Third Party & Independents Archives

Change Yes, Ron Paul No

Americans want a real political leader, a real change agent. Ron Paul has never been a change agent. He is a change-talker. His claim to fame is voting against legislation, not writing bold legislation to produce change that actually became law.

Ron Paul’s obnoxious supporters like more traditional political activists can spin and delude themselves about election results. But the Iowa caucus results could not be clearer: The vast national desire for political change is manifesting itself through support for both Democratic and Republican change-candidates. Despite Paul being flush with money and having a large number of workers in Iowa, he was solidly rejected as the leading change agent.

Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.

On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.

On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.

In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent

Edwards was absolutely correct when he summed things up this way: “The one thing that is clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.”

With all the hoopla from Paul supporters about younger people being for Paul, that’s not what the Iowa results showed. Younger people seeking change and inspiration flocked to Obama, in particular. There was no demographic in Iowa that overwhelmingly went for Paul. Sure, Paul beat Giuliani, but Paul’s effort in Iowa was much bigger than Giuliani’s.

None of these results will impact Paul’s supporters nationwide. Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a great article “Ron Paul is Scary, But Those Who Cheer Him Are Even Scarier.” He was right when he said: “The scariest thing about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It is that people take him seriously.” But now Iowa has thankfully shown that the vast majority of Americans, especially those seeking political change, reject Paul.

After losing badly in Iowa Paul said: “The other candidates talk about tinkering with the status quo. We don’t want to tinker; we want to change the status quo.” He said that his campaign is on the upswing and gaining support among independents, frustrated Republicans and unhappy Democrats. Just one very big problem: The Iowa results show that all these people are much more likely to vote for other Democratic and Republican change-candidates.

Paul’s supporters claim that he will do much better in New Hampshire where Libertarian Party members hold a number of offices. I don’t think so. Several polls taken before the Iowa results found Paul at just 5 to 9 percent. Will Paul get a big boost from Iowa? I don’t think so. Paul had predicted he could finish in third place in Iowa, and many of his supporters think he will do that in New Hampshire. I don’t think so. Paul will likely finish fifth in New Hampshire, in large part because more independents will go to Obama and McCain.

When Paul first ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, he won just 0.54 percent of the vote. Iowa shows that his second presidential bid will not produce much better results. Paul is definitely not tapping in a major way into the national populist movement, major desire for political change, anti-status quo sentiment, or even the anti-Iraq war issue. Clearly, other Democratic and Republican change-candidates are doing much better. This reality will not affect Paul’s passionate, cult-like followers that are solidified like cement in their belief that Paul can and should be our next president, something that Paul himself probably never really believed.

Most Americans can appreciate what Paul’s supporters cannot see: Paul is a change talker who has never shown any capabilities to be a real leader and a real change agent. His supporters are too clouded by self-delusion to honestly question and understand why the vast majority of Americans seeking political change reject Paul. They want a revolution and so do I. Whether any of the current crop of presidential candidates can produce a much needed Second American Revolution is doubtful. Still, we must keep seeking it.

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at January 5, 2008 11:28 AM
Comments
Comment #242337

cult-like followers that are solidified like cement in their belief that Paul can and should be our next president, something that Paul himself probably never really believed.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE _ not a cult _ at least while i have a choice.

Posted by: Yahoo forPaul at January 5, 2008 6:00 PM
Comment #242353

Joel,

Your characterization of Paul followers being a cult is quite laughable when they are no different than the hardcore supporters of other candidates like Obama, Huckabee, Clinton, Edwards and Romney. They all suspect that their candidate can when no matter what is said and will fight tooth and nail against anyone who suggests differently. I suspect you know this but want to do everything you can to paint both Paul and his followers in as bad of a light as you can, for your own political reasons, which makes no sense to me since you clearly assert he is not worth the time and effort you are displaying here.

While I’m not a Paul supporter at this time, I find it interesting that so many people do everything they can to slander/libel him and his followers while saying he is not worth even acknowledging as having a chance. If he is so worthless, why so many people writing such hatred? Why call someone you might disagree with a wacko simply because you disagree with them?

Even worse, you quote from an article claiming Paul is a racist because he doesn’t support the racist views that black people can’t be treated equally in our current society. He uses straw man fallacies in their worst form and attempts to use those to tear down a political opponent. The reason, it is convenient because so man people wilter under the accusation of racism today, it doesn’t take any actual thought. Which Earl Ofari Hutchinson does a good job of making sure never enters his article, it is almost like he is taking a day off.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 6, 2008 12:24 AM
Comment #242362

Joel,

I agree with Rhinehold on this one.

I like that Ron Paul is in the race. He does speak truth to power. While I agree he hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell, I think he is well aware of this. He is an idealogue, but also a pragmatist. I don’t agree with many of his Libertarian positions, but I find the dialogue surrounding a Constitutional presidency and discussions of the role of the Fed, and anti corporatism that isn’t anti business very enlightening and worthwhile in a presidential campaign.

Characterizing advocates of Paul as annoying is simply a bias and indicative of useless opining.
Characterizing Paul as racist is flat out a lie.
I heard these rumors at the very beginning of his campaign, I’ve researched it and found it to be completely fabricated. It appears some have reached their conclusions about Dr. Paul without actually listening to anything he has said or researching anything he has done.

Voting against legislation rather than writing bold new legislation isn’t a bad quality, in my opinion. Paul’s position is we had some pretty good legislation in 1786 and don’t need to fix what isn’t broken. While I don’t completely agree, I’ve never found the measure of a good legislature the volume of legislation passed. In fact, it is more likely to be an inverse relationship.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 6, 2008 2:42 AM
Comment #242379

In my 68 years, including many as a writer and political activist, I have never seen what I have witnessed about Paul’s supporters. I have hundreds of articles and comments posted on websites by Paul supporters, and I have received considerable true hate emails from them. It is frightening and totally contradictory to the wonderful, peaceful and respectful demeanor of Paul himself. New research has shown that candidates can win because of positive word of mouth from their supporters that greatly influences other people; in fact, it is more powerful than routine political commercials and advertising. Paul supporters are clearly not responding to the decisions of Americans to choose other political change-agents this year, especially Obama. Paul supporters keep attacking the people like me who speak and write articles critical of Paul, but they seem incapable of closely analyzing his statements, policies and beliefs. That link in my article was to a very interesting piece that showed that Paul was completely wrong in his criticism of Abraham Lincoln for starting the Civil War; turns out Paul did not know that Lincoln actually tried to do what Paul said should have been done: buy the slaves from the owners to set them free. The market approach did not work. Americans are not choosing Paul as the desired presidential change agent because Paul’s positions are not selling.

Posted by: Joel S. Hirschhorn at January 6, 2008 12:11 PM
Comment #242383

Rhinehold, I agree with your reply regarding Paul’s supporters.

You are dead wrong on you say: “If he is so worthless, why so many people writing such hatred? “

If Hitler ran or Stalin or Hugo Chavez ran in the 2008 election they would be treated much as Paul is treated by the mainstream. Paul is not a mainstream candidate. His call for returning the US currency to a commodity based standard would be devastating to the US economy, producers and consumers, alike. That move could only work if the rest of the world’s nations move in concert with the US. And last I checked, if Paul was elected, it would be to President of the US, not the WORLD. Some of the big and rapidly growing economies like China and India would NEVER agree to move to a commodity based currency, and Paul damn well knows that.

Therefore, Paul’s idea on this is so radical as to do tremendous systemic harm to our nation. He is an ideologue, who would, by his own words, pursue his ideology undeterred, even if it destroyed us. That makes him potentially a very dangerous and unpalatable candidate to mainstream America.

In the present, he is no threat as a non-mainstream candidate. Even if elected by a fluke, he would either be opposed intensely by Congress nullifying his non-mainstream ideologies, or, he would have to carry Bush’s unitary executive theory to its full conclusion and declare martial law, suspend the Congress and Courts in the name of national security, and then put his extreme ideas into practice.

Whether the populace rebelled or not, this nation would be plunged to the depths of conflict and unsustainability.

That said, Ron Paul has every right to run, every right to campaign, and every right to generate funding and support for his political cause. The man has a fidelity and passionate belief in his own ideas, and that is a respectable quality in a candidate. Which no doubt accounts for some of his minority appeal.

