PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul on the Issues




Libertarian Ideals
05-04-2008, 04:14 PM
by Ryan Dawson

Environment
Only Ron Paul has said he would legalize hemp which has been scientifically proven to be a better cleaner method for producing ethanol than corn or coal. Hemp has a multitude of uses all of them more environmentally friendly than what they would replace.

Ron Paul would end the wars. The pentagon itself is the 46th largest polluter compared to countries on harmful green house gasses. Ending the war would also end the use by the US of depleted uranium a radio active pollutant which will last thousands of years.

Ron Paul will also close the loop hole on SUVs and allow the market to remain free and will not engage in corporate welfare. He will protect property rights and has stated that he would subsidize research for alternative sources of clean energy, solar, wind and bio.

My edit:
Here is an insightful interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment
http://grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

Gay marriage
It is not a difficult issue and Ron Paul doesn’t juggle his position. Any two adults of any combination who are not already married should be able to get married if they want and the government should have nothing to do with it.

The Wars
Ron Paul would not only bring our troops home from wars that have nothing to do with protecting America’s national interests, he will go a step further and will close unnecessary bases in Germany, Japan, and elsewhere and save the US around a Trillion dollars a year!

The money cut on spending will allow for huge tax cuts and more money for education and healthcare. Furthermore it is the moral and ethical thing to do.

Foreign aid to dictators
Ron Paul will end all aid to the entire Middle East including Israel. There is no reason the Military industrial complex should be allowed to finance itself buy awarding the money of the people of the US to despot and fascist nations to fund all sides of a military conflict. This would save again hundreds of billions of dollars.

Nukes
Paul will freeze the 36 billion dollar a year nuclear program in the US and there is absolutely no reason the US needs to build any more nuclear bombs when it already possesses thousands.

Trade
Ron Paul will trade and negotiate with everyone. Paul is willing to trade with Cuba who is no longer (if they ever even were) a threat to the US and should be able to mutually benefit from each other’s markets.

Paul also opposes NAFTA as it is unfairly designed to allow large government subsidized agribusinesses into Mexico where it can monopoly that industry and drive millions of workers out of business where they often get picked up in both Mexico and (illegally) in the US to be used as exploited labor.

Welfare
Ron Paul wants to end the welfare state. No one will be kicked out into the street people who are already dependent will be taken care of however young people will be given the option to opt out of social security if they choose to and save their own money as it appears that the SS funds have already been spent by the Bush administration and there will be no money there in the future for all the people paying into it.

Education
Ron Paul will get rid of the Department of Education which deals with education in title only and is in reality an institution to control schools and turn them into businesses acting as umbrella corporations to take “education” money and spend it on construction, beautification, etc. the DOE dictates what is taught in schools and acts as a method of indoctrination not education. States should be allowed more control. We don’t all need to read the exact same books in high school. Our public education is dismal.

Private schools free from the DOE do tend to teach better and out perform public schools. Crushing the DOE would liberate public schools from the rigid write and repeat joke that is posing as education right now. With federal tax cuts, and a trillion dollar spending cut from imperialism, combined with a stronger dollar and sound money, people would have more income, and state would have more to spend on education.

There is the misconception that the DOE pays for public schools. It does not. Public schools are paid by the states through their property taxes and somethimes a state lottery.

War on drugs
Paul would end the CIA’s lucrative drug rings by legalizing drugs and taking away their profitability. Victims of drugs would be treated as addicts rather than criminals and given treatment. Less harmful drugs could be used recreationally and would adult decisions just as they are now with alcohol. There is absolutely no reason to put a marijuana user in jail solely for using marijuana. Marijuana may also have medical benefits in certain situations and would be perfectly legal as are other prescription drugs. Other benefits from this would stem from the legalization of the hemp and its multitude of benefits for the environment from paper to fuel.

