Social Security funds.

He believes that to stem the Social Security crisis, Congress should cut down on spending, but even with that, the commitment cannot be met. He thinks the only way to meet the commitment to elderly citizens who depend on Social Security is to reassess monetary policies and spending and stop borrowing so much from foreign investors, such as those in China, who hold US treasury bonds. He believes that young Americans should have the opportunity to opt out of the system if they would like to not pay Social Security taxes.[158]

In an April 2007 column on his official House of Representatives website,[163] Paul criticizes racism, saying:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."[163]

Additionally, in his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege, he compares society's values to the values of television wrestling, citing racism as among the negative qualities:

There are times when it seems like we get our system of values from television productions. Professional wrestling is one of the few programs which started on TV in the late 1940s and now claims more viewers than ever. There are no rules, and it is associated with contrived (but unreal) violence: mockery of the referee, racism, absence of sportsmanship, yelling, screaming, and hatred. Reasonable rules of decency are totally ignored. The shows get worse every year; belts, chains, and cages are now part of the acts. Twenty wrestlers are put into a ring without a referee and a free-for-all erupts -- the more violent, the more the crowd cheers the ridiculous charade.

In 1997, he voted in favor[164] of ending affirmative action in college admissions.[165]

Paul believes the Veterans Administration should not be building more hospitals, and in fact, the VA hospitals should be phased out. He believes that government should be paying for the treatment of veterans in private hospitals. He believes that in this way veterans will get better care more cost effectively.

He has also said that rather than closing military bases in the US, the government should build fewer bases internationally and keep as many bases open in the US as possible.[158]

In 2006, a "Technology voter guide" by CNET awarded Paul a score of 80%, the highest score out of both houses of Congress. Paul has been criticized for voting against legislation to help catch online child predators, one of the votes used in the CNET guide. In response to critics, Paul said, "I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary." He also believed that the proposed law was unconstitutional.[166]

Voted against establishing Bill HR 5252 Amendment 987(Jun 2006)[167], which would have legally protected network neutrality.

"But one of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which is a very, very dangerous precedent to set."[168]

G4 / STICKAM - ONE ON ONE WITH RON PAUL - PART 1

Ron Paul Videos On Demand (at http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008 )
at 5 minutes, 42 seconds:

Host: "Do you trust the Verizons or the AT&Ts of the world to give internet users equal access to all media online?"

Ron Paul: "Well, quite frankly I don't understand all the details, but if you believe in the free market you try to work out a way to solve those problems through contractual arrangements, not through depending on government regulation, so yes they are difficult and like I admit, I don't understand all those problems that we face, although the point I make is I have a healthy disregard and fear of the bureaucrats doing it because once you do that, those big companies are going to regulate, they're going to be the lobbyists and the politicians that regulate the law, and I think you'll be in worse shape."

As a former Libertarian Party candidate for President, Congressman Paul has been a proponent of ballot access law reform, and has spoken out on numerous election law reform issues.

In 2003, he introduced H. R. 1941, the Voter Freedom Act of 2003, that would have created uniform ballot access laws for independent and third political party candidates in Congressional elections. He supported this bill in a speech before Congress in 2004.[169]

In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[170] Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[171]

He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. All of Texas' representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.[172]

The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, and in a letter opposing the bill for this reason, 80 members of Congress including Paul objected to the costly implications of requiring bilingual ballots.[172]

In one example cited in the letter, the members detailed how Los Angeles spent $2.1 million for the 2004 election to provide ballots in seven different languages and more than 2,000 translators, although one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and another California district spent $30,000 on translating ballots per election despite receiving only one request for Spanish documents in 16 years. The legislators also noted that printing in foreign languages increases the chances of ballot error, pointing out a specific example of erroneous translated ballots that had been used in Flushing, Queens.[173]

PAUL WROTE OF HIS OPPOSITION TO THE ACT:

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees.

Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."[171]

Paul would like to restore State representation in Congress. During a speech in New Hampshire in February 2007 Paul called for a repeal of the 17th amendment,[174] the one that allows for direct election of U.S. Senators. Instead Paul would have members of state legislatures vote for U.S. Senators as they had done under Article One Section 3.

Direct popular representation would be retained in the House. Paul believes that increased representation of State interests at the federal level encourages greater sharing of power between state and Federal government,[175] and that greater state participation serves as a check against a powerful federal government.

In 2004, he spoke out against efforts to abolish the Electoral College, stating that such a reform would weaken the “voting power of pro-liberty states” and that “Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states.”[176]

In 2003, he spoke out against the enacted law that appoints (rather than elects) members of Congress in the event of the death of several members due to an act of terrorism.[177]

In 2002, he spoke before the Congress in opposition to campaign finance reforms that place any restrictions on citizens and businesses making campaign contributions to the candidate of their choice. He based his argument on the First Amendment, Separation of Powers, and Constitutional Authority, and the belief that such efforts are also counterproductive in reducing entrenched powers.[178]

In order to restrict the federal government to its constitutionally authorized functions, Paul takes positions that are opposed by the majority of his colleagues.

He has been criticized at times for being the only dissenting vote against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal. The medals and ceremonies held to bestow them on recipients are expensive. According to Texas Monthly, “When he was criticized for voting against the medal [for Parks], he chided his colleagues by challenging them to personally contribute $100 to mint the medal [along with himself]. No one did. At the time, Paul observed, ‘It's easier to be generous with other people's money.’”[179]

In a speech on 25 June 2003, criticizing giving Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair a Gold Medal of Honor, Paul said, “These medals generally have been proposed to recognize a life of service and leadership, and not for political reasons — as evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan support for awarding President Reagan, a Republican, a gold medal.

These awards normally go to deserving individuals, which is why I have many times offered to contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other members, to finance these medals.”[180] Texas Monthly awarded him the “Bum Steer” award for voting against a congressional honor for cartoonist Charles Schulz.

He views the new American Community Survey questions as “both ludicrous and insulting”, believing that the information is simply none of the government's business.[181]

On January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415[182] voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction, as an unauthorized use of taxpayer money.

Official sites
2008 Presidential Campaign Website

U.S. House of Representatives Office of Ron Paul

Local Meetup Groups

YouTube channel

MySpace

Facebook

Eventful

SPEECHES, STATEMENTS AND ISSUES

RonPaul2008.com - Issues

Ron Paul Library, more than 900 articles and speeches by Ron Paul

Ron Paul Videos

LewRockwell.com archived commentaries by Ron Paul

Ron Paul in "America: Freedom to Fascism"

The Case For Gold: A Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban speech

Ron Paul at the first 2008 Republican presidential debate

Topic pages and databases

On the Issues issue positions

Project Vote Smart candidate profile including issue positions

^ Baker, Jackson. "The "Ron Paul Revolution"", Memphis Flyer, 2007-08-09. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.

^ Galles, Gary M. "The Constitutionalist", Lew Rockwell, 2007-03-28. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.

^ Snow, Nancy. "The Arrogance of American Power: What U.S. Leaders Are Doing Wrong and Why It's Our Duty to Dissent", Rowman & Littlefield, 2006, p. 32.

^ Gwynne, S.C. (2001-10-01). Dr. No. Texas Monthly.

^ a b About Ron Paul. Ron Paul 2008. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.

^ The Ron Paul Story. YouTube. Retrieved on 2007-06-14.

^ "Add Rep. Ron Paul - 'Dr. No' - to list of '08 hopefuls", USA Today, 2007-03-12.

^ a b Paul, Ron. "Patriotism", Congressional Record, House of Representatives, 2007-05-22. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.

^ a b Paul, Ron (2002-09-04). Arguments Against a War in Iraq. Congressional Record. House of Representatives. Retrieved on 2007-07-07.

^ a b Paul, Ron (2002-09-08). Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq. Congressional Record. House of Representatives. Retrieved on 2007-07-07.

^ Key Vote (How all members voted) Authorization for Use of Military Force. Project Vote Smart. Retrieved on 2007-07-16.

^ "Ron Paul's Libertarian Message Attracts Supporters", All Things Considered, National Public Radio, 2007-07-25.

^ a b Paul, Ron. "Immigration and the Welfare State", Lew Rockwell.

^ "Paul Has Long Drawn Support from Unlikely Places", National Public Radio, 2007-10-07. Retrieved on 2007-10-08.

^ Dougherty, Michael Brendan (2007-06-18). Lone Star. American Conservative. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.

^ Screenshot. America: From Freedom to Fascism.

^ Copeland, Libby (2006-07-09). Congressman Paul's Legislative Strategy? He'd Rather Say Not. The Washington Post.

^ a b Rep. Ron Paul Signs Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Americans for Tax Freedom. Retrieved on 2007-06-17.

^ a b Paul, Ron (2007-09). Ending the IRS. Ron Paul 2008. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.

^ Paul Want Less Government, Less Taxes, and Abolish IRS. Antiwar President. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.

^ Paul, Ron. "The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas", Lew Rockwell. Retrieved on 2007-05-25.

^ Maymin, Phil (2007-06-20). The Book on Paul: Presidential candidate Ron Paul is the conscience of the Republican Party. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.

^ Paul, Ron. "Question and Answer session following Keynote speech at the Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies forum "Foreign Policy: A View from a Presidential Candidate"", Ron Paul Audio, 2007-09-11.