His rhetoric however, pits the older generation against the younger generation and this divisive brand of politics is one of the things the American electorate is now rejecting in candidates like Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton. America wants candidates who will ask for shared sacrifice and effort to solve the major challenges before us, and work to unite us, not divide us and pit us against each other for political ends. A major blind spot in the Ron Paul campaign.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 6, 2008 12:54 PM
Comment #242387

Just the facts. Here are a few things that raise some questions. You decide
Ron Paul (Voting Record/Statements/Positions/Writings):

  • Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001) {Strange for someone who delivered 4000 babies and states “assuredly life begins at conception” (Sep 2007) }

  • Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999) {Minors?}

  • Weak economy is source of resentment against immigrants. (Dec 2007) {Really? If only it were that simple. How about $70 Billion to $368 Billion in net losses to U.S. tax payers and pandering for votes, and despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other?}

  • Prioritize spending based on Constitution—and lower it too. (Sep 2007) {Never mind that more than two-thirds of all states have requested a BALANCED BUDGET amendment, but Ron Paul refuses to uphold the U.S. Constitution for an Article V Convention.}

  • Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000) {If Ron Paul really supported the amendment, he would not have joined the other 534 Congress persons in a law suit to violate the Constitution to refuse to call an Article V Convention.}

  • Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007) {Really? I’m not sure what to say about that, but it sounds like another over-simplification?}

  • Against ID for immigrants; it leads to national ID card. (Dec 2007) {Of course. We can’t limit the incessant inflow of cheap labor to depress wages.}

  • Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance {But Ron Paul then fails to uphold Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Too many in Congress think they can selectively enforce/ignore parts of the Constitution.}

  • Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. {Interesting for someone who touts liberty.}

  • Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007) {Interesting for someone who touts liberty.}

  • Ron Paul answered Yes to: Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution? (Sep 2007)

  • Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997){Once again, that is probably a moot point since all of Congress refuses to uphold Article V of the Constitution.}

  • Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007) {Interesting. How is this reducing federal spending and reducing the size of government?}

  • Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) {Why? How many lives have already been saved by this program?}

  • No on all earmarks, even those he proposes for his district. (Dec 2007) { … but … } Put 65 projects into 2006 bills, worth $4B to his district. (Dec 2007)

  • Supports compulsory term limits, but not voluntarily for himself. (Dec 2007) {Seems a bit hypocritical, eh?}

  • Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) {Of course. Cha-Ching !}

  • Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006) {… but … }advocates No federal voter ID card; but state ID cards ok. (Sep 2007)

  • Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) {Of course. Cha-Ching !}

  • Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999) {Of course. Cha-Ching !}

  • Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000) {Of course. Cha-Ching !}

  • Limit federal power, per the 10th Amendment. (Dec 2000) {But continue to violate Article V ?}

  • If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem. (Dec 2007) {If only it were really that simple.}

  • Amend Constitution to remove aliens’ birthright citizenship. (Dec 2007) {Again, good luck with that since all 535 in Congress have chosen to violate Article V of the Constiution.}

  • Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior. (Dec 2007){The issue isn’t simply bilingualism. Many of Ron Paul’s statements are massive over-simplifications.}

  • No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007) {Don’t need to round up illegal aliens; most will leave voluntarily when magnets are eliminated.}

  • Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007) {If only it were that simple. That comment totally ignores those behind the incessant inflow of cheap labor to depress wages and increase profits.}

  • No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important. (Jun 2007) {Border Security is important, as evidenced by Ron Paul’s vote in which he … } Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)

  • Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998){Of course. Keep the cheap labor coming … Cha-Ching! After all, Ron Paul said …} We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more. (Jun 2007)

  • Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
  • Minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (Sep 2007) {That is debatable since the minimum wage is so low, and is phased in over many years.}

  • Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007) {Strange.}

  • 99% no intention to run as independent if he loses GOP race. (Dec 2007)

  • sees himself as “The champion of the Constitution”. (Jun 2007) {Strange, since he refuses to uphold Article V of the U.S. Constitution.}

  • Allow young people to get out of the system. (Oct 2007) {If only it were that simple. Since S.S. was raided for decades and it is now pay-as-you-go, how is that supposed to happen?}

  • Federal government won’t keep its entitlement promises. (Mar 2007) {Duh! Congress can’t even uphold its oath to protect and preserve the U.S. Constitution.}

  • Never voted to spend one penny of Social Security money. (Dec 2007) { … but … } Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)

  • Doesn’t want flat tax or consumption tax. (Dec 2007){ So what is the government supposed to do? Just print all the money they want? Oh wait, they are already doing that, eh? Cutting spending alone won’t raise any tax revenues. Ron Paul needs to do a much better job explaining how sufficient taxes will be raised, since we can not simply abandon Social Security and/or Medicare, and National Defense. Also, not long ago, Ron Paul refused to reject a sales tax system. However, it is encouraging to now see that Ron Paul is opposed to a 30% Sales Tax. However, while Ron Paul may want the IRS abolished, he should also be careful that his votes to reduce taxes don’t make the tax system REGRESSIVE (which it now is).

  • Get rid of IRS; get rid of income tax; get rid of spending. (Dec 2007){That would be great if spending could be reduced. How is that going to happen when Ron Paul put 65 projects (earmarks) into 2006 bills, worth $4B to his district in Texas. (Dec 2007)}

  • I have never voted for a tax increase; and never will. (Nov 2007) {Maybe not, but he put 65 projects (earmarks) into 2006 bills, worth $4B to his district in Texas (Dec 2007). Seems to be more than a few contradictions in Ron Paul’s voting record and statements.}

  • says his Campaign slogan in 2004: The Taxpayers’ Best Friend. (Jan 2007) {Really? By putting 65 projects (earmarks) into 2006 bills, worth $4B to his district in Texas. (Dec 2007)}

  • Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005) {This regressive taxation is why Warren Buffet paid 17.7% income tax on $46 million in 2006, while his secretary paid 30% income tax on $60K.}

  • Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002) {Tax cuts for the rich, that is. Cha-Ching!}

  • Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax (“death tax”) (Apr 2001). Overhaul income tax; end capital gains & inheritance tax (Dec 2000). Phaseout the death tax (Mar 2001). {So, the person earning an income at a job will be taxed but the person who gets a windfall (free) inheritance without lifting a finger to earn it pays ZERO tax? Why not tax all income an EQUAL 17% only on income above the poverty-level? Seems an awful lot like more tax cuts for the rich? Seems like there may be some truth in the belief that most (if not all) Republicans are only lookin’ out for their big-money donors and rich friends. Seems a lot of Democrats believe that? Maybe there’s some truth to it?}

  • Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry (Nov 2004) {With federal tax dollars? Is that how we’ll cut federal spending? Or did Paul merely mean a pat on the back was sufficient?}

  • Different view on war because I adhere to the Constitution. (Dec 2007) {Really? Like ignoring Article V of the U.S. Constitution ?}

  • Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006){Again, how is this reducing government and spending?}
Ron Paul may have a few good ideas, and I like his position for the U.S. to stop trying to be the World Police, but Ron Paul’s position on illegal immigraiton is questionable, and Ron Paul needs to do a much better job defining his plans (e.g. for tax reform, monetary reform, spending cuts (where?), balanced budget amendment, immigration reform, Social Security, Medicare, etc, etc., etc.).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 6, 2008 1:20 PM
Comment #242390

I disagree with Paul about most things, but I am glad that he is running. It is good to have candidates who present a coherent political philosophy. The folks at Faux News should be ashamed of themselves for excluding him from the debate today. He has as much chance (OK, little) of winning as Fred Thompson.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 6, 2008 1:31 PM
Comment #242398

d.a.n.
Would you please elaborate on what you mean by the

ignoring Article V of the U.S. Constitution
?

I’ve been ill, and must have missed out on the discussion regarding this.

Posted by: Linda H. at January 6, 2008 2:52 PM
Comment #242399

Dr. Paul’s Writings › Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000

We should be more serious and cautious when writing Federal law, even when seeking praise-worthy goals. H.R. 3660 could have been written more narrowly, within constitutional constraints, while emphasizing State responsibility, and still serve as an instrument for condemning the wicked partial-birth abortion procedure.