Taxes
Because Ron Paul over a trillion dollars from ending the war closing bases and ending nuclear proliferation, and senseless foreign aid, Americans would enjoy massive tax cuts. The income tax would be gone allowing people keep their own money rather than giving it to the government. No social programs would have to be cut to compensate for the loss revenue because we can save more than enough just by ending our imperial practices. The IRS would be gone. Many departments such as the Department of Homeland Security would also be cut. They are unnecessary in many cases unethical (they infringe on civil liberties and advocate torture etc) and we don’t need to waste money on them. Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes.

Monetary policy
Ron Paul is the only candidate running that even has a monetary policy. The big monster in the dark that creates inflation and the business cycles in housing and the stock market is the Federal Reserve. They create money backed by nothing out of thin air and loan it to the government to pay for imperial escapades and the government pays them back with interest by simply printing more money and devaluating the dollar. Paul would kill the spending and the borrowing as he would end the wars, and get rid of the Federal Reserve. This country used the gold standard until 1971 and could return to it to create sound money. We don’t need a secretive private bank controlling our money supply. At the very least if the Fed is to continue then there must be an audit and they have got to be more public and open.

Privacy
Paul stands for transparency in government and privacy for the individuals. There would be no searches with out warrants. There would be no domestic spying. There would be no censorship of the Internet. There would be no phone tapping. And there would no longer be a Patriot Act.

Torture
Ron Paul is opposed to torture no and ifs of buts about it. Gitmo would be closed down and renditions made illegal and people (soldiers or mercenaries) breaking the law would be prosecuted.

Israel
Paul will end all aid to Israel. He takes no money from AIPAC and believes they should be prosecuted for spying on the US.

Iran
Paul would stop the threats and sanctions on Iran. He would withdraw our naval war ships from their border. There is no reason to rush into WWIII with a country that based on the Evidence poses no threat the US and whose people should not be economically punished for having the “possibility” or “know how” of being able to one day harm the US.

Paul met the reports of the straight of Hormuz incident with skepticism right off the bat and stated this position in the SC debates. McCain and the other psychopaths smirked at this but later Paul was proven right.

Constitution
Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. He has never voted to and will never break the constitution. It is unconstitutional to have undeclared wars. It is unconstitutional to avoid due process of law. It is unconstitutional to confiscate guns, land, or homes. Ron Paul would restore the constitution.

Gun Control
The best way to control guns is to use both hands. Ron Paul supports the right to bare arms as it is part of the constitution. Gun free zones like Virginia Tech leave non-criminals like sitting ducks to an armed criminal. Armed citizens can bring a assailant down on their own, as they did in the Virginia Appalachian school of law, without waiting to fat, out of shape, chicken-shit cops to surround a building for four hours and do nothing until the shooter had killed himself. Police normally show up AFTER a crime when it is too late to prevent it. You have a right to defend yourself and home or deter criminals with the threat of it.

The Borders
You may have noticed on the map that the US actually does have borders. It is a sovereign nation with a unique culture and common language. Illegal immigrants should not cut in line from those going through the legal process. There is no excuse to not just simply do the legal paper work. Illegal aliens are exploited for labor by large and small businesses. And if desperate people can cross the border, so can illegal weapons, terrorists, and criminals. It is wrong to use exploited labor and it is wrong to tighten the number of available jobs and drive down wages. If people want to work in the US and make money for themselves or their families, then come over the legal way, pay taxes like everyone else and get a job. Ron Paul would make it easier to come legally but much harder to come illegally. Furthermore he would end the hand out to illegal and end the causes of such desperation at least in Mexico, by ending NAFTA and opening up more trade to all nations.

Free Speech
People have free speech that is part of the constitution. No where does the constitution state free speech “zones.” The entire country is a free speech zone. Ron Paul would not continue Bush and the Neocon’s practice of limiting free speech to designated zones. Paul has even been a victim of government censorship as the pentagon’s media outlet Fox News refused to allow Ron Paul in a presidential debate before the New Hampshire primaries even though it allowed others like Giuliani who had much less support than Paul.