^ a b Sullivan, Andrew (2007-05-11). Taking Ron Paul Seriously. Retrieved on 2007-06-08.

^ Paul, Ron. Freedom Under Siege. Daily Paul. Retrieved on 2007-05-05.

^ Ron Paul on Education: Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.. On the Issues.

^ a b Rogers, Lee. "Lee Rogers Interviews Ron Paul". “2:30–3:00”

^ "Dennis Miller interview", Dennis Miller Radio. Retrieved on 2007-06-03.

^ "End the Two-Party Monopoly!", Congressional Record, House of Representatives. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.

^ Paul, Ron. "The Therapeutic Nanny State", Lew Rockwell. Retrieved on 2007-05-25.

^ a b Lofton, John (2007-08). Excerpts From Our Exclusive Ron Paul Interview. American View. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.

^ Ron Paul on Education. On the Issues.

^ Paul on H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act.

^ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg", Candidates at Google on YouTube, 2007-07-14. Retrieved on 2007-09-10.

^ a b Transcript of June 5 CNN/WMUR/New Hampshire Union Leader Republican presidential debate (2007-06-05). Retrieved on 2007-06-10.

^ "Ron Paul on Civil Rights", On the Issues.

^ Paul, Ron. Life and Liberty. Ron Paul 2008. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.

^ Paul says his years as an obstetrician lead him to believe life begins at conception.[1] Paul's pro-life legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade for ethical reasons and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."[2][3]

^ "Election 2008 Q&A", WorldNetDaily.

^ Paul, Ron. "Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy", Texas Straight Talk, House of Representatives, 2002-09-16.

^ Paul, Ron. "Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?", Texas Straight Talk, House of Representatives, 2003-09-01. Retrieved on 2007-05-24.

^ Paul, Ron. War and Foreign Policy. Ron Paul 2008. Retrieved on 2007-10-06.

^ a b Paul, Ron. "Paul offers President New Tool in the War on Terrorism", House of Representatives, 2001-10-11. Retrieved on 2007-05-26.

^ "C-Span Archive of Resolution 114". Retrieved on 2007-05-23.

^ Paul, Ron. "Establish a sunset for the authorization for the use of military force against Iraq resolution", Reason to Freedom. Retrieved on 2007-06-14.

^ a b Caldwell, Christopher (2007-07-22). The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul. New York Times. Retrieved on 2007-08-05.

^ Republican Liberty Caucus Index. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.

^ "Turn Left". Retrieved on 2007-05-26.

^ "Endorsements", Austin Chronicle. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.

^ "Archive", Austin Chronicle. Retrieved on 2007-05-26.

^ "Reefer Madness: 'Let's Embarrass Ron Paul'", Austin Chronicle. Retrieved on 2007-05-26.

^ Paul, Ron. "Statements on the Iraq War Resolutions", Congressional Record, House of Representatives. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.

^ Ron Paul – Gulf of Tonkin. C-SPAN (2006-01-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-08.

^ "House Roll Call", 2007-06-20.

^ Paul, Ron. American Independence and Sovereignty. Retrieved on 2007-10-08.

^ YouTube. Retrieved on 2007-06-20.

^ Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007. GovTrack (2007-08-01).

^ a b Paul, Ron. "CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade", Lew Rockwell, 2005-06-07. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.

^ a b "Transcript", Lou Dobbs Tonight, 2007-04-23. Retrieved on 2007-10-08.

^ Paul, Ron. "Crazed Foreign Aid", Congressional Record, House of Representatives, 2007-10-17. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.

^ Ron Paul On the Issues. On the Issues.

^ The surprising relevance of Ron Paul (2007-05-25). Retrieved on 2007-05-28.

^ "Immigration-Reduction Report Card". Retrieved on 2007-08-19.

^ "Ron Paul on Amnesty". Retrieved on 2007-04-02.

^ Immigration Highlights - Republican Debate 6-05-2007 (2007-06-05). Retrieved on 2007-10-08.

^ Paul, Ron. "Immigration and the Welfare State", 2005-08-09. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.

^ "Ron Paul on Birth Right Citizenship".

^ Paul, Ron (2006-10-02). Rethinking Birthright Citizenship. Texas Straight Talk. House of Representatives. Retrieved on 2007-05-20.

^ Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.

^ a b c d e Ron Paul Audio. Mike Gallagher Radio Show (2007-07-19).

^ a b "Ron Paul on 9/11 and Eric Dondero", Reason, 2007-05-22. Retrieved on 2007-10-08.

^ a b Paul, Ron. "The 9-11 Commission Charade".

^ Gill, Steve (2007-10-04). Ron Paul says 9/11 was ineptness and NOT "an Inside Job". Steve Gill. Retrieved on 2007-10-08.

^ "Fox News Interview", Fox News Channel, 2007-08-05.

^ Wasson, Shawn. "LiveLeak Exclusive: Interview with Ron Paul".

^ a b "Interview with Ron Paul", Jon Gibson Show, 2007-09-14.

^ Gibson, Jon. "My Word", Fox News, 2007-10-05.

^ Ron Paul on Tax Reform. On the Issues. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.

^ The Comittee to Re-Elect Ron Paul accessed at March 4, 2007

^ End the Income Tax- Pass the Liberty Amendment. Retrieved on 2007-9-23.
^ [4]

^ NTU's Fiscal "Snapshot" of the 2008 Presidential Race. National Taxpayers Union. Retrieved on 2007-06-10.

^ What people are saying about Ron Paul... on The Committee on Re-Elect Ron Paul accessed at March 4, 2007

^ Tax Talk 2007:Ron Paul

^ "Taxes, Spending, and Debt Are the Real Issues" by Ron Paul

^ http://www.antiwarpresident.com/ronpaul/Ron-Paul-less-government-abolish-IRS.html

^ The Inflation Tax

^ name="reagandebate"

^ Ron Paul in Debate at Reagan Library (May '07) at YouTube accessed on June 6, 2007

^ Ron Paul, MD (2005-10-27). The GSE Crisis. Lew Rockwell. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.

^ Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley! Ron Paul speech accessed on August 23, 2007

^ The Daily Show with John Stewart Ron Paul interview accessed on June 5, 2007

^ Inflation: Alive and Well on lewrockwell.com accessed at March 4, 2007

^ A Perennial Gift From Greenspan on lewrockwell.com accessed at March 4, 2007

^ The Case For Gold: A Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission accessed from Mises.org on May 24, 2007

^ Paper Money and Tyranny on the homepage of United States House of Representatives, 110th Congress 1st session accessed at March 4, 2007

^ Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduces bill to abolish Federal Reserve on UnderReported.com accessed at March 4, 2007

^ Interview with Ron Paul after New Hampshire presidential debate on June 5, 2007. Available on YouTube: [5]

^ The End of Dollar Hegemony on the homepage of United States House of Representatives, 110th Congress 1st session accessed at March 4, 2007

^ Post congressional video content on fednet.net accessed at March 4, 2007

^ Ron Paul on Neil Cavuto Show 26 June 2007, accessed on 19 August 2007

^ Paul, Ron. "Torture, War, and Presidential Powers", Lew Rockwell. Retrieved on 2007-04-11.

^ a b "Disaffected conservatives set a litmus test for '08", Boston Globe, 2007-06-12. Retrieved on 2007-06-16.

^ Paul, Ron (2005-12-26). Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act. Retrieved on 2007-06-08.

^ http://www.counterpunch.org/paul0520.html

^ http://www.aclu.org/natsec/warpowers/14424leg20020403.html

^ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00424:

^ Ron Paul's position on Medical Marijuana, accessed on 19 August 2007

^ "Medical Marijuana Takes Center Stage On The Hill" at Cannabis News, accessed on 19 August 2007

^ a b c d "Reefer Madness: 'Let's Embarrass Ron Paul'". Austin Chronicle, May 25, 2007.

^ H. R. 3037 on the homepage of the Library of Congress accessed at March 4, 2007

^ a b "On a high". The Economist, June 21, 2007.

^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3SYWDkWyXA

^ Q&A session at Google time 14:40-16:00

^ Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution Texas Straight Talk

^ Security and Liberty Texas Straight Talk

^ [6]

^ Freedom Under Siege: Chapter One accessed at DailyPaul.com on May 5, 2007

^ Caldwell, Christopher. Profile of Ron Paul, The New York Times

^ "Fox News Sean Hannity Abuses Rep. Ron Paul." May 15 Debate, accessed on 19 August 2007

^ Federalizing Social Policy on lewrockwell.com accessed at March 4, 2007

^ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776

^ a b c http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4379

^ FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 144

^ [7] on the homepage of the Library of Congress accessed at March 4, 2007

^ The Partial Birth Abortion Ban on lewrockwell.com accessed at March 4, 2007

^ 118: Exclusive Interview: Ron Paul On God/Government; Abortion; Homosexuality; And Much More 12:35

^ Ron Paul At Tavis Smiley's All-American Forum On PBS 9-27-07 9:32

^ Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate The Ron Paul Library

http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=13311&can_id=296

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Principles_+_Values.htm

^ http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

^ http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm

^ Schor, Elana (2007-03-21). 2008 and counting: Watching Clinton, Obama ‘squirm’ on troop funding. Retrieved on 2007-06-13.