Never in the Founders’ wildest dreams would they have believed that one day the interstate commerce clause, written to permit free trade among the States, would be used to curtail an act that was entirely under State jurisdiction. There is no interstate activity in an abortion. If there were, that activity would not be prohibited but, rather, protected by the original intent of the interstate commerce clause.

Yet, As we speak…

Re: Crimes by Members of the Three Branches of the U.S. Government

Here’s a crime in the making:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Choice Act’ S.1173. S. 1173

To protect, consistent with Roe v . Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

(14) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

(15) Federal protection of a woman’s right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because—

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that would refuse to deal with the issues of violence, recognizing that for all such acts the Constitution defers to the States. It is constitutionally permitted to limit Federal courts jurisdiction in particular issues. Congress should do precisely that with regard to abortion. It would be a big help in returning this issue to the States.

Dr. Paul’s Writings › What Does Freedom Really Mean?

Linda H.

Article V of the constitution contains the best kept secret in the history of our nation. We are familiar with the amendment process as it has been implemented thru-out our history. Many are not familiar with the second clause of Article V. (the after the “or,” part).
That part says the states can individually submit identical petitions to the federal government to convene a convention to specifically propose amendments.
It is quite different to the first clause of Article V.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2008 3:21 PM
Comment #242400

Dr. Paul’s Writings › Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000

We should be more serious and cautious when writing Federal law, even when seeking praise-worthy goals. H.R. 3660 could have been written more narrowly, within constitutional constraints, while emphasizing State responsibility, and still serve as an instrument for condemning the wicked partial-birth abortion procedure.

Never in the Founders’ wildest dreams would they have believed that one day the interstate commerce clause, written to permit free trade among the States, would be used to curtail an act that was entirely under State jurisdiction. There is no interstate activity in an abortion. If there were, that activity would not be prohibited but, rather, protected by the original intent of the interstate commerce clause.
Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2008 3:25 PM
Comment #242401

Yet, As we speak…

Re: Crimes by Members of the Three Branches of the U.S. Government

Here’s a crime in the making:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Choice Act’ S.1173. S. 1173

To protect, consistent with Roe v . Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

(14) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

(15) Federal protection of a woman’s right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because—

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2008 3:26 PM
Comment #242402
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that would refuse to deal with the issues of violence, recognizing that for all such acts the Constitution defers to the States. It is constitutionally permitted to limit Federal courts jurisdiction in particular issues. Congress should do precisely that with regard to abortion. It would be a big help in returning this issue to the States.

Dr. Paul’s Writings › What Does Freedom Really Mean?

Linda H.

Article V of the constitution contains the best kept secret in the history of our nation. We are familiar with the amendment process at it has been implemented thruout our history. Many are not familiar with the second clause of Article V. (the after the “or,” part).
That part says the states can individually submit identical petitions to the federal government to convene a convention to specifically propose amendments.
It is quite different than the first clause of Article V.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2008 3:28 PM
Comment #242403

WW, Dr. Ron has his own interpretation of the Constitution which, he believes should trump that of the Supreme Court, obvious from his comments. Folks like him who achieve power in other countries we call authoritarian and dictator.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 6, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #242411

What happened to the separation of powers?

The executive and the legislature are equal to the judiciary.

Perhaps you also have your own interpretation of the constitution, Mr. Remer.

The desire for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate, but something to condemn! The 20th century’s worst tyrants were political figures, men who fanatically sought power over others through the apparatus of the state. They wielded that power absolutely, without regard for the rule of law.

Our constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to restrain political power and place limits on the size and scope of government. It is this system, the rule of law, which we should celebrate—not political victories.


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2008 5:35 PM
Comment #242412
Linda H. wrote: d.a.n. Would you please elaborate on what you mean by the “ignoring Article V of the U.S. Constitution”
Sure. As Weary Willie correctly stated above, it is not widely known. Article V of the U.S. Constitution has been violated for several decades, despite 567 applications from all 50 states (far in excess of the number required from two-thirds of the 50 states). For example, 38 states (more than two-thirds (34) of the 50 states) have requested a Balanced Budget Amendment, but Congress has ignored it. Who knows? Had it ever been passed, we may not now have the $9.2 Trillion National Debt and a severely over-bloated federal government of nightmare proportions?

The Supreme Court has already stated that:

David R. Remer wrote: WW, Dr. Ron has his own interpretation of the Constitution which, he believes should trump that of the Supreme Court, obvious from his comments. Folks like him who achieve power in other countries we call authoritarian and dictator.
There is a definite disconnet between some of his claims and his voting record. It’s especially odd that Ron Paul sees himself as “The champion of the Constitution” (Jun 2007), but total ignores it where convenient. But he is not alone. Every single Congress person is doing the very same thing. The problem is wide-spread.

BTW, I sent a letter to Ron Paul asking about Article V and his then-apparent support of the unFairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate system, and one of his assistants/volunteers responded, but completely avoided answering the Article V question. That has been the common tactic from almost all Congress persons in the past year. Even if they respond to letters, they strangely switch to some other subject, and totally avoid the Article V question. A very few that did answer the question could not even get their stories in-synch. But the common excuse is that two-thirds of the states must apply contemporaneously (i.e. near simultaneously). The other excuse is that two-thirds of the states have not yet ever submitted an amendment application, but that is false. The two-thirds requirement has occured 4 times, which is why many Congress persons are now switching to the “comptemporaneous” excuse.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 6, 2008 5:50 PM
Comment #242413

Monetary Policy is Critically Important
by Ron Paul, Dr.

Money is the lifeblood of any economy, and control over a nation’s currency means control over its economic well being. Fed bankers quite literally determine the value of our money, by controlling the supply of dollars and establishing interest rates. Their actions can make you richer or poorer overnight, in terms of the value of your savings and the buying power of your paycheck. So I urge all Americans to educate themselves about monetary policy, and better understand how a small group of unelected individuals at the Federal Reserve and Treasury department wield tremendous power over our lives.
[ Read more ] Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2008 5:53 PM
Comment #242415
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech.

In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty.

The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment.

As James Madison said, “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.”


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2008 6:08 PM
Comment #242418

May 4, 1998


May is an important month.
Around the latter half of the month, the average American marks “Freedom from Federal Tax Day,”
That is disgraceful, which is why I wanted to come to Congress in the first place. For someone to work six months out of the year only to pay the tax-bill is ridiculous.
Why does government need so much of our money?
The time has come to rein in the federal government, put it on a crash diet, and let the people keep their money and their liberty.
Our founding fathers agreed that liberty was a worthwhile goal. So should we.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2008 6:21 PM
Comment #242419

The Currency/Monetary System issue is important.
The U.S. Dollar is falling like a rock.
A U.S. Dollar from year 1950 is now worth less than 11 cents.
And I’m beginning to suspect that inflation is not being reported accurately.
But once again, has Ron Paul outlined a specific plan of reform?
It won’t be easy when the Federal Reserve is actually a privately owned bank.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 6, 2008 6:48 PM
Comment #242420

Linda H.

It is entirely concieveable under this constitution, if the required number of states submit legislation to the federal government to petition an amendment to the constitution, the congress of the United States must grant this assembly.

All the federal government has to do is say ok. That’s all they’re suppose to do.

d.a.n is saying they refuse to say ok.

That is in violation of Article V.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2008 6:51 PM
Comment #242423

That’s pretty much it.
Since when did all 535 Congress persons ever agree 100% on something?
That alone is suspicious.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 6, 2008 7:11 PM
Comment #242425

Friends of the Article V Convention has background information pertaining to the federal government’s role in an Article V convention and also:

www.article-5.org has background information pertaining to the State government’s role in an Article V convention as well.

It’s quite a read!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2008 7:16 PM
Comment #242427

Property Rights And Eminent Domain

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2008 7:52 PM
Comment #242428

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/005763.html#242261

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2008 7:54 PM
Comment #242429

oops!

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/005763.html#242256

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2008 8:17 PM
Comment #242433

Joel,

You’re conclusion that Dr. Paul is completely wrong about Abraham Lincoln is a logical leap that I cannot make.

In the first instance, since it is not possible to relive history, we’ll ignore the problem of conjecture involved in hypothetical scenarios, temporarily.