There is only one candidate who will really stand for Change. Only one will end the wars, close the bases, end the IRS, cut hundreds of billions in spending, end corporate welfare, legalize hemp, and protect our liberties and the constitution. :)

RON PAUL 2008!

Libertarian Ideals
06-05-2008, 02:26 PM
BALLOT ACCESS
Ron Paul for Ballot Access

Ron Paul, long a dedicated opponent of restrictive ballot-access laws for federal elections, has again introduced legislation (http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/09/19/ron-paul-re-introduces-ballot-access-bill-in-congress/)to open up the process. (NB: he is also opposed to ballot-access restrictions at the state level, but as a constitutionalist advocate of states rights, he wants such matters handled at the state level.)


10th Amendment, United States Consitution says:

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

---

DOMESTIC SPACE POLICY
Ron Paul Presidential Campaign
Position Paper
(1988)

Time after time NASA has developed capabilities at great expense then discarded them: a space station larger than the Soviet MIR, a heavy lift vehicle competitive with the new Soviet Energia, a nuclear engine twice as efficient as the space shuttle main engine and a well tested Earth-Moon transport.

The fate of the Saturn V heavy lift launch vehicle is one of the saddest examples of this folly. Production was intentionally halted and portions of its tooling were "lost". This bridge burning ensured support for the next aerospace welfare program: the space shuttle. Now we have a grounded government shuttle that can lift a third as much as the Saturn V for the same cost per pound. That's progress, government style.

Even worse, this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to avoid well deserved embarassment. American companies desperately need to get their satellites into space. They have been blocked from using the cheapest, most reliable launcher in the world which unfortuneately happens to be the Soviet Proton.

NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development, twenty years that has seen the Soviet Union surpass us to an extent that may well be irreparable. It is inconceivable that a private firm could have committed such follies and survived. NASA deserves no better.

Our only hope now lies in the power of free individuals risking their own resources for their own dreams. We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators. The reciepts would be applied to the national debt. Then, all government roadblocks to commercial development of space must be removed.

It is not the business of the defense department of a free society to veto business decisions of remote sensing or launch companies. The interests of liberty would be well served by a bevy of mediasats that will put any future Iran-Contra affair under the full glare of live television coverage. Maybe, besides competition, that's what our government is afraid of.

There is really only one proper role for the military in space or on Earth: the protection of America. Otherwise, the new fronteir of Space should be opened to all. Space pioneers will generate knowledge and wealth that will improve the lot of all people on earth. We should not let government get in their way.

---

JURY RIGHTS

Trial by Jury – The Ultimate Protection
Ron Paul (1988) Freedom Under Siege, pp 23-27

According to Lysander Spooner, a mid-nineteenth-century writer, there are five separate tribunals protecting us from abusive government laws: The House of Representatives, the Senate, the Executive, the Courts, and the Common-Law Jury. He maintains that all are important but that the ultimate protection of our liberty must be placed in the hands of our peers. His "Essay on the Trial by Jury" (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7394/lysander.html) (1852) deserves close study by all twentieth-century students concerned about the future of freedom in America.

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.
John Jay, the first Chief justice of the Supreme Court, agreed with this principle. In his first jury trial in 1794 (Georgia vs. Brailsford) he stated: "You had nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact controversy." Jefferson was in agreement as well: "To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. "

The twentieth century, however, has witnessed a serious erosion of this principle. Since 1895 (Sparf vs. United States), the right of the jury to rule on the justice and constitutionality of the law, as well as the facts in the case, was seriously undermined. Also the lack of concern and understanding for individual rights has affected jurors, just as it has representatives, senators, judges, and presidents. Jurors in recent times have been just as guilty of ignoring the principle of equal rights as have our representatives in our legislatures, judiciary, and executive bodies of government. These two factors have greatly diminished the value of the jury in the twentieth century.