^ a b c Paul, Ron (2003-09-30). Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?. Retrieved on 2007-06-13.

^ Paul, Ron (1997-07-20). Parents must have control of education. Retrieved on 2007-09-13.

^ Ron Paul on Education. Retrieved on 2007-06-13.

^ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR02587:@@@S

^ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp106:FLD010:@1%28hr263%29:

^ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=1999_record&page=H6635&position=all

^ "Ron Paul on Civil Rights" OnTheIssues.org

^ a b Paul, Ron (2004-09-30). Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.

^ Paul, Ron (2004-10-01). The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea. Retrieved on 2007-06-06.

^ "Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny" by Ron Paul MD, accessed on 19 August 2007

^ "Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction" by Ron Paul MD, accessed on 19 August 2007

^ Paul, Ron (2004-03-02). Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction. Retrieved on 2007-06-06.

^ http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

^ "Free Trade in Pharmaceuticals" by Ron Paul MD at Lew Rockwell accessed on June 8, 2007

^ [8] at Reason accessed on May 28, 2007

^ [9] at US House of Representatives homepage accessed on June 8, 2007

^ [10] at Lew Rockwell accessed on June 8, 2007

^ Republican Representative Ron Paul of Texas. New Hampshire National Public Radio (2007-06-05). Retrieved on 2007-06-08.

^ Victoria Advocate, October 15, 2006, written by Patrick Brendel, "Incumbent Ron Paul, Shane Sklar vie for U.S. District 14 seat"

^ "Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom" at US House of Representatives homepage accessed on June 8, 2007

^ Dennis Miller interview retrieved from Dennis Miller Radio.com on June 3, 2007

^ EPA Regulations Threaten Texas retrieved from Ron Paul Library on June 11, 2007

^ House Votes Overwhelmingly Against Financing Nuclear Energy in China press release at Friends of the Earth accessed on June 3, 2007

^ a b c d e f REP. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT - WMUR 4-27-07 - 2 OF 2 at YouTube accessed on June 6, 2007

^ Gasoline, Taxes, and Middle East Policy retrieved from lewrockwell.com on June 12, 2007

^ Ron Paul on Energy and Oil at On the Issues accessed on May 30, 2007

^ Saudis lobby to limit liability on additive at the Boston Globe accessed on May 30, 2007

^ US: Regional, industry conflicts stall energy bill at the World Socialist Web Site accessed on May 30, 2007

^ a b Ron Paul (2007-04-16). Government and Racism. Rep. Ron Paul, official website. Retrieved on 2007-05-20.

^ [11]

^ [12] thomas.loc.gov

^ Grading Congress on high-tech cred on News.com accessed at March 4, 2007

^ http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

^ Paul on H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act

^ End the Two-Party Monopoly! on the homepage of United States House of Representatives, 110th Congress 1st session accessed at March 4, 2007

^ [13] Congress.org, accessed at June 8, 2007

^ a b Congressman Ron Paul (2004-07-03). The Trouble With Forced Integration. Lew Rockwell. Retrieved on 2007-07-11.

^ a b Charles Babington (2006-06-22). GOP Rebellion Stops Voting Rights Act. Washington Post. Retrieved on 2007-07-11.

^ King letter (2006-02-03). Retrieved on 2007-07-11.

^ Libertarian candidate in '88, Paul eyes GOP nomination on the Union Leader accessed at March 4, 2007

^ Public letter by Congressman Ron Paul on the World Trade Organization accessed at March 4, 2007

^ Hands Off the Electoral College on the homepage of United States House of Representatives, 110th Congress 1st session accessed at March 4, 2007

^ Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected on the homepage of United States House of Representatives, 110th Congress 1st session accessed at March 4, 2007

^ So-Called "Campaign Finance Reform" is Unconstitutional on the homepage of United States House of Representatives, 110th Congress 1st session accessed at March 4, 2007

^ http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr042099.htm

^ Does Tony Blair Deserve a Congressional Medal? on the homepage of United States House of Representatives, 110th Congress 1st session accessed at March 4, 2007

^ http://www.free-market.net/towards-liberty/new-census.html

^ 110th Congress, 1st session, House Vote 45 on the Washington Post accessed at March 4, 2007

Ron Paul has been described as a Constitutionalist who professes a libertarian philosophy. He opposes presidential autonomy and judicial activism, and rejects a welfare state or nanny state role for the federal government.[1] Paul says that the Republican Party has lost its commitment to limited government and has instead become the party of big government.[2] He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes.[3] His unwillingness to vote for proposals not expressly authorized by the Constitution, along with his medical degree, have earned him the nickname “Dr. No.”

Paul supports free trade, states' rights, tighter border security, gun ownership, unofficial and voluntary school prayer,[4] changing the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy to focus on both heterosexual and homosexual behavior,[5] and expanding the free market in health care. He favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security.[6] He is also an advocate of private property rights for pollution prevention,[7] habeas corpus for political detainees,[8] greater ballot access,[9] and jury nullification rights.[10]

Paul opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, the income tax, federalized health care,[11] the federal War on Drugs, federal regulation of marriage, and foreign interventionism, advocating withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations.[12] He has voted against funding joint adoption by unmarried couples, including same-sex adoption.[13] He opposes abortion and most capital punishment, stating that the individual states must be allowed to decide such issues in accordance with the 10th amendment.[14]

Foreign policy

Nonintervention
Congressman Paul advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy that avoids entangling alliances.[15] He believes that when a war must be fought, it must be fought to protect the citizens, be declared by Congress, planned out, won and then left: "The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq."[16]

Letters of Marque and Reprisal
At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Paul, defining them as an act of "air piracy", introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, which would have granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal, as authorized by Article One, Section Eight, against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state.[17] He has also reproposed this legislation recently under the new title of Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007. [18]

Iraq War
Paul spoke and voted against the Iraq War Resolution,[19][20] which authorized the war, and continues to condemn the US presence in Iraq, and what he charges is the use of the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties. His position is that if the country was going to go to war because of the September 11 attacks, it should have been with the actual perpetrators of the war, al Qaeda, rather than with Iraq, which had no connection to the attacks.[21] He believes that if a war is sought, it must be fully approved by Congress with a complete declaration of war, which would allow total resources to be dedicated to victory.

This did not happen for the Iraqi invasion. According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: “(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."[22] Accordingly, Paul has introduced legislation to add a sunset clause to the original authorization.[23]

Paul said of the 2003 invasion, “I was annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian. The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”[24]

His base of support had been mostly among conservative and libertarian Republicans,[25] but after 9/11 he gained some strong support from liberal Democrats in central Texas because of his consistent opposition to the War in Iraq. As an example of this shift, the Austin Chronicle newspaper, a liberal[26] alternative weekly newspaper in Austin, Texas, described his views as erratic in 2000.[27] After 9/11, though, the Chronicle took a much more favorable view of Paul,[28] praising him for his strong, principled opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War.[29]

Iran
Paul has spoken against the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle."[30] He has also broken with his party by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 and again in 2005, and is opposed to reintroduction of the military draft. He opposes political organizations that override U.S. sovereignty such as the International Criminal Court, United Nations, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. He thus supports withdrawal of funds and the end of participation in such organizations.[31]

In a speech before the House of Representatives, Paul expressed his concern about the possibility of an Iranian War. He claimed that the current circumstances with Iran are similar to those under which the Iraq War began, and urged Congress not to authorize a war with Iran.[32] Paul is only one of two congressmen (the other is Dennis Kucinich) who voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution which calls on UN to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the genocide convention and UN charter.[33]

Civil liberties during times of war
He has spoken out against torture[34] and the abuse of executive authority in the Iraq War to override human rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

9/11 Commission Report
Ron Paul has voiced support for re-opening the 9/11 investigation to discover why the FBI did not act on 70 field tips from an agent reporting student pilots (and eventual 9/11 hijackers) who were learning to take off but not land and why the various intelligence agencies could not collaborate on information to possibly prevent the attacks.[35]

He has called the 9/11 Commission a "charade" for its intrusive and bureaucratic recommendations and expansion of government. He has said, "Yet everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America. Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends."[36]

Other interventions

In a National Public Radio interview, Ron Paul advocated a "moral statement" rather than direct intervention in humanitarian missions such as Darfur or the Rwandan Genocide.[37] In keeping with those views, he was the only Nay vote on H.R. 180: Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007.[38] H.R. 180 was intended to provide federal funding for state and local governments that wish to divest in order to end federal contracts with companies which conduct business with the government of Sudan.[39]

Denies involvement in 9/11 conspiracy theories

Paul denies that the attack on the World Trade Center was a part of a government conspiracy, and has distanced himself from the "9/11 Truth Movement." On the Mike Gallagher radio show on July 19, 2007 he said "Some people try to twist what I say and turn it into that, and I think some of my supporters lean in that direction, but that's not my position. I do think government's basically inept.