Then there’s Paul’s now infamous slavery quip that he made on Meet the Press. Paul claimed the Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath that could and should have been avoided. All Lincoln had to do was buy the slaves. Other slave promoting countries, asserts Paul, didn’t fight wars and they ended slavery peacefully. Paul’s historical dumbness would have been laughable except for four things.

One, he was dead wrong. Lincoln twice made offers to the slave owners to buy the slaves. They turned him down flat. The countries that freed the slaves without war, presumably France and England, unlike the U.S., did not practice slavery in their countries. And France did fight a war — Napoleon’s ill-fated invasion of Haiti to put down the slave revolt there.

Two, he’s running for president and has a national platform to spout his wrong-headed views (Meet the Press!). Three, he’s done and said stuff like this many times before. Among the choice Paulisms are that blacks are criminally inclined, political dumb bells, and chronic welfare deadbeats. There was also the alleged Paul hobnob with a noted white supremacist. Here’s what Paul on his campaign website ronpaul2008.com has to say about race. In fact he even highlights this as “Issue: Racism” on the site.

The last paragraph is nothing but rumor and innuendo and flat out lies. Paul has not stated these things, has no association with white suprimacists. If you have proof of these lies, I’d like to see it.

The first paragraph misquotes Dr. Paul. He said,

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

He never talks about whether Lincoln did any negotiations. That isn’t the point….the facts are we went to war over slavery whereas England and others did not.

England didn’t have slavery? Does he think we imported slaves only after the Revolution? Why did Wilberforce then compose and get the Anti Slavery act passed?

After 1830 when the mood of the nation changed in favour of a variety of types of reform, the antislavery campaign gathered momentum. In 1833 Wilberforce’s efforts were finally rewarded when the Abolition of Slavery Act was passed. Wilberforce, on his death-bed, was informed of the passing of the Act in the nick of time. The main terms of the Act were:

all slaves under the age of six were to be freed immediately
slaves over the age of six were to remain as part slave and part free for a further four years. In that time they would have to be paid a wage for the work they did in the quarter of the week when they were “free”
the government was to provide £20 million in compensation to the slave-owners who had lost their “property.”

Lincoln was not the only contributer to the Civil War. Jackson and Buchanan helped set up the conditions, but Lincoln and the Congress decided to act imperious toward the South. Negotiations in bad faith are not negotiations worth citing. The issues were also intertwined in the power struggle of Abolitionists dictating policy to the southern states. Lincoln’s very election was a slap in the face to Southerner’s. Our Politician’s failed.

Paul does not blame Lincoln solely, he does not discuss the failure of negotiated outcomes, he simply points out that other regimes succeeded where America failed. Lincoln did not succeed in avoiding war. Could someone else have? It is pure conjecture.

So as to absolute proof of Ron Paul being wrong, only in the fairy land of hypothesis is there anything proving his idea wrong. Sorry, but Hutchinson may prove his imaginary fantasy about what could and couldn’t have been, but reality is that other countries in the same era succeeded where America failed. This might suggest to some that their approach might have been flawed. To those who want to aver hero worship for Lincoln, and smear Ron Paul… facts get in the way.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 7, 2008 12:34 AM
Comment #242442

WW said: “Perhaps you also have your own interpretation of the constitution, Mr. Remer.”

Perhaps you should read it, WW. The Supreme Court, NOT Ron Paul, is the Constitutional interpreter of the Constitution. A little education can take one a long way.

I have my understanding of the Constitution. And that understanding is that if the Constitution needs interpretation, it is the Court, not the President, delegated by that Constitution to make the necessary interpretation. Which is why GW Bush has so overstepped his Constitutional limits and checks. Ron Paul has many times indicated he would too!

The polls indicate the American people have had quite enough of authoritarian rule for awhile.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 7, 2008 9:35 AM
Comment #242443

Joel,
Amen!

Posted by: Lee Jamison at January 7, 2008 9:43 AM
Comment #242445

David,

I would like to point to this comment that you made a few years ago in which you said this about an interpretation of our US Constitution.

These are the kinds of laws and decisions that our Founding Fathers went to Revolution over. Let the Revolution begin. I have never owned semi-automatic weapons, but, the time has come. I have spent the last 6 years of my life developing 5 acres of raw land into a homestead, and built a two story home with my own two hands and assistance from my wife and daughter. I pay my taxes and give government everything it legally asks of me regarding my home. But, I will defend against anyone who tries to take it away from me, my wife and daughter for ANY price.

I built this property to pass something of real value to my daughter, and the value built into it is far, far greater than a sum of money. Let the Revolution begin. Anyone else served with imminent domain papers by state or local authorities, email me at editor@poliwatch.org, I will do what I can to assist you.

It is time for patriotic Americans to bind together to halt this runaway government which has no respect for individuals or rights. It is time for Americans to take the power away from those who would use power to profit themselves at high costs to others. It is time to defend ourselves against those would subvert our Constitution and spirit of the Founding Father’s intent to protect the public against the evils of power in government.

It seems pretty clear that it is ok for YOU to disagree with a Constitutional interpretation by the courts and even look to use violence to change the results of that interpretation (I’m pretty sure Ron Paul is not suggesting such a thing). Why is it then not ok for Ron Paul to express disagreement with a US Constitutional interpretation and look to sponsor legislation that would change the US Constitution to support his view? I don’t think I’ve ever seen him say we should ignore the US Constitution, in fact he seems to be one of the only candidates that I’ve seen that is even interested in paying it lip service when everyone else is falling all over themselves to violate it left and right without even a nod to the necessecity of a Constitutional Amendment…

So please, if you could, show me where he says that he has the right and should ignore the Supreme Court if he was elected President, it would be beneficial to those of us still trying to make up our minds and not putting his name in the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and Chavez (a tactic you decry Cheney for but have no problem adopting).

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 7, 2008 10:03 AM
Comment #242450

I think David R. Remer was talking about illegal eminent domain abuse.
The Supreme Court doesn’t always get it right.
The Supreme Court does not trump the U.S. Constitution.
Obvious perversions of the U.S. Constitution does not justify the abuse of eminent domain.
Was eminent domain supposed to be interpreted in a way such that corporations could take peoples’ homes and property to build a parking lots, football stadiums, and pharmacuetical office buildings?
No it wasn’t. The Supreme Court got it wrong, and some States are now taking steps of their own to curb the growing corpocrisy, corporatism, and manifestations of unchecked greed.

There are several cases per day of eminent domain abuse.

As for violating the Constitution, Ron Paul is not alone. ALL 535 Congress persons are flagrantly (see article by Richard Backus) violating Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court has not yet been forced to rule on this (the only cases brought before the Supreme Court have been dismissed on technicalities), but that time is probably coming as the number (currenly 567) amendment applications continues to grow and grow.

Already, more than two-thirds of all 50 states have submitted multiple applications for a BALANCED BUDGET amendment, but Congress has ignored it for many decades.

If Congress is the only body that can amend the Constitution, then Congress controls the Constitution. That was definitely not the intentions of the architects of the U.S. Constitution, and there are many Supreme Court cases that specifically address Article V and the rules of construction and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

And Congress (all 3 branches of government for that matter) have a clear conflict of interest, because the federal government does not want the States (despite 567 amendment applications from all 50 states), imposing balanced budgets, limits on salaries, or other common-sense solutions on them. Hence, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 7, 2008 11:22 AM
Comment #242453

BTW, while it is probable that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination, there is support for him to be the Libertarian nomination. The fact that he has a lot of money still and has been getting press for months along with the current nominees while the LP has not had their convention yet, it may be that he could garner a good percentage of votes going into the general election…

I’m still unsure about supporting him, there are things he says that just don’t ring true to me as a Libertarian, but it does change the nature of the game a bit, to say the least. And it may be harder than ever to block him from debates when we are down to just three or four nominees in the general election and he is polling as well as he is now.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 7, 2008 11:30 AM
Comment #242472


The Republican party would like to pretend that Ron Paul doesn’t exist except when they need his vote in the Congress. Despite this, Paul has repeatedly said that he will not run as an independent.


I heard the other night that the people can buy back the Federal Reserve for $450 billion. It would be a good investment.