Those frustrated with changes in the Congress, the executive, and the judiciary -- and there is certainly good reason for frustration -- must consider educating potential jurors as to the importance of the common law jury and the principles of individual liberty.

An awakened citizenry, participating in juries around the country, could bring about a nonviolent revolution of magnificent proportions, reversing the sad trends of the twentieth century. The jury today is a weak institution, as are all the other institutions designed to guarantee individual liberty. The right effort could revitalize the jury and restore it to its rightful place in curtailing the endless growth of an all-powerful state.

Several legal events needed to occur in order for big government to thrive. The de-emphasis of the jury was crucial in the expansive powers of the omnipresent state. Judging the moral intent and the constitutionality of the law is no longer even a consideration of the jury. Today the judge instructs the jury to consider only the facts of the case, and then the becomes the soul arbiter of evidence admissible in court. The jury today has become progressively weaker over the past ninety years.

In addition, judges write into their rulings grand designs for society. Judiciary bodies have become legislative bodies.

A major part of the judicial system has been removed from the people placing it in administrative branches of government. The agencies of government have usurped power unimagined by the authors of the Constitution. Administrative justice is a great bureaucracy, independent of the legal judiciary.

Regulations are written yearly by the thousands of pages, read by few, and understood by no one. This is done intentionally to keep the peasants humble and to harass the people. It is used as a political tool for selective prosecution. Regulations can favor certain industries while destroying others, providing great accumulation of wealth for the beneficiaries.
. . .

Spooner argues eloquently for the right of the jury to pass final judgment on all laws, the moral intent of the law, the constitutionality of the law, the facts of the case, and the moral intent of the accused. Spooner's argument for allowing such responsibility to rest with the accused peers is that delegating responsibility only to the representatives in Washington was fraught with danger. He was convinced that all government officials were untrustworthy and susceptible to bribery and that removal of our representatives in the next election was not sufficient to protect the people from unwise and meddling legislation.

. . . Spooner begins his essay on trial by jury by clearly stating the importance of the jury's responsibility to judge the law as well as the facts in the case before them:

For more than six-hundred years, that is, since the Magna Carta, in 1215, there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases. It is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but it is also their right and their primary and paramount duty to judge the justice of the law and to hold all laws invalid, that are in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws.

Spooner was highly critical of the phrase "according to the evidence" in the oath of jurors, claiming it violated the classical common law. He states:

If the government can dictate the evidence, and require the jury to decide according to that evidence, it necessarily dictates the conclusion to which they must arrive. In that case the trial is really a trial by the government, not by the jury. The jury cannot try an issue unless they determine what evidence shall be admitted. The ancient oath, it will be observed, says nothing about 'according to the evidence.'

If a law is assumed to be correct constitutionally and morally merely because it's a law written by our chosen representative, the government can give itself dictatorial powers. And that's exactly what has happened with the massive powers delegated to the President under the Emergency Powers Act -- power sitting there to be grabbed and used at the hint of a crisis.

Spooner saw the jury as the last guard against such usurpation of the people's rights. Sadly, that protection is just about gone. It is up to us to restore the principle of trial by jury to its rightful place of importance.

--

Information on Jury rights can be found here:

Fully Informed Jury Association
http://www.fija.org/

Citizens Rule Book, Jury Handbook
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/citizen.pdf

"This booklet is designed to bring to your attention one important way our nation's founders provided to insure that you,
(not the growing army of politicians, judges, laywers and bureaucrats) rule this nation. It will focus on the true power you
possess as a Juror*, how you got it, why you have it, and remind you of the basis on which you must decide not only the
facts placed in evidence but also the validity or applicability of every law, rule, regulation, ordinance or instruction given by
any man or women seated as a judge or attorney when you serve as a Juror."

*It only takes one Juror to stop tyranny with a "Not Guilty" vote. She/ he can nullify bad law in any case, by "Hanging the Jury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury)."