I mean we were spending $40 billion a year collecting intelligence and a lot of information was out there. We had one FBI agent, I think sent dozens and dozens of memos to his superiors saying that there are people trying to fly airplanes but not land them, and nobody would pay any attention. So, I don't think that's a conspiracy. I think that's a lot of bureaucracy that doesn't work very well. And, then when we have government investigations, whether it's 9/11 or assassinations, I think the main goal is to protect the government and to protect their ineptness - not - and that is a lot different than saying 'Oh they conspired to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war in the Middle East whether they had anything to do with 9/11 or not.' I don't see it that way.

But, I believe some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn't something that was deliberately done." [40] When Paul was asked by Shawn Wasson in an interview on LiveLeak.com if he believed that "9/11 was orchestrated by the government," Paul responded emphatically, "Absolutely not."[41] Paul was again asked in an interview on Fox news on August 5 if he agreed with the conspiracy theorists; he explicitly said that he does not believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy and that he does not think the government would stage an attack.[42]

Free trade

He is a proponent of free trade, although he has opposed some "free trade agreements."[43] He opposes these agreements and calls them "managed trade" controlled by an international trade organization; he says they serve special interests and big business, not citizens.[44] He often instead proposes that the United States engage in unilateral free trade by the simple abolition of trade barriers at home (this was the approach of Hong Kong).

He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), claiming that it increased the size of government, eroded US sovereignty and was unconstitutional.[45] He also believes that the "fast track" powers given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate free trade agreements on the country's behalf are unconstitutional, and Congress should be constructing free trade agreements rather than the executive branch.[46]

Secure borders and immigration

Ron Paul believes that the federal government has been neglecting its constitutional responsibility to protect its own borders and concentrating instead on unconstitutionally policing foreign countries.[47]

At the height of the Cold War, he supported Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative,[48] which was intended to replace the strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction with a strategic defense.

He has taken some positions on immigration issues that are at odds with the views endorsed by several libertarian think tanks and the official platform of the U.S. Libertarian Party.[49]

He opposes illegal immigration because of the toll he believes illegal immigrants take on the welfare rolls and Social Security. He has expressed concerns that welfare and other aid programs have made the US a magnet for illegal aliens, and that uncontrolled immigration is increasing welfare payments and exacerbating the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.[50]

Ron Paul's Congressional voting record earned a lifetime grade of a B and a recent grade of B+ from Americans for Better Immigration.[51] Of the other major GOP presidential hopefuls in 2008 who are in Congress only Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter received a higher rating from that organization.[52]

Paul favors that all immigrants should be treated fairly and equally under the law through a "coherent immigration policy."

He has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal immigrants because it undermines the rule of law and grants pardons to lawbreakers.[53]

He has also said that by granting amnesty, it is being subsidized, which will only result in more illegal immigration.[54]

Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. He believes that it is a folly to spend so much money policing the borders of other countries, such as the border of Iraq and Syria, when the border between the United States and Mexico can be crossed by anyone, including potential terrorists.[55]

Paul also holds that children born in the United States to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic citizenship.[56] He has called for a Constitutional amendment to revise the Fourteenth Amendment, to "end automatic birthright citizenship" in order to address welfare issues.[57]

Economy

Lower taxes and smaller government

Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. He supports the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve.[58] Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!'".[59] He has said that he would completely eliminate the income tax, and would accomplish this by shrinking the size and scope of government to its constitutional limits.

As Congressman, Paul has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the 16th Amendment.[60] Paul has signed a pledge not to raise taxes or create new taxes, given by Americans for Tax Freedom.[61] Paul has also been an advocate of Employee-owned corporations (ESOP).[62] In 1999, he co-sponsored a bill titled The Employee Ownership Act of 1999 which would have created a new type of employee owned and controlled corporation (EOCC). This new type of corporation would have been exempt from most federal taxes.

John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, an organization that promotes lower tax rates, has said, "Ron Paul has always proven himself to be a leader in the fight for taxpayer rights and fiscal responsibility... No one can match his record on behalf of taxpayers." Paul has been called a "Taxpayer's Friend" by Berthoud's organization every year since he returned to Congress in 1996, scoring an average percentage of 100%, tying for the highest score (averaged from 1992 to 2005) among all 2008 Presidential candidates who have served in Congress, along with Tom Tancredo.[63]

National Federation of Independent Business president Jack Farris has said, "Congressman Ron Paul is a true friend of small business.... He is committed to a pro-small-business agenda of affordable health insurance, lower taxes, tort reform, and the elimination of burdensome mandates."[64]

Paul does not advocate a national sales tax. He has stated: "I agree on getting rid of the IRS, but I want to replace it with nothing, not another tax. But let's not forget the inflation tax." [65][66] He has advocated that the reduction of government will make an income tax unnecessary.

Paul's opposition to the Federal Reserve is supported by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which holds that instead of containing inflation, the Federal Reserve, in theory and in practice, is responsible for causing inflation.

In addition to eroding the value of individual savings, this creation of inflation leads to booms and busts in the economy. Thus Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He has stated in numerous speeches that most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the central bank because it funds many government activities.

He says that to compensate for eliminating the "hidden tax"[67] of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.[68][69]

Minimize federal interference

Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market process.[70] He also endorses defederalization of the health care system.

Paul was one of only three members of Congress that voted against the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, In a speech on the House floor, Ron Paul stated that the act "imposes costly new regulations on the financial services industry..[that].. are damaging American capital markets by providing an incentive for small US firms and foreign firms to deregister from US stock exchanges".[71]

In an interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Paul said he favors ending the United States Post Office legal monopoly on first class mail delivery by legalizing private competition.[72]

Importance of hard currency

In 1982, Ron Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U. S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has voiced concern over the dominance of the debt-based monetary system and called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through a gradual[65] re-introduction of hard currency including both gold and silver.[24] A commodity standard binds currency issue to the value of that commodity rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the commodity. Ron Paul supports the gold standard to prevent inflation.[73][74]

The Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in their monetary role by Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and 6, and Section Ten, Clause 1, "The Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal tender." The Commission also recommended that the federal government "... restore a definition for the term 'dollar.' We suggest defining a 'dollar' as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine."[75]

Paul has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions.[76] In 2002 he proposed legislation abolishing the Federal Reserve Board, enabling “America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold.”[77]

Paul suggests that current efforts to sustain dollar hegemony, especially since collapse of the Bretton Woods system following the United States' suspension of the dollar's conversion to gold in 1971, exacerbate a rationale for war. Consequently, when petroleum producing nations like Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela elect to trade in Petroeuro instead of Petrodollar, it devalues an already overly inflated dollar, further eroding its supremacy as a global currency. According to Paul, along with vested American interests in oil and plans to "remake the Middle East", this scenario has proven a contributing factor for the war against Iraq and diplomatic tensions with Iran.[78][79]

Income tax resistance

In an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News, June 26, 2007, in speaking of income tax resistance, Paul said that he supports the right of those who engage in non-violent resistance when they feel a law is unjust, bringing up the names of Martin Luther King, Lysander Spooner, and Mahatma Gandhi as examples of practitioners of peaceful civil disobedience, but he cautioned that those who do should be aware that the consequences could be imprisonment. [80]

He said that current income tax laws assume that people are guilty and they must then prove they are innocent, and he believes this aspect of tax law is unfair. However, he said that he prefers to work for improved tax laws by getting elected to Congress and trying to change the laws themselves rather than simply not paying the tax.

Civil liberties

Habeas corpus

In the first Republican debate in California, Paul stated that he would never violate habeas corpus,[8] through which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. This is also a pledge in the American Freedom Agenda signed by Paul.[81]

Domestic surveillance

Paul has spoken against the domestic surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency on American citizens. He believes the role of government is to protect American citizens' privacy, not violate it.[82] He has signed the American Freedom Agenda pledge not to violate Americans' rights through domestic wiretapping.[81]

Conscription

Paul is opposed to reintroduction of the military draft.[83] In 2002, he authored and introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives expressing that reinstatement of a draft would be unnecessary and detrimental to individual liberties, a resolution that was endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union. [84] In the 110th Congress, he has proposed a bill which would end Selective Service registration.[85]

Prohibition/drug laws

Medical marijuana

Paul was Co-Sponsor of H.R. 2592, the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana and is affirmative to the question "Should marijuana be a medical option?"[86][87] The federal government's involvement in this industry has led to regulatory conflict with the states that have made it an option, such as California after passage of Proposition 215.

Industrial hemp

Paul believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow hemp farming.[88] This would help North Dakota and other agriculture states, where farmers have requested the ability to farm hemp for years.[88]

In 2005 he introduced H.R. 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005, “to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana, and for other purposes”.[89] This bill would have given the states the power to regulate farming of hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the United States.

On February 13, 2007 Paul introduced H.R. 1009, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007", with nine original co-sponsors: Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jim McDermott (D-WA), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).[90] The Economist wrote that his support for hemp farming could appeal to farmers in Iowa.[90]

Prohibition

The Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general. When asked about his position on implementing the 10th Amendment Republican Senator Ron Paul explained, "Certain medical procedures and medical choices, I would allow the states to determine that. The state law should prevail not the Federal Government."

Speaking specifically about DEA raids on medical marijuana clinics Paul said, "They’re unconstitutional..." He went on to advocate states' rights and personal choice; "You’re not being compassionate by taking medical marijuana from someone who’s suffering from cancer or AIDS… People should have freedom of choice. We certainly should respect the law and the law says that states should be able to determine this."