Posted by: jlw at January 7, 2008 1:51 PM
Comment #242476

Rhinehold,
I’m glad Ron Paul is running, because he is raising some good questions about issues that would otherwise go completely (or almost completely) ignored (i.e. spending, taxation, inflation, monetary policies, excessive money printing, etc.).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 7, 2008 2:08 PM
Comment #242487

jlw, the U.S. needs the Fed. Reserve. What it is lacking is oversight and checks and balances, found in many other nation’s central banks and systems.

The absence of oversight and checks and balances is are often justified as necessary to keep the Fed from becoming a political tool. Doesn’t wash, though, since Pres. and Senate confirmation process add no more nor less political partisanship than any other agency of government as provided in the Constitution.

Monetary policy is absolutely necessary - so is oversight and accountability. The latter is lacking.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 7, 2008 3:48 PM
Comment #242490

Rhinehold, there you go cherry picking out of context again to suit your position.

The comment you quoted was in response to a very specific set of circumstances, to which I objected. My objection was NOT with eminent domain which is a constitutional provision for the PUBLIC good.

In the dialogue of comments to that article you pull the quote from, I also had this comment:

This ruling violates the spirit the intent of the Constitution of the US. It is time for Americans, as Rhinehold suggested, to contact their Congresspersons and demand Congressional reversal of this ruling. The Congress can pass a federal law that prevents violation of private property rights for the benefit of other’s private proverty enhancement.

It was the use of eminent domain taking from one private individual to benefit other private individuals as opposed to the public need and benefit, that I objected to, as clearly stated in this comment above appended in the same comments as the one you drew the quote from.

It is inappropriate, in my opinion, for you to either cherry pick or lazily overlook the entire context of my comments, in trying to paint an inaccurate picture of my having opposed eminent domain in general. I never did, and never will oppose eminent domain as a general principle constituted for the legitimate general public benefit.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 7, 2008 4:03 PM
Comment #242497

David,

trying to paint an inaccurate picture of my having opposed eminent domain in general. I never did, and never will oppose eminent domain as a general principle constituted for the legitimate general public benefit.

I am doing no such thing, I am just showing the hypocricy of your specific attack on Ron Paul. You claim that he thinks he has the power to ignore the Constitution when he has only done what you have done before, disagree with a Supreme Court decision and want to see it changed.

I noticed you did not back up your accusation, just try to make it look like I was saying something I wasn’t.

Again “So please, if you could, show me where he says that he has the right and should ignore the Supreme Court if he was elected President, it would be beneficial to those of us still trying to make up our minds and not putting his name in the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and Chavez (a tactic you decry Cheney for but have no problem adopting).”

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 7, 2008 4:35 PM
Comment #242518
You claim that he thinks he has the power to ignore the Constitution when he has only done what you have done before, disagree with a Supreme Court decision and want to see it changed.
The Supreme Court has not yet been forced to rule on Article V. In the mean time, Ron Paul and all of the other 534 Congress persons are violating Article V.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at January 8, 2008 12:28 AM
    Comment #242523

    One thing I like about Paul. While everyone recognizes on one level or another that America has become an expansionist imperial power,he is not afraid to call it one and publicly pronounce a bit of common sense on the matter. Namely,that if we would quit messing with other countries they are less likely to mess with us.

    One thing I like about Paul supporters is that they know SOMETHING is very wrong about the direction we have been taking and they are willing to at least try to do something about it.Nice to see among mostly young people.

    Outside of that IMO he is an interesting,sincere crackpot. I hope the libertarians do put him up. He will fit right in

    Posted by: BillS at January 8, 2008 2:20 AM
    Comment #242525

    Rhinehold said: “You claim that he thinks he has the power to ignore the Constitution when he has only done what you have done before, disagree with a Supreme Court decision and want to see it changed.”

    Thank you for the implied hope that I, like Ron Paul, should run for President to interpret the Constitution my way and run the country accordingly. But, I hate to break it to you, I am not running to do those things, and were I to run and win, I would dramatically reduce the power of my office back to Constitutional and legal limits, and work with the Congress on the prophylactic legislation to insure such overstepping did not occur after I left.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at January 8, 2008 2:50 AM
    Comment #242526

    Rhinehold, by your assertion everyone in America should wipe those names from their minds. Making the comparisons, is an inherent part of using history as it is meant to be used, to prevent the grievous past from every resurrecting itself under the guise of different faces and names. I know from past dialogues with you, that history serves other purposes for your comments, but, this remains its chief purpose.

    Fascists, socialists, and neo-whatevers, don’t arrive on the scene calling themselves by the monikers which would strike fear into those needed to acquire power. Quite the contrary, they arrive with the flag as background, and poetic patriotic rhetoric, and proclaiming to be one with the interests of the people.

    I did no equate, contrary to your comment’s understanding deficit, Ron Paul with Hitler, Stalin, or their like. They were much worse than simple authoritarians. Ron Paul’s rhetoric speaks of Ron Paul as the authority of the Constitution as if he himself authored it and has the inside scoop on its intent to abolish all taxes, presumably abandon our debts for lack of revenues, and move to a currency which the rest of the world would not honor for a wide range of transactions.

    But, isn’t it interesting that you would defend Ron Paul as a legitimate interpreter of the Constitution as candidate for President? How very partisan toward anything hinting at libertarian, regardless of all other considerations of legality, propriety, or Constitutionality. If you support Ron Paul’s interpretation of the Constitution should he become president, then certainly you can understand Republicans support for GW Bush’s interpretation of the Constitution and the unitary executive theory of it for example.

    What’s good for the goose, should be good for your gander as well, don’t you think?

    Posted by: David R. Remer at January 8, 2008 3:06 AM
    Comment #242527

    BillS, what a well phrased commentary. He has reflected the public’s dismay at the current state of our government. But, his prescriptions, which he unquestioningly believes in, are so preposterous as to keep him under the 15% polling range, thank Buddha.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at January 8, 2008 3:09 AM
    Comment #242538
    But, isn’t it interesting that you would defend Ron Paul as a legitimate interpreter of the Constitution as candidate for President?

    I have done no such thing.

    How very partisan toward anything hinting at libertarian, regardless of all other considerations of legality, propriety, or Constitutionality.

    Again, I have already stated that I have not decided who to support for president and have asked you, twice already, to show me where you are getting your assertion that Paul wants to violate the Constitution. And twice you have ignored that request.

    If you support Ron Paul’s interpretation of the Constitution should he become president, then certainly you can understand Republicans support for GW Bush’s interpretation of the Constitution and the unitary executive theory of it for example.

    What is Ron Paul’s interpretation, David? In fact, all I’ve ever seen is that he wants to pull back the powers of the president to their constitutional limits, for example not using the military unless Congress declares war. Pretty much what you have been saying you want, I believe. Yet you say he is wanting to reinterpret the constitution on his own, ignoring the Supreme Court, a charge you back up with NOTHING.

    Here, I’ll quote it AGAIN.

    Yet Again “So please, if you could, show me where he says that he has the right and should ignore the Supreme Court if he was elected President, it would be beneficial to those of us still trying to make up our minds and not putting his name in the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and Chavez (a tactic you decry Cheney for but have no problem adopting).”

    The problem, you see, is that I actually, genuinely, want to know if he has done anything like that because that would show him as being something other than libertarian, and I would not support that. Show here’s your chance to prevent a Paul supporter, all you have to do is actually show me some factual information that makes up your view.

    Or, as I suspect, there’s really nothing there…

    Posted by: Rhinehold at January 8, 2008 8:55 AM
    Comment #242540


    The vote for change applied only to the Democratic side of the ledger. The Republicans will vote for the candidate that seems to promise four more years. The only thing that could encourage them to vote for change or stay home is the economy.

    Posted by: jlw at January 8, 2008 9:20 AM
    Comment #242549

    A real vote for change would be to stop rewarding irresponsible, FOR-SALE, corrupt, do-nothing incumbent politicians with 95%-to-99% re-election rates.
    The Status Quo is the foe.
    Stop Repeat Offenders.
    Don’t Re-Elect Them.
    Who can name 10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, or even 268 (of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, don’t vote on pork-barrel, and aren’t FOR-SALE?
    Unless someone can name at least 268, we’re screwed.
    If our choices for president stink, we’d better get some real change in Congress to compensate for it. Just think if that had existed for the last 7 years?

    Posted by: d.a.n at January 8, 2008 11:08 AM
    Comment #242576

    Rhinehold said: “Yet you say he is wanting to reinterpret the constitution on his own, ignoring the Supreme Court, a charge you back up with NOTHING.”

    A charge I back up with visits to his website, and readings of his speeches. Since you freely admit that you have not researched the man’s positions, its rather humorous that you now ask that I educate you, while you defend him. I will just smile and leave this dialogue, thank you. Unless you want to send me a consulting or research fee for doing your own voter homework for you. :-)

    Posted by: David R. Remer at January 8, 2008 4:07 PM
    Comment #242583

    David,
    My biggest dispute with Ron Paul is his advocacy of Austrian Economics, and the Gold Standard.

    I do think this is suicidal economics, but then none of the other politicians seem to be capable of realistic economic theory either. Ron Paul at least doesn’t try to be everything to everybody.

    He has acknowledged that his brand of Libertarian ideals would be a hard sell, even if elected. I don’t see where he has deemed sweeping executive powers. His belief is that his ideas have come of an age for America to accept them, if presented properly. His presidency would give him that chance. Congress would surely resist most of this and Paul acknoledges radical changes would have to be done gradually.

    At least his presidency would rattle the status quo, much like Jackson’s presidency did.

    I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that he would usurp the Supreme Court or act as a singular executive. What’s your basis for this?

    I don’t expect him to win, but a good showing might give a third party entree into the political game. I doubt, however, that Ron Paul would leave the Republican party.

    You also said this,

    His rhetoric however, pits the older generation against the younger generation and this divisive brand of politics is one of the things the American electorate is now rejecting in candidates like Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton.

    Again, I don’t see this. He has talked about allowing young people to opt out of Social Security, but he has plans to continue to fund Social Security by reducing military expenditures and other means. Where is the pitting of young against old?

    Posted by: googlumpugus at January 8, 2008 5:00 PM
    Comment #242586

    I did some homework and there is still nothing concrete to think Ron Paul has an alterior motive.

    My first comments consisted of Mr. Paul’s own words. I have yet to find his words untrustworthy or preposterous.

    But, his prescriptions, which he unquestioningly believes in, are so preposterous as to keep him under the 15% polling range, thank Buddha. Posted by: David R. Remer at January 8, 2008 03:09 AM

    Are those preposterous prescriptions debated in the media?
    What part of the constitution are you afraid of Mr. Remer?
    A corporation has the same rights as a person, but where is that stated in the constitution? Where does it say “We the People and Corporations…”?

    Ron Paul is being enterpreted by a frightened status-quo. The obvious clue to this fact is the use of the word “change”. We need change! Everything for change! Change is the way to go! gag barf hack hack

    How many times was the word “change” used in the last Democratic Party Debate?

    Change=Status quo.

    It amazes me how Ron Paul gets his point across via. the internet and money falls into his lap. Then the media recognizes this and has to report it but in a light that portrays him as a, I’ll borrow the term “Crackpot”.

    The old guard, and I do mean old, parade before the cameras waving their little book decrying the abuse of the constitution going on now, and when someone nicknamed Dr. NO by his peers suddenly get 20 million dollars to make his point…

    BAM!
    He’s a crackpot.

    I believe the infinite wisdom and experience of the opponents of Mr. Paul have been set aside when these people snapped to their media driven conclusions.


    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch2.html


    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 8, 2008 5:21 PM
    Comment #242587

    want to know more about the candidates? go to:

    http://debates.redlasso.com/dbt/

    Posted by: Paul at January 8, 2008 5:37 PM
    Comment #242589

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/


    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 8, 2008 6:25 PM
    Comment #242591

    So, in other words,

    Or, as I suspect, there’s really nothing there…

    Or, perhaps more to the point, it was pulled out of a dubious nether region…

    But a couple of things:

    1) I am not trying to defend him but your outrageous accusations make it difficult not to.

    2) YOU attacked him with your accusations and now you don’t feel the need to back them up?

    BUT, it is good to know that I can save this quote from you for future reference when you ask me to back up something that I say. I mean, what was I thinking, on a political debate site to expect someone making an attack on someone else to actually have something to back up their claims…

    Posted by: Rhinehold at January 8, 2008 6:40 PM
    Comment #242596

    He’s gone. Off in a huff.

    Let’s here from some people who should be Justices appointed by Ron Paul to the supreme court.
    (the court Mr. Remer is so afraid of)

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 8, 2008 6:59 PM
    Comment #242599

    Let’s here from Thomas and Bork.
    Let’s here what they say about the constitution and Ron Paul’s power as a president.

    Let’s get our local school district to teach a comprehensive study of the constitution K-12.

    What does Ron Paul say about the federal government’s involvement in educating our children?

    Let’s hear from strict constitutionalists.
    (not Mr. Remer. He left.)


    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 8, 2008 7:11 PM
    Comment #242600

    Let’s here why I misspell hear!

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 8, 2008 7:28 PM
    Comment #242618

    WW said: “Let’s hear from strict constitutionalists.”

    Ain’t no such a thing. Which is why the founders crafted a Supreme Court in the first place, a branch of government that would interpret the deliberately vague Constitution according to their times and national needs to preserve and protect the Union for posterity.

    Bork and Thomas don’t have subjective personal values influencing their read of the Constitution? Give me a break. Psychology, upbringing, socialization, education, role models, and personal aspirations shape how every person views and interprets the world they come across, including the U.S. Constitution with its vast gray areas and highly debatable passages.

    Take the abortion issue. It is a Constitutional conundrum. In the case of life for the mother or fetus, the Constitution makes no choice whatsoever. Nor did the Founding Fathers even entertain the concept of federal government intruding upon the family’s and woman’s personal decision as to whether to become a mother or not. Yet, Bork and Thomas have very clear subjective interpretations of the Constitution on this issue.

    Kind of proves the point, strict Constitutionalists is an invention of a political party with a particular subjective agenda, and nothing more. Its a parlor trick. One which the founder fathers never contemplated themselves in as evidenced by their provisions in Article V and the Amendment process which permit interpretations to become adopted as needed overtime and historical context.

    Also evidenced by Art. 3, Sec. 2: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The Judicial Branch was never intended to be superior to the other 2 branches of government, nor to have exclusive province over the U.S. Constitution, nor was the original Constitution ever intended to be the final version, as Article V clearly demonstrates.

    Constitutionalists? Bork and Thomas? Clever political ruse to be played upon an ignorant public! Nothing more.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2008 2:23 AM
    Comment #242620

    WW said: “(the court Mr. Remer is so afraid of)”

    Mr. Remer is not afraid of the court. Not as long as there is a representative Congress, to which the Constitution forces the Court to share power with, and Constitutional Amendment override of. :-)

    Rather intelligent of the founding fathers to make nominations to the court subject to the will of the Executive branch. And to the assent of the State’s representatives, don’t you think?

    And rather intelligent of the American people and their representatives to Constitutionally amend further permitting direct elections of the Senate by the people of the states, and direct election of the President, except on those rare occasions when that archaic Electoral College is out of sync with the popular vote.

    This history has kept the nominations to the court by the President subject to the assent of the Senators, but, in turn, made the election of the Senate subject to the assent of the people. If the Senators assent to poor Justices, if the President nominates poor Justices, the people have direct recourse of action at the polls. All very Constitutional.

    It is why we are now called, quite appropriately, a democratic republic. Not just a republic. To the grating irritation on some conservative and Libertarian ears, who object to these Constitutional historical events, and by proxy, to the very Constitution they hypocritically claim themselves protectors of.

    As is likely to become abundantly apparent in 2009-2013 how democratically overseen and accountable this Supreme Court’s so called “constitutionalists” are constrained and limited as a very different kind of justice comes up for nomination and assent by the Senate. No. I don’t fear the Constitution nor its courts from an historical vantage point, only the occasional misguided or inept person who may slip through the system to wield power over other individual’s lives in direct contradiction to the intents for use of such power to preserve and protect the Union of the States and their people.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2008 2:40 AM
    Comment #242622

    Rhinehold, I do requests when I am paid. Throw $50 my way and I will do your homework for you. Otherwise, do your own. Your accusation of unsubstantiated statements rings hollow in light of the unfulfilled requests of you to substantiate your claims.