Paul sees prohibition of drugs as ineffective. "Prohibition doesn’t work. Prohibition causes crime." He believes that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem, "We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime."

Ron Paul believes in personal responsibility, but also sees inequity in the current application of drug enforcement laws. "...when people commit violence whether they’re under the influence of drugs, prescription drugs, illegal drugs or alcohol they should be punished severely. We shouldn’t be putting people in prison for life with no chance of getting out… that never have committed a violent crime. At the same time we hear of cases were murderers or rapists get out after five or ten years or never even go to prison, it doesn’t make any sense."[91]

Second Amendment rights

The only 2008 presidential candidate to earn Gun Owners of America's (GOA) A+ rating, Paul has authored and sponsored pro-Second Amendment legislation in Congress. He has also fought for the right of pilots to be armed.

In the first chapter of his book, Freedom Under Siege, Paul argued that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense. When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant."[92]

Paul believes that a weapons ban at the federal or state level does not work either. "Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer. "[93] Rather, he sees school shootings, plane hijackings, and other such horrific events as a result of prohibitions on self-defense.[94]

Flag desecration

In June 2003, Paul voted against a Constitutional amendment to state that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.[95]

Judge versus jury

Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. "The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand of government through the common-law jury is as old as the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.). The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle and incorporated it into our Constitution." He notes that this democratic principle is also stated in Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man", Supreme Court of the United States decisions by Chief Justice John Jay, and writings of Thomas Jefferson. Paul states that judges were not given the right to direct the trial by "instructing" the jury.[96]

Social policies

Abortion

Paul is personally opposed to abortion. Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being related to this view.[97] During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?"
Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights.[98] Paul has said that the 9th and 10th amendment to the United States Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue".[99]

Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[100] Defining embryos and fetuses as persons would make abortion murder and outlaw fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments.[101][102] In 2005,

Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[103]

In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade," Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure".

He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in these areas would no longer be binding.[104] He once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.”[105]

Capital punishment

Paul has stated that at the state level "capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime," but that he does not believe that the federal government should use it as a penalty.[106]

Stem cell research

Paul considers the stem cell debate to be another divisive issue over which the federal government has no jurisdiction:

"Those engaged in this debate tend to split into warring camps claiming exclusive moral authority to decide the issue once and for all.

On one side, those who support the President’s veto tend to argue against embryonic stem cell research, pointing to the individual rights of the embryo being discarded for use in research. On the other hand are those who argue the embryo will be discarded any way, and the research may provide valuable cures for people suffering from terrible illnesses.
In Washington, these two camps generally advocate very different policies. The first group wants a federal ban on all such research, while the latter group expects the research to be federally-subsidized. Neither side in this battle seems to consider the morality surrounding the rights of federal taxpayers...."[107]

Church and State relationship

Ron Paul has consistently advocated that the federal government not be involved in citizens' everyday lives. This includes issues concerning religion. For example, he believes that prayer in public schools should neither be prohibited nor mandated at the federal or state level. [108][109]

In a December 2003 article entitled, "Christmas in Secular America", (previously erroneously referred to as "The War on Religion") Paul wrote, "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.

On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility.

Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."[110]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, this provision would allow displays of religious text and imagery by state, county, and local governments.[103]

Education

Rep. Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level. He opposes the federal No Child Left Behind Act, voting against it in 2001 and remaining opposed to it as an ineffective federal program.[111]

Paul has rejected government-issued vouchers in favor of education tax credits. Paul supports the right of state and local school districts to implement education vouchers according to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, but he does not believe they should exist on a federal level.

He says that vouchers are given to certain students favored over others, and it is not fair for some middle-class parents to have to pay their child's own way at a private school while other parents' children are selected for government voucher programs. He says that in their current form, vouchers are a form of welfare given to some over others; they would be worthwhile if they resulted in an equal amount of money being taken out of the public school system, but the end result is usually more money on both vouchers for private schools and more money for the public school system.

He says that vouchers would only work if they gave public schools some competition and forced public schools to get better, but when the public school gets all the money it would have and more even with vouchers as competition, the public system has no reason to get better.[112]

Congressman Paul says that when voucher proponents say that students have a right to a good education and give vouchers as the answer, it means that private schools must fall under federal regulations to ensure that they are meeting students' rights. He says that if given the choice of which private school to attend, parents may choose to use their taxpayer-voucher to attend a school objectionable to some, such as one run by, for example, the Nation of Islam, and for that situation not to happen, government control over which schools are acceptable for vouchers would have to be injected.

He asserts that colleagues have mentioned before that to take vouchers, religious schools would have to seek government accreditation under the Department of Education. He argues that this would in effect be a forced accreditation process because schools that choose not to take part will not be seen as having the "government's seal of approval" and may go out of business. He points to how the federal government has used federal funding for universities to tell universities what policies they must accept, and that the government would try to do the same with private schools.[112]

Instead, he has proposed the use of education tax credits, included in his bill the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612), which provides a $3,000 tax credit to families to choose their own schools. He has also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, which would provide for a tax credit for up to a $3,000 donation to the public or private school of the taxpayer's choice, which would provide accountability and more money to America's schools from a local level.[112]

Paul has sponsored a Constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools.[113]

LGBT issues

Adoption

In 1999, Paul voted in favor of prohibiting the allocation of federal funds on four unrelated amendments to a House appropriations bill for the government of the District of Columbia.[114] One of these amendments (H.AMDT.356 to HR 2587) would have prohibited "any [federal] funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage."[115] Although the amendment would not have prevented a gay person in a relationship from adopting a child in the District of Columbia,[116] it would have prevented both members of a same-sex couple from adopting a child because no federal money would be allowed to be spent on vetting or registering them.[117] Similarly, unmarried heterosexual couples would also have been unable to adopt children in the national capital.[118]

Marriage

Paul opposes "federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states.[119] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.

He spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, which limited the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[119][120]

Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[121]

Paul stated that "Americans understandably fear" the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage.[122] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[123]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices [or] orientation" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation." If made law, these provisions would allow states to prohibit same-sex sexual practices and same-sex marriage.[103]

Don't ask, don't tell
In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Rep. Paul said about the United States military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:

"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals.

So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."[5]

Health care

Paul has called for passage of tax relief bills to reduce health care costs for families:[124]

He would support a tax credit for senior citizens who need to pay for costly prescription drugs. He would also allow them to import drugs from other countries at lower prices. He has called for health savings accounts that allow for tax-free savings to be used to pay for prescriptions.[125]

H.R. 3075 allows families to claim a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for health insurance premiums.

H.R. 3076 provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals who pay taxes can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

H.R. 3077 creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities.

H.R. 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child.

Paul voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, which would allow the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to get the best price for drugs provided in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.[126]

Rep. Paul believes that the more government interference in medicine, the higher prices rise and the less efficient care becomes. He points to how many people today are upset with the HMO system, but few people realize that HMOs came about because of federal mandate in 1973.[127] He also points to the 1974 ERISA law that grants tax benefits to employers for providing insurance but not individuals; he prefers a system which grants tax credits to individuals.[128]
He supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system, saying in an interview on New Hampshire NPR that the present system is akin to a "corporatist-fascist" system which keeps prices high.
He says that in industries with freer markets prices go down due to technological innovation, but because of the corporatist system, this is prevented from happening in health care. He opposes socialized health care promoted by Democrats as being harmful because they lead to bigger and less efficient government.[129]

Paul has said that although he prefers tax credits to socialized medicine, he would be willing to "prop up" the current systems of Medicare and Medicaid with money saved by bringing troops home from foreign bases in places such as those in South Korea.[130]

He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, including Codex Alimentarius (some proposals he opposes would require a prescription for vitamins).[131]

Environment

Ron Paul believes that polluters are aggressors, and should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. In a radio interview with Dennis Miller, Paul cited the failure of environmental protection under collectivistic countries that do not respect private property, and the effect of private ownership:

";... the environment is better protected under private property rights... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property.... Too often, conservatives and libertarians fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, 'Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us.... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute.' So I don't particularly like that method."[132]

He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between and among the state(s) or region(s) concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."[133]

In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, he co-sponsored a bill preventing the US from funding nuclear power plants in China.[134] He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[135] Rather than bureaucrats in Washington giving subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, he believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[135]

He also sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[136] Paul believes that nuclear energy is an alternative that should be considered, because it is a clean and efficient fuel and could help with powering efficient electric cars.[135]

Paul believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow hemp production and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue. Hemp can be used in producing sustainable biofuels.[88] This would help North Dakota in particular; the state has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[88]

Paul voted against bills in both 2004 and 2005 that would shield a Saudi Arabian royal family-owned group from liability for a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into the groundwater in New England.

A Saudi-owned lobbying group spent more than $1.5 million lobbying Congress since 1998 to limit their liability for the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), for which cleanup costs in New England would be billions. The bill included $1.8 billion for federally-funded cleanup of New England municipalities and another $2 billion to give to companies to help them phase out the additive.