    But, like I said, I will do your bidding when you make it worth my while. Your points of view and their minority position in our society make my case rather well, without much effort at all.

    Let your comments rail all they will in defense of Ron Paul, and against the majority consensus. Ron Paul will not even come close to becoming president, and that fact will be irrefutably demonstrated. On this I will be proved absolutely accurate.

    What was his polling in Iowa? 7%? And 8% in New Hampshire? I thought I was being generous in conceding the possibility of 15% in some state or other before all is said and tallied. Never know when generosity might be repaid. ;-)

    Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2008 2:58 AM
    Comment #242638

    David,

    Just a note.

    The abortion issue with regards to Roe v. Wade. You are correct in noting that the Founders made no comment on this issue. As to Bork and Thomas, I believe their position is that this isn’t a federal issue; that the court erred in making any decision on the issue. It should be left to the states to decide.

    I don’t happen to agree with that position, but it is a false argument to claim that Bork or Thomas have s position that is somehow pro-life. Of course they do personally, but that isn’t their court position.

    I also agree with your statement that a “strict” Constitutionalist and an “activist” judiciary are pejorative terms.

    You still are avoiding backing up your accusations of Paul as an authoritarian or agist. I frankly don’t understand the pay for research argument. It seems you’ve conceded the points.

    As to Paul’s electability, of course, you are right. That doesn’t make his ideas wrong. You constantly argue for removing irresponsible officials and then reject someone who doesn’t tow the party line? I think the biggest mistake he has made is his extreme statements like abolishing the IRS and other federal agencies, without providing a more substantive discussion as to how he would acheive this.

    Posted by: googlumpugus at January 9, 2008 11:59 AM
    Comment #242657
    I think the biggest mistake he has made is his extreme statements like abolishing the IRS and other federal agencies, without providing a more substantive discussion as to how he would acheive this.
    Exactly.

    There is definitely a problem with the currently regressive tax system, and inflation is growing due to a dishonest, corrupt, and mismanaged monetary/currency system.

    However, Ron Paul has not provide a solution.

    What makes MUCH more sense is:

    • (1) Simplify the currently regressive tax system.

    • (2) Force the Federal Reserve to reduce inflation (i.e. target ZERO inflation), unless there are VERY good reasons for the incessant tinkering with inflation rates, and increase the Transparency, Oversight, and Accountability of the currently abused Monetary System and Money-Supply. Also, why do banks get the interest on money created out of thin air? They have a clear conflict of interest to get everyone possible into debt.
    It’s good that Ron Paul is at least mentioning these issues, but what’s the plan? Because if it is like Hucksterbee’s support for the 30% Sales Tax/Rebate system, or trying to revert back to a Gold Standard (rather than simply reduce inflation via responsible monetary policy), then that is worse.

    Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2008 1:54 PM
    Comment #242669

    D.a.n.

    I’ll agree with that.

    Oh, and I meant “toe the line” “towing the party line” conjurs up a whole different image;-)

    Posted by: googlumpugus at January 9, 2008 3:57 PM
    Comment #242671

    BTW, much of the ‘unelectibility’ I’ve seen stem from countless (and invalid as I’ve been able to determine) accusations of racism against Ron Paul, much like those in the article referrenced in the article and originally in the article before editing.

    Posted by: Rhinehold at January 9, 2008 4:05 PM
    Comment #242677

    The idea that the constitution is a vague mishmash of ideas to be bantered about is just the reason this country is so divided and fractionalized.

    What good is a word if the word is interpreted to fit the needs of the interpreteur? There has to be a base line and Ron Paul has demonstrated a firm base line with regards to the federal government’s spending.

    It’s good that Ron Paul is at least mentioning these issues, but what’s the plan?

    Many of the candidates have put forth plans without definition. And experience shows the best of plans end up costing more and doing less than what the original idea imagined.

    Ron Paul has stated he has specific steps to carry out his agenda. Yet is anyone inviting him to speak about those details? No! He’s labeled a crackpot and discounted and ignored by the msm. Maybe Bill Moyer will do another interview limited to one topic. Perhaps Sean Hannity would like to spend time with Ron Paul for one show on one topic.

    If one thing is certain it is the demonstration of hypocracy. Many, for the last 7 years, have been moaning and groaning about how the constitution is being violated, but Ron Paul gets millions to speak his mind and all of the sudden the constitution is just another piece of paper, a shadow of what it should stand for, an interpretation. Now it’s just a piece of art and only intellect and infinite experience are capable of understanding it’s true value. That’s why we have a supreme court, right?

    How did a corporation become an equal beneficiary of our Bill of Rights? Wasn’t that the supreme court’s ruling? Corporations are not a part of the constitution, an interpretation of an amendment gave life to the corporation.
    Shame on our forefathers for allowing the corporation an equal footing in our governing process. Expecially when their forefathers, 100 years earlier, gave their lives to protect their children from corporate rule.
    Shame Shame.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2008 6:01 PM
    Comment #242681

    Weary Willie,

    I don’t think Ron Paul is a crack pot.
    However, when candidates say abolish the IRS (like Huckabee did also), or get rid of the Federal Reserve, it requires a detailed explanation.

    I would have much more respect for any politician that simply comes up with a plan and an adequate explanation, and displays it on there web-site for all to see.

    For example, instead of saying abolish the IRS, how about simply saying:

    • The current tax system is regressive and ridiculously complex. Let’s start (first) by simplifying it. Then we can look into other tax systems, but there are simple things we can do NOW to make it more fair, simple, and efficient).

    • The Federal Reserve and Government have got to stop printing too much money, because the U.S. Dollar has fallen significantly over the past five years against all major currencies. And part of the problem is massive over-spending, pork-barrel, borrowing, graft, bribes, and waste.
    What is so hard about that?

    When these politicians consistently fail to talk straight, and consistently avoid common-sense, no-brainer solutions, it makes me seriously wonder about their true motivations. For example, more than 2/3 of the states have submitted a BALANCED BUDGET amendment (for decades), but Congress has violated Article V by refusing to call a Convention.

    Also, Ron Paul is amongst the other 535 Congress persons in violating Article V of the U.S. Constitution. It is one of the most obvious and flagrant violations (yet, as you said, one of the best kept secrets in America). Ron Paul is no different than the other Congress persons, but the fact still stands that Ron Paul is opposed to an Article V Convention.

    Should we vote for any person that willingly and knowingly is violating Article V of the Constitution? If we vote for anyone who willingly and knowingly is violates one part of the Constitution, what makes anyone think they won’t selectively violate other parts of the U.S. Constitution?

    We may not have know it about Bush, but we know now what Bush thinks of the Constitution:
    George Bush (43) said about the U.S. Constitution:

      “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” (source: Capitol Hill Blue)?}

    The real remedy is to vote-out as many FOR-SALE, corrupt, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians as possible, because that is probably the ONLY thing that will (peacefully) get their attention fast.

    The sooner, the better.
    The later we wait, the worse and more dangerous things will get.

    Either way, we will get our education one way or another, and we will have the government we deserve.

    Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2008 6:43 PM
    Comment #242682
    but the fact still stands that Ron Paul is opposed to an Article V Convention.

    Not true. He is aware of the provisions in the constitution for amendments. He may not elaborate but he is aware. And he is not in control of the HOR!

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2008 6:55 PM
    Comment #242683

    Article V will be initiated by state legislature only.

    Mr. Remer refered to direct elections of Senators. He says this is a good thing. His basis for this opinion may be the duel between the states and the federal government.

    Congress of the U.S. drafted an amendment under pressure from the states. The required number of states were ligitimately completing the requirements for an Article V convention. Congress submitted their own amendment to the states to thwart the convention.

    What was accomplished?

    State legislatures were no longer in control of senate seats, rendering the state moot in national politics.

    This was a natural progression to taxing an individual directly.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2008 7:13 PM
    Comment #242686
    d.a.n wrote: but the fact still stands that Ron Paul is opposed to an Article V Convention.
    Not true. He is aware of the provisions in the constitution for amendments. He may not elaborate but he is aware.
    Weary Willie, it is true, because Ron Paul has not only stated that he does not think an Article V Convention is a good idea, but he also agreed to go along with the rest of Congress to refuse to call an Article V Convention.