The provision was inserted into President Bush's energy bill of January 2004 by Majority Leader Tom Delay; the bill also included federal subsidies for oil, coal and gas. The Saudi company said that they should not be liable because they had been required to use an additive and it was more expensive to use the other possible additive, ethanol, in New England. Taxpayers for Common Sense said the measure was a "gift horse" for the Saudi-owned company and would subsidize foreign oil regimes in a bill meant to reduce dependence on foreign oil.[137][138][139]

Social Security

Paul says that Social Security is in "bad shape... the numbers aren't there"; funds are depleting because Congress borrows from the Social Security fund every year to fund its budget.[135] He says that he is one of the few members of Congress who has voted for so little spending that he has never voted to borrow from existing Social Security funds.

He believes that to stem the Social Security crisis, Congress should cut down on spending, but even with that, the commitment cannot be met. He thinks the only way to meet the commitment to elderly citizens who depend on Social Security is to reassess monetary policies and spending and stop borrowing so much from foreign investors, such as those in China, who hold US treasury bonds. He believes that young Americans should have the opportunity to opt out of the system if they would like to not pay Social Security taxes.[135]

Race neutrality

In an April 2007 column on his official House of Representatives website,[140] Paul criticizes racism, saying:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.

By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."[140]

Additionally, in his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege, he compares society's values to the values of television wrestling, citing racism as among the negative qualities:

There are times when it seems like we get our system of values from television productions. Professional wrestling is one of the few programs which started on TV in the late 1940s and now claims more viewers than ever.

There are no rules, and it is associated with contrived (but unreal) violence: mockery of the referee, racism, absence of sportsmanship, yelling, screaming, and hatred. Reasonable rules of decency are totally ignored. The shows get worse every year; belts, chains, and cages are now part of the acts.

Twenty wrestlers are put into a ring without a referee and a free-for-all erupts -- the more violent, the more the crowd cheers the ridiculous charade.

In 1997, he voted in favor[141] of ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.[142]

Veterans and the military

Paul believes the Veterans Administration should not be building more hospitals, and in fact, the VA hospitals should be phased out. He believes that government should be paying for the treatment of veterans in private hospitals. He believes that in this way veterans will get better care more cost effectively.

He has also said that rather than closing military bases in the US, the government should build fewer bases internationally and keep as many bases open in the US as possible.[135]

Technology

In 2006, a "Technology voter guide" by CNET awarded Paul a score of 80%, the highest score out of both houses of Congress. Paul has been criticized for voting against legislation to help catch online child predators, one of the votes used in the CNET guide. In response to critics, Paul said, "I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary." He also believed that the proposed law was unconstitutional.[143]

Network neutrality

Voted against establishing Bill HR 5252 Amendment 987(Jun 2006)[144], which would have legally protected network neutrality.

"But one of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which is a very, very dangerous precedent to set."[145]

g4 / stickam - one on one with Ron Paul - part 1
Ron Paul Videos On Demand (at http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008 )at 5 minutes, 42 seconds:

Host: "Do you trust the Verizons or the AT&Ts of the world to give internet users equal access to all media online?"

Ron Paul: "Well, quite frankly I don't understand all the details, but if you believe in the free market you try to work out a way to solve those problems through contractual arrangements, not through depending on government regulation, so yes they are difficult and like I admit, I don't understand all those problems that we face, although the point I make is I have a healthy disregard and fear of the bureaucrats doing it because once you do that, those big companies are going to regulate, they're going to be the lobbyists and the politicians that regulate the law, and I think you'll be in worse shape."

Election law

Ballot access
As a former Libertarian Party candidate for President, Congressman Paul has been a proponent of ballot access law reform, and has spoken out on numerous election law reform issues.

In 2003, he introduced H. R. 1941, the Voter Freedom Act of 2003, that would have created uniform ballot access laws for independent and third political party candidates in Congressional elections. He supported this bill in a speech before Congress in 2004.[146]

Voting Rights Act of 1965
In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[147]

Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[148] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. All of Texas' representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.[149]

The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, and in a letter opposing the bill for this reason, 80 members of Congress including Paul objected to the costly implications of requiring bilingual ballots.[149] In one example cited in the letter, the members detailed how Los Angeles spent $2.1 million for the 2004 election to provide ballots in seven different languages and more than 2,000 translators, although one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and another California district spent $30,000 on translating ballots per election despite receiving only one request for Spanish documents in 16 years.

The legislators also noted that printing in foreign languages increases the chances of ballot error, pointing out a specific example of erroneous translated ballots that had been used in Flushing, Queens.[150]

Paul wrote of his opposition to the Act:

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees.

Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."[148]

State representation

Paul would like to restore State representation in Congress. During a speech in New Hampshire in February 2007 Paul called for a repeal of the 17th amendment,[151] the one that allows for direct election of U.S. Senators. Instead Paul would have members of state legislatures vote for U.S. Senators as they had done under Article One Section 3. Direct popular representation would be retained in the House. Paul believes that increased representation of State interests at the federal level encourages greater sharing of power between state and Federal government,[152] and that greater state participation serves as a check against a powerful federal government.

Electoral College

In 2004, he spoke out against efforts to abolish the Electoral College, stating that such a reform would weaken the “voting power of pro-liberty states” and that “Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states.”[153]

Congressional appointment

In 2003, he spoke out against the enacted law that appoints (rather than elects) members of Congress in the event of the death of several members due to an act of terrorism.[154]

Campaign contributions

In 2002, he spoke before the Congress in opposition to campaign finance reforms that place any restrictions on citizens and businesses making campaign contributions to the candidate of their choice. He based his argument on the First Amendment, Separation of Powers, and Constitutional Authority, and the belief that such efforts are also counterproductive in reducing entrenched powers.[155]

Other issues

In order to restrict the federal government to its constitutionally authorized functions, Paul takes positions that are opposed by the majority of his colleagues.

He has been criticized at times for being the only dissenting vote against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal. The medals and ceremonies held to bestow them on recipients are expensive. According to Texas Monthly, “When he was criticized for voting against the medal [for Parks], he chided his colleagues by challenging them to personally contribute $100 to mint the medal [along with himself]. No one did. At the time, Paul observed, ‘It's easier to be generous with other people's money.’”[156]

In a speech on 25 June 2003, criticizing giving Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair a Gold Medal of Honor, Paul said, “These medals generally have been proposed to recognize a life of service and leadership, and not for political reasons — as evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan support for awarding President Reagan, a Republican, a gold medal. These awards normally go to deserving individuals, which is why I have many times offered to contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other members, to finance these medals.”[157] Texas Monthly awarded him the “Bum Steer” award for voting against a congressional honor for cartoonist Charles Schulz.

He views the new American Community Survey questions as “both ludicrous and insulting”, viewing that the information is simply none of the government's business.[158]

On January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415[159] voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction, as an unauthorized use of taxpayer money.

OFFICIAL SITES
Presidential Campaign Website

SPEECHES, STATEMENTS AND ISSUES

title="http://www.ronpaullibrary.org">Ron Paul Library,
MORE THAN 900 ARTICLES AND SPEECHES BY RON PAUL

Ron Paul at The 1st Republican Debate

Topic pages and databases
candidate profile including issue positions

The GOP's Lonely Anti-War Candidate

Meet Congressman Ron Paul -- staunch libertarian, outspoken critic of American hubris, and Republican presidential contender.

Zack Pelta-Heller June 11, 2007 web only

Surely one of the highlights of the presidential primary debates held so far occurred back in mid-May, during the Republican debate in South Carolina: Ten-term Texas Congressman Ron Paul stood in front of a patriotic field of white stars on a blue backdrop and told Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler that the attacks of 9/11 occurred primarily as a response to U.S. foreign policy over the past few decades. "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?" he asked incredulously. "They attacked us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for ten years!"

When Goler asked for clarification that the United States invited the 9/11 attacks, Paul, with his arms folded, replied coolly, "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reasons they did it. They are already delighted that we're over there, because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad that you're on our sand, because I can target you so much easier.' They have already … killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."

The last comment caused GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani to become unhinged. "That's an extraordinary statement -- as someone who lived through the attack on September 11th -- that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq," Giuliani seethed. "I don't think I've ever heard that one before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th." The audience erupted in applause, and Giuliani then asked the congressman to withdraw his comment. Paul instead discussed the blowback from CIA operations in the Middle East and elsewhere since the 1950's. Uproar ensued. Goler quickly changed the subject.

Congressman Paul is the only Republican presidential contender who opposes the war in Iraq; in 2002, he was one of six House Republicans who voted against authorizing the use of military force. And he opposes our military involvement with such vehemence -- both on the campaign trail and on the House floor -- that critics have suggested he ought to run as a Democrat.

(Paul was unbowed in the second Republican debate last week, using the word "empire" to describe American engagements abroad and invoking his training as a doctor in offering up his assessment: "If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the treatment … We're not making progress there and we should come home.") While it's true that many of Paul's positions seem out of step with the current Republican Party (he also voted against the Patriot Act and Internet regulation), Paul's no lefty; his positions are in keeping with his libertarian small-government principles and his own austere interpretation of the Constitution.

First elected in 1976, Paul has long opposed government intervention abroad and within the free market system. (His libertarianism doesn't extend to many social issues: He's pro-life and adamantly opposed to amnesty for undocumented immigrants and birthright citizenship for their children.) Paul votes against spending bills and new government tasks so frequently (even when the initiatives have sweeping Republican support) that his dissents have earned him the nickname "Dr. No."

While Paul's pro-life views and some of his anti-immigration policies have garnered him criticism from the Libertarian Party (which nominated him for President in 1988), he's now enjoying the glow of the national spotlight for his public condemnation of the war. I spoke with Paul by phone prior to his appearance on The Daily Show last Monday night. We discussed some of his seemingly anomalous platforms, and I asked him how he hopes to steer fellow Republicans away from big-government conservatism.

"It's not going to be easy," Paul laughed. "I have to remind them of times when they actually supported small-government conservatism and took the position that we should be less adventuresome overseas." Paul is not surprised to be the only antiwar GOP candidate, since he feels the party has taken its cues virtually entirely from the Bush administration for the past six years.

"They pounded it into us that we had to do this or we were un-American," he said. Paul believes that we cannot remain overextended abroad in part because we lack the money. "That's something that's very ironic," he added, "that conservatives are digging a big hole for us financially, as well as getting us involved in these conflicts around the world that never seem to end."

In the wake of September 11th, Paul supported the authority and the funding to go after Osama bin Laden. "What I did not support," he said, "was going into nation-building and the occupation of two Muslim countries, and then allowing bin Laden to go into Pakistan -- a country that is our ally and we send money to." At the time, what Paul actually wanted instead of war was for Congress to grant Letters of Marquee and Reprisal, a Constitutional decree that would have allowed private sources or bounty hunters to pursue bin Laden.

Paul quickly became fed up with the administration's handling of the war and congressional support for neoconservative proposals. In a speech entitled "Neo-CONNED!" which Paul delivered to the House in July 2003, he declared, "In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the [Bush] administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world."

Paul is acutely concerned about what our military presence has done in the Middle East, and how we are viewed in the Muslim world. "The Iranians don't forget about 1953, when we changed their leadership," he told me, "or the 1980s, when we put Saddam Hussein after them."

As in the South Carolina debate, Paul can often be heard paraphrasing the words of Ronald Reagan, "We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics." Reagan conceded this notion in his autobiography, referring to the decision to send troops into Lebanon in 1983, which resulted in the deaths of 241 marines. Paul, who was in Congress as the time, argued against Reagan's decision then, and he quoted Reagan again to the House in 2006 when refusing to choose sides during Hezbollah's fighting with Israel.

Paul cites hard evidence found in documents like the 9/11 Commission Report to support his foreign policy claims. The 9/11 Commission concluded that numerous statements from bin Laden prior to September 11th clearly expressed anger with our military presence in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. Following the South Carolina debate, Paul held a press conference in which he included the 9/11 Commission Report on a recommended reading list for Giuliani regarding foreign policy. Other books included Imperial Hubris, Blowback, and Dying to Win.

Paul believes we can simply back away from our position as policemen of the world. As for humanitarian crises like the situation in Darfur, he said he feels neighboring nations have every right to be concerned, along with countries with vested interests in the Sudan, and he would ask the Red Cross to get involved and people to donate money.

But he believes that that is as far as our foreign aid should extend. "I don't have the right to take money from you and make you work harder or live less productively, just because I'm sympathetic with the conditions in Darfur," he maintained. "Besides, generally speaking, we go where the oil is and not where the humanitarian needs are. And most of these dollars that go to these poor nations to help certain factions end up as weapons in these civil wars."

While Congressman Paul chose not to run as a Libertarian candidate this time around, the Libertarian Party still stands by him. Shane Cory, the Libertarian Party's Executive Director told me that although Paul strays from the party on certain issues, including abortion, Paul still represents the party's core beliefs in free-market principles and non-intervention abroad. (The sole criterion for Libertarian Party membership is certifying that you will not "advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.") Cory told me by phone, "I think Ron Paul has made several valid points on the war in the debates, and unfortunately a lot of Republicans have failed to appreciate them."

Many Democrats have taken notice of Paul, an unlikely ally across the aisle. Earlier this year, Paul joined with Democrats John Murtha of Pennsylvania, Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, and John Larson of Connecticut, among others, to co-sponsor a resolution that would require the president to seek specific authorization before initiating military force in Iran. Dennis Kucinich, who is running for president and couldn't be further from Paul on most issues, told me, "Paul has true integrity. His word is good and he has the courage of his convictions."

Representative Abercrombie also could not speak highly enough of Paul. "He's a legislator's legislator," Abercrombie said. "He's an intellectual at heart; he is just the real thing without the slightest bit of pretense or condescension." Last week, Abercrombie and Paul teamed up again to introduce a resolution that stipulates a sunset for the president's authority in Iraq. According to Abercrombie, it was Paul's idea to force a re-authorization for the war in Congress, which would render all of the political rhetoric and smokescreens about timetables moot.

"Congress has to take up its Constitutional responsibility to reauthorize this war, if that's its will," Abercrombie explained. "Paul called me and we tried to figure out a way to get past this maelstrom of legislative futility." Abercrombie can't wait for the next GOP debate, when Paul will be able to hold his fellow candidates accountable on the future of the war. Most likely, neither can Ron Paul.

Ron Paul, Rising Political Star?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/25/opinion/main2853556.shtml

Ron Paul Tells Aung San Suu Kyi to Go to Hell

Filed under Election 2008, Liberty, Legislation, 2008 Reasons, Outside the USA, Ron Paul by jclifford at 11:13 pm

If you want to know the difference between a liberal and libertarian, consider the following: Today, the House of Representatives passed H CON RES 200, a resolution of the sense of the House on events in Burma. The text of the resolution, which you can read below, calls upon the military dictatorship that rules Burma to release advocate for democracy and the rightful Prime Minister, Aung San Suu Kyi, immediately and without condition from her captivity. The resolution also calls for an end to government violence against ethic minorities and for a restoration of democracy in Burma.

Of the 432 members of the House of Representatives eligible to vote on the resolution, 413 voted in favor of it. Only two Representatives voted against it. One of those who voted against it was Ron Paul, libertarian and Republican candidate for President in 2008.

That’s libertarianism for you all over. Libertarians may talk big about defending freedom, but their version of freedom is actually rather small, focusing on the freedom to control property, and not extending any further than the borders of the USA.

Ron Paul essentially told Aung San Suu Kyi and the suffering people of Burma that they can go to hell. Ron Paul won’t go on the record even as a member of Congress to oppose the brutal smashing of liberty by the cruel generals of Burma. What good will his theoretical ramblings about libertarianism do? Why should a man so indifferent in the face of obvious injustice be elected as President of the United States?

The following is the active text of the resolution. These are the ideas that Ron Paul voted against today.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That–(1) it is the sense of Congress that United States policy should continue to call upon–
(A) the military regime in Burma–
(i) to immediately and unconditionally release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other detained political prisoners and prisoners of conscience;
(ii) to immediately cease attacks against ethnic minority civilians; and
(iii) to immediately begin a meaningful process of tripartite dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the NLD, and Burma’s ethnic nationalities; and
(B) the People’s Republic of China and other countries that provide political and economic support to Burma’s military junta to utilize their position and influence to–
(i) urge Burma’s military generals to immediately release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners; and
(ii) end their attacks on ethnic minority civilians and begin a meaningful process of genuine national reconciliation with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the NLD, and Burma’s ethnic nationalities;
(2) Congress urges the United Nations Security Council to immediately consider and take appropriate action to respond to the growing threat the SPDC poses in Burma;
(3) Congress expresses support for the restoration of democracy in Burma; and
(4) Congress expresses the need for freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press to be guaranteed for all Burmese citizens.


Related Posts:
--Take Action On Myanmar - Boycott Businesses With Burma
--Tancredo and Ron Paul AWOL on Iraq Vote
--When Ron Paul Takes a Poo, He Has To Wipe
--Ron Paul Bombs In Iowa
--Ron Paul, Rosa Parks, and Art Students

http://progressivepatriots.com/house/PaulTX14.html

The supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul claim that, as a philosophical libertarian, Ron Paul defends the Constitution and works to protect liberty. That claim is plainly contradicted in the Congressional Record.

On June 12, 2002, Ron Paul gave a speech declaring his intent to introduce legislation to the House of Representatives that would forbid federal district courts and federal claims courts from hearing the cases of citizens who claim to have had their religious freedom violated by government bodies. Why would Ron Paul do such a thing? Why would he block people whose religious liberty had been trampled by the government from seeking legal recourse?

The answer is sadly simple. Ron Paul opposes the separation of Church and State. He even calls the separation of Church and State “infamous”.

No kidding. Read more about it, in the Irregular Times article,
Ron Paul Opposes Separation of Church and State.
Selection and Descriptions of Key Votes Program

Project Vote Smart provides easy access to Congressional and State voting records and maintains a collection of key votes grouped by issue. Key votes typically include the initial passage of legislation and final conference report votes versions (the compromised versions of bills passed in separate House and Senate version). PVS uses a criteria to select key votes:

1. The vote should be helpful in portraying how a member stands on a particular issue
2. The vote should be clear for any person to understand
3. The vote has received media attention
4. The vote was passed or defeated by a very close margin
5. Occasionally, a specific bill is consistently inquired about on the PVS Hotline; the vote is added to the web site

Descriptions of the votes are written by PVS staff and based on information included in the Congressional Record and or State House and Senate Journals, with additional background information from newspapers, magazines, etc. PVS provides summaries for each selected key vote. The summary does not necessarily reflect the final version of the bill.