    Remember Walker v. Members of Congress?
    All Congress persons elected prior to 2006 (including Ron Paul) were represented by an attorney (Karen D. Utiger), and all members of Congress agreed to be represented in opposition to Article V. Their excuses are not supported by previous Supreme Court case-law, statements, or the Constitution itself. If it was, please show us the law, Supreme Court statement, or case that trumps the Supreme Law of the land. NOTE: there are many Supreme Court cases and statements that are already in support of Article V.

    Several people have been at this quite a while, and there is nothing that trumps the U.S. Constitution. That is, nothing legal. Also, it is not merely up to the state legislatures. Citizens of the states have standing too, despite the Supreme Court’s decision to ignore it. Besides, what about the 567 amendments already submitted by all 50 states?

    I know you like Ron Paul and may not want to believe that, but it is true. I wrote Ron Paul myself (among several others) and he refused to respond to that issue, but responded to others (the same M.O. of almost all others in Congress).

    Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2008 7:51 PM
    Comment #242687

    Fine.
    Insist our federal government own up to it’s responsibility to control the money supply and perhaps an article v convention will flow from it.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2008 8:37 PM
    Comment #242688

    You and I both know that none of our elected officials responded with any clarity to the Article V issue.

    We both have reason to believe no elected official has any knowledge of the 2nd Clause of Article V.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2008 8:40 PM
    Comment #242689

    We both agree education is a cure for that.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2008 8:41 PM
    Comment #242745
    “The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.”
    -Alan Greenspan, 1966
    Today, however, Mr. Greenspan has become one of those central planners he once denounced, and his views on fiat currency have changed accordingly.
    First, the Federal Reserve does not mimic a gold standard by any measure. True currency stability is impossible when fiat dollars can be produced at will and foreign lenders bankroll our deficits.
    Second, inflation is a much greater problem than the federal government admits. To suggest that rapid expansion of the money supply and artificially low interest rates do not ultimately cause price inflation is absurd.
    Third, Fed policies do indeed have adverse political ramifications. Average Americans suffer, however, when their dollars are “confiscated through inflation,” as Mr. Greenspan termed it.
    Americans should question why we have a central bank at all, and whose interests it serves. Americans should not tolerate the manipulation of our economy and the inflation of our currency by an unaccountable institution.
    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2008 5:00 PM
    Comment #242746

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/255/the-maestro-changes-his-tune/

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2008 5:01 PM
    Comment #242749


    Money is the lifeblood of any economy, and control over a nation’s currency means control over its economic well being. Fed bankers quite literally determine the value of our money, by controlling the supply of dollars and establishing interest rates. Their actions can make you richer or poorer overnight, in terms of the value of your savings and the buying power of your paycheck. So I urge all Americans to educate themselves about monetary policy, and better understand how a small group of unelected individuals at the Federal Reserve and Treasury department wield tremendous power over our lives.


    ————————————————————————————————————————

    by Ron Paul, Dr. February 19, 2007

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/227/monetary-policy-is-critically-important/

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2008 5:31 PM
    Comment #242750
    How can a policy of steadily debasing our currency be defended morally, knowing what harm it causes to those who still believe in saving money and assuming responsibility for themselves in their retirement years? Is it any wonder we are a nation of debtors rather than savers?

    We need more transparency in how the Federal Reserve carries out monetary policy, and we need it soon.


    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/227/monetary-policy-is-critically-important/
    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2008 5:33 PM
    Comment #242752
    We both have reason to believe no elected official has any knowledge of the 2nd Clause of Article V.
    Those that have read it have knowledge of it.

    It would be embarrassing indeed for any Congress person to say they don’t have any knowledge of Article V.

    Especially since they swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.

    Especially since all Congress persons were represented by the Department Of Justice, Karen D. Utiger in Walker v. Members of Congress, and at that time every Congress person had the duty to be choose to be represented in support or opposition. None of the members of Congress chose to stand in favor of Article V. And the Supreme Court was complicit in this violation by claiming the plaintiff had “no standing”.

    But then, the Supreme Court was also complicit in support of the violation of eminent domain laws. All three branches of government are supposed to help maintain checks and balances on each other.

    What other laws are being selectively violated?
    (1) several laws with regard to illegal immigration
    (2) emindent domain abuse
    (3) Habeas Corpus
    (4) Spying without civil oversight
    (5) the 1st Amendment
    (6) Article 6 and 7 ?

    As for monetary and tax policy, both definitely need reforms. I wish the candidates would spell out exactly what their plans are.

    Hucksterbee has committed to the un FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate system, so we know his position. But there’s only 11 months left and many of the other candidates need to start giving us some details on their plans. It doesn’t fly to say eliminate the IRS and Federal Reserve, and then not describe how the new syste will work.

    Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2008 6:00 PM
    Comment #242760

    d.a.n
    The new system will work the same way the old system worked when the government controlled an independent money. Why isn’t anyone quoting the constitution


    Sect. 8. The Congress shall have power …
    To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin,…


    Where does it say our economy can be outsourced? D’OH, it’s interpreted in the grey area!


    “If you think you’ve been squeezed for every last drop of taxes, demand that both your representatives in the statehouse and Washington do something to address spiraling property taxes.”

    The Threat of Rising Property Taxes

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2008 7:26 PM
    Comment #242761

    Statement on the Congressional Education Plan
    by Ron Paul, Dr. May 23, 2001

    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, thirty-six years ago Congress blatantly disregarded all constitutional limitations on its power over K-12 education by passing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2008 7:40 PM
    Comment #242762

    Property taxes is mostly a state issue.
    It is a serious issue.
    It is one of the major issues on my Growing Disparity Trend page.
    We have 11 months left.
    Hopefully, all of the candidates will define their plans.

    Ron Paul has some explaining to do, as do all the other candidates.

    I’m not anti-Ron Paul.
    In fact, I agree with most of his positions.
    More so than most of the candidates.
    But I’m still suspicious of some of his ideas on taxation, immigration, and monetary policies, and his refusal to address Article V.

    Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2008 7:51 PM
    Comment #242764

    Article V is your litmus test. I have been jousting at windmills for a long time and I find myself quoting Ron Paul because he is saying the same thing I have been saying long before the Article V discussion entered the scene.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2008 8:31 PM
    Comment #242765
    It is the most basic of all our rights. In a society which has the proper focus, many of the problems we face today become non-issues. Over the last half-century, there has been a declared war on these most fundamental of rights: property rights.

    by Ron Paul, Dr. July 6, 1998


    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2008 9:00 PM
    Comment #242767
    The survey asks, for instance, how many bathrooms you have in your house, how many miles you drive to work, how many days you were sick last year, and whether you have trouble getting up stairs.

    It goes on and on, mixing inane questions with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs.
    The founders never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people.

    More importantly, they never envisioned a nation where the people would roll over and submit to every government demand.


    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/683/none-of-your-business/

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2008 9:33 PM
    Comment #242769


    I don’t know but I’ve been told
    eskimo pussy ain’t that cold

    Sound off
    One Two
    Sound off
    Three four
    Bring it on down
    ONETWOTHREEFOUR

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/161/what-does-freedom-really-mean/

    Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?
    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2008 10:02 PM
    Comment #242771

    “As a Congressman, I have had the opportunity to get to know many of the home-schooling families in my district,” Paul stated. “I am very impressed by the outstanding job these parents are doing.
    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/257/paul-praises-home-schoolers/

    Posted by: Weary Willie at January 10, 2008 11:00 PM
    Comment #242793
    Article V is your litmus test.
    Article V is only one test. Most Americans don’t even know what Article V is, much less that it is being violated.

    But it is a very important one, since all Congress persons swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.

    There are other issues too:

    • (1) regressive taxation;

    • (2) monetary policies; eliminating exceissive money-printing (inflation);

    • (3) illegal immigration;

    • (4) rampant spending and borrowing;

    • (5) pork-barrel, waste, graft, corruption;

    • (6) government FOR-SALE; campaign finance reform;

    • (7) etc., etc., etc.

    Posted by: d.a.n at January 11, 2008 11:16 AM
    Post a comment