Key votes selected by PVS staff go through an approval process before web site posting, with political scientists and journalists of opposing viewpoints reviewing both the selection and the content. This is to ensure clarity, relevance, nonpartisanship and accuracy. After the approval process is completed, the votes are ready to go into the database and subsequently on-line.

All content © 2002-2006 Project Vote SmartProject Vote Smart
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929 One Common Ground, Philipsburg, MT 59858, 406-859-8683Questions? Need help? Call our Voter's Research Hotline toll-free 1-888-VOTE-SMART (1-888-868-3762).Legislative Demographic Data provided by Aristotle International

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Click here for 14 full quotes on Abortion OR background on Abortion.

Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/votes

http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/home.asp

REP. RON PAUL INTRODUCES RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE INT'L CRIMINAL COURT

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a89a43d3930.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787

Daily Kos is very definitely not the place you'd expect to see a lot of fulminating praise for right-wing conservatives. Yet the diaries are full of people who can't find enough nice things to say about Rep. Ron Paul, whose smiling face is at this moment being beamed to America from the site of the Republican debate in New Hampshire--after which, we may be sure, we will see yet another round of diaries brimming with joy about Paul's sweet words against the Iraq war. You, dear reader, may even be considering writing one or more such diaries yourself.

Before you do, fellow Democrat, please understand just one thing: Your affection for Paul is far from mutual. Through his words, his actions, and his votes in Congress, he has made one thing abundantly clear over the decades:

Ron Paul hates you. By building him up, by supporting him, by taking him seriously, you are not driving a wedge into the heart of the Republican Party--you are only giving him a helping hand along the road to his goal of destroying just about everything you stand for.

phenry's diary :: ::

THE RON PAUL EXPERIENCE - A Diary Series

Ron Paul, In His Own Words

Ron Paul: The Radical Right's Man in Washington

Ron Paul: Dude is Wack

Ron Paul Hates You

Let's have a look at some of the many, many issues on which Ron Paul places himself squarely in opposition to me and, presumably, you:

Abortion: Ron Paul's "libertarianism" famously does not extend to the right of a woman to control her body. In February he introduced H.R. 1094, "[t]o provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." He voted against overriding Bush's veto of the stem cell bill.

The Environment: Ron Paul may be a Republican, but he's certainly not a Republican for Environmental Protection. That fine organization gave Paul a shameful 17 percent rating on its most recent Congressional Scorecard (warning: PDF).

He doesn't fare much better in the eyes of the American Wilderness Coalition or the League of Conservation Voters. Paul's abysmal record on the environment is driven in large measure by his love of sweet, sweet oil: in the 109th Congress alone, he voted to voted allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE contamination lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to allow new offshore drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay royalties to the government for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Par for the course for a man who called the Kyoto accords "bad science, bad economics and bad domestic policy" and "anti-Americanism masquerading as environmentalism."

Immigration: Paul marches in lock-step with the xenophobic right wing on immigration, calling last month's compromise immigration bill "a compromise of our laws, a compromise of our sovereignty, and a compromise of the Second Amendment." Yet even the hardcore nativists in the immigration debate have been hesitant to support repealing birthright citizenship as enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, as Paul has done.

His proposed Constitutional amendment, introduced as H. J. Res 46 on April 28, 2005, reads: "Any person born after the date of the ratification of this article to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States." Only four other Representatives, all Republicans, were willing to cosponsor this proposed amendment.

Civil Rights: Paul doesn't much care for ensuring your right to vote. Like when he voted with just 32 other members of Congress against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Or when he voted for the bogus "Federal Election Integrity Act" voter suppression bill.

But at least Ron Paul knows who's responsible for racism in America: you are. "By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality," he writes, "the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism.

Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups." So now you know. (Apparently, saying that "[i]f you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" is not racist, as long as it's said with a proper appreciation for free-market economics.)

Gay Rights: Paul's rigid, uncompromising libertarianism leads him to take a number of positions that liberals find objectionable or even reprehensible but which should not in themselves be taken as ipso facto evidence of bigotry.

His reflexive opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, is consistent with libertarian positions on federalism and the right of the individual to be free from government "coercion," even if that means limiting the ability of minorities to seek employment and housing free from discrimination.

Still, libertarian orthodoxy can't fully explain Paul's hostility to gay rights, and indeed to gay people in general. The Libertarian Party, which nominated Paul as its presidential candidate in 1988, has strongly opposed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act from the beginning; Paul supports it.

While he opposed the "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have outlawed gay marriage everywhere, he actually cosponsored the odious "Marriage Protection Act," which would nonsensically bar federal courts from considering challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a federal law.

"The definition of marriage--a union between a man and a woman--can be found in any dictionary," he writes condescendingly. Despite Paul's disingenuous claims that he is a "strict constitutionalist," most legal scholars agree that the so-called Marriage Protection Act would be unconstitutional.

You also will not find Paul listed among the 124 co-sponsors of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2007, which would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays and lesbians from serving in the military. Maybe he's worried that they'll take their "gay agenda" to far-flung corners of the world. He also doesn't want gay people adopting children while they're not serving in the military, either.

On a personal level, we have this 1993 quote wherein Paul equates homosexuality with "sexual deviance." And let's not forget his wink-wink characterization of Hillary Clinton as "a far leftist with very close female friends".

Church-State Separation: From keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to co-sponsoring the school prayer amendment to keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, this "strict constitutionalist" isn't a big fan of the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. "Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths," he writes. "...The collectivist left" --that's you!-- "is threatened by strong religious institutions, because it wants an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society.... So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box."

And just in case the dirty liberals in the federal court system might take it into their heads to enforce the Establishment Clause, Mr. Strict Constitutionalist introduced a bill to bar the federal courts from hearing any such cases. No wonder James Dobson's Family Research Council gave Paul a 75 percent rating on their 2005 scorecard.

International Relations: Like crackpot paleoconservatives everywhere, Paul wants us out of the United Nations, which is just a bunch of un-American non-Americans out to destroy America. Darfur is also filled with non-Americans, so you certainly won't find Ron Paul lifting a finger to stop the genocide, or even acknowledge that genocide is taking place. I guess that's why he's one of only four members of Congress to receive an "F" rating on Darfur from the Genocide Intervention Network.

Peace and Military Issues: With all the hooting and hollering about Paul's opposition to the Iraq war, it sure seems like he should have been able to get better than 58 percent from PeacePAC, doesn't it?

Even Joe Lieberman managed to get 63 percent. (Still, it beats the 45 percent Paul got from them in the previous Congress.) He did a little better from Peace Action, managing 67 percent--easily the top score for a Republican, but a below-average score for Democrats. (Still, it beats the 40 percent he got from them in 2004.)

And while Paul may oppose the Iraq war, he doesn't seem to have much use for the men and women who have to fight it. Paul received an "F" rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It's not easy to get an F from the IAVA; Paul shares this distinction with only six other members of the House.

Taxes: Do we even need to go into this one? If you audaciously believe that we need a progressive system of taxation in this country, here's what Ron Paul thinks of you:

"[W]e have exactly the kind of steeply progressive tax system championed by Karl Marx. One might expect the left to be happy with such an arrangement. At its core, however, the collectivist left in this country simply doesn’t believe in tax cuts. Deep down, they believe all wealth belongs to the state, which should redistribute it via tax and welfare policies to achieve some mythical 'social justice.'... The class war tactic highlights what the left does best: divide Americans into groups.

Collectivists see all issues of wealth and taxation as a zero-sum game played between competing groups. If one group gets a tax break, other groups must be rallied against it- even if such a cut would ultimately benefit them.... Upward mobility is possible only in a free-market capitalist system, whereas collectivism dooms the poor to remain exactly where they are."

"Collectivist politicians forget that the American dream of becoming wealthy is alive and well. They seek to encourage resentment of the wealthy, when in truth most Americans admire successful people. They forget that upward mobility, the chance to start from humble beginnings and achieve wealth and position, is virtually impossible in high-tax socialist societies. Most of all, however, the pro-tax politicians forget that your money belongs to you. As a society, we should not forget their dishonesty when we go to the polls."

Screw this; this diary's way too long already. Worker rights: Voted to defund OSHA's ergonomics rules. Voted against increasing mine safety standards. Hates unions. Campaign finance reform: Opposes. Social Security and Medicare: Repeats the Republicans' lies about the programs' solvency. Consumer protection: Voted for the bankruptcy bill. Voted to make it harder to file class-action lawsuits. Universal health care: don't make me laugh. Privatizing everything: the Internets are not large enough to hold all the citations.

"But he's against the war!" Yes, he is. So is Pat Buchanan. So is David Duke. If either of them were on the stage in New Hampshire today, full of sweet words about the war, would you be as quick to praise their "independence," to gush about how well of course I wouldn't vote for him myself but he sure is awesome anyway? Do you truly require nothing from a political candidate other than that he oppose the war?

Think about it.

No comments: