Ron Paul, Libertarianism and the U.N.

[OrchardDweller]

Good question, and I'm glad you asked. He is, like you said, a presidential hopeful. He's a Libertarian candidate (he ran as such in '88) running as a Republican. He's a 10 term congressman and has practiced 30 years as an OB/GYN, delivering over 4000 babies.

He is the candidate they don't want you to know about! Mainstream media often either excludes him or lies about him. What they go out of their way not to show you is that his guy has some serious support from 'we the people'.
This short video will give you some idea of his popularity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ

The video is made by an individual grassroots supporter. His supporters are in no way led by the official campaign. All over this country, people from all across the political spectrum and of all ages have come together in support once they learn about Ron Paul. It's a revolution of sorts and it's very exciting. You can find many more great videos on www.youtube.com
A few of my favorites:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

And go here to find a wealth of Ron Paul's writings:
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/


[/B]

US presidential hopeful, Ron Paul, is the leading favorite for the White House in the Wacco community!

I have just one question:

Who the hell is Ron Paul???

[OrchardDweller]

Here's a picture of Ron Paul

[Dixon]

OMFG, it's Magneto from the X-Men movies! I guess that since the X-men keep foiling his plans to take over through force, he's decided to go legit (not that our government is legit)! Is he gonna use his magnetic powers to rule the country?

Dixon

Here's a picture of Ron Paul

[Valley Oak]

I had responded previously to Magneto's nomination to President but it was duly censored because I had been very rude in my response.

It was something like:
"Thank you for the photo. Ronny looks like another "bleep" that I would never vote for.

Edward

OMFG, it's Magneto from the X-Men movies! I guess that since the X-men keep foiling his plans to take over through force, he's decided to go legit (not that our government is legit)! Is he gonna use his magnetic powers to rule the country?

Dixon

[Moon]

I've met one Libertarian, Bruce Baechler, in Texas, who is an outstandingly wonderful person and who would have my vote for any public office. However, i think he--and anyone who wants to raise the global ratio of happiness to suffering--is mistaken in thinking he can get around the Libertarian Party's basically reactionary agenda to do
his good work.
In case anyone reading this is not familiar with the LP, the word libertarian does not mean they are a variety of anarchists. In most ways, in fact, anarchists and libertarians are exact opposites. The LP is against social service programs for immigrants, against foreign aid (even the pathetic fraction of one percent that the US government gives) and in favor of wars that "benefit" the US. Watch the video whose link is given in Orchard Dweller's response, but also take a look at the Libertarian Party's site lp.org.

[OrchardDweller]

Ron Paul is against social service programs for illegal immigrants, as they work as an incentive for people to come over here. Our economy cannot afford it anymore. We're 9 trillion dollars in debt. We just cannot continue taxing people and printing money. The dollar and the economy are at near collapse. Tax payers are already paying nearly half of their income in over all taxes.

Ron Paul is not against foreign aid, but believes such efforts would better be organized by the more efficient private sector. He believes with the big overbloated government out of the way, this type of work can return back to churches and charities and other caring persons. With lower income taxes, Americans will not only have a stronger economy but more money and more time to donate to things they feel are important. Have you been satisfied with the way the government has been handling things?

Regarding Libertarians, I believe they stick to the Constitution, as elected officials are sworn to uphold, rather than be reactionary. I would not say that Ron Paul is reactionary. I think just the fact that he was one of the few people to have voted against the war and the Patriot Act is a good indication that he stands by his principals. His voting record is impecible. Ron Paul is a compassionate man but he votes against some social programs, because he doesn't believe the government should have a hand in it. As an OBGYN, he didn't accept Medicare, but provided care at reduced cost or for free to those who couldn't afford it. Ron Paul just believes government should be smaller, have less power, and should stay out of people's lives and pocketbooks as much as possible.

I've met one Libertarian, Bruce Baechler, in Texas, who is an outstandingly wonderful person and who would have my vote for any public office. However, i think he--and anyone who wants to raise the global ratio of happiness to suffering--is mistaken in thinking he can get around the Libertarian Party's basically reactionary agenda to do
his good work.
In case anyone reading this is not familiar with the LP, the word libertarian does not mean they are a variety of anarchists. In most ways, in fact, anarchists and libertarians are exact opposites. The LP is against social service programs for immigrants, against foreign aid (even the pathetic fraction of one percent that the US government gives) and in favor of wars that "benefit" the US. Watch the video whose link is given in Orchard Dweller's response, but also take a look at the Libertarian Party's site lp.org.

[alanora]

I have not researched the matter, however, I do remember hearing somewhere that Ron Paul has spoken in an antisemitic way on more than one occasion. Does any one know more about this? Thanks, Mindy

[OrchardDweller]

I've read some unsourced alleged quotes, but from what I understand it was just a failed attempt to smear Dr. Paul. I think a racial comment would be very uncharacteristic of Dr. Paul and his philosophy of individual liberty, (vs. collectivism).Below is what came up on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Alleged racial remarks
A 1996 article in the Houston Chronicle[62] alleges that Ron Paul made comments in a 1992 edition of his Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) which could be construed as racist, including disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan, and that this could help his political opponents.[63]

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility for the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"[64][7]

He further stated:

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady... we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."[7]

Texas Monthly wrote in 2001, at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[7]

In an April 2007 column on his official House of Representatives website,[65] Paul criticizes racism, saying:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."[65]

If you care to see another attempt to smear Dr. Paul, watch this entertaining video. It's also an interesting look at how corporate media works:
part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY-KlYg9UME
part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ht1...s&mode=related

I've been following Dr. Paul for some time now and I've never heard him say anything racist or anti-semetic, nor have I ever read anything of the kind by him. You can find many of his writings here:
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

I have not researched the matter, however, I do remember hearing somewhere that Ron Paul has spoken in an antisemitic way on more than one occasion. Does any one know more about this? Thanks, Mindy

[ThePhiant]

Ron Paul is against social service programs for illegal immigrants, as they work as an incentive for people to come over here. Our economy cannot afford it anymore. We're 9 trillion dollars in debt. We just cannot continue taxing people and printing money. The dollar and the economy are at near collapse.

you are right, our economy can not afford to loose the cheap slavery work force!!!
9 trillion dollars went to Mexico???????????????
I like it how you juxtaposed those two together
if RonPaul is as crooked as your thinking, he deserve to loose

Tax payers are already paying nearly half of their income in over all taxes.

would it be possible to elaborate on your facts??

Ron Paul is not against foreign aid, but believes such efforts would better be organized by the more efficient private sector. He believes with the big overbloated government out of the way, this type of work can return back to churches and charities and other caring persons.

this is like a voluntary tax, right?

With lower income taxes, Americans will not only have a stronger economy but more money and more time to donate to things they feel are important

.
this is a bunch of hogwash.
the rich pay less taxes than the poor
does Ron know about this??????

Have you been satisfied with the way the government has been handling things?

what things?

I think just the fact that he was one of the few people to have voted against the war

as far as I know, only one person voted against the war!
a black woman!!!

. Ron Paul just believes government should be smaller, have less power, and should stay out of people's lives and pocketbooks as much as possible.

that is very beneficial for rich republicans
not many others will benefit from this candidate!!!!!!

[d-cat]

ThePhiant,

Ron Paul did indeed vote against the war. He was also one of the few to have voted against the Patriot Act. Watch this 3 minute video clip to hear his views on the war:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmPS0XmeBw

Also, I think you are putting words in Orchard Dweller's mouth. She never said 9 trillion went to Mexico. She said we are 9 trillion in debt. I doubt that you follow the subject but we are very close to an economic collapse. There is a lot I could respond to but I'm not sure I want to put the effort into it right now.

But don't be too quick to write off Dr. Paul (he is more a Libertarian than a Republican). Check him out - you might be pleasantly surprised. He really is a unique individual - a statesman rather than a politician. He's not a lawyer like the rest, he's a OB/GYN of 30 years who has delievered over 4,000 babies, as well as being a 10 term congressman. He has consistently been against the war and has never wavered, and I strongly believe that he is the only winnable candidate who will truly bring the troops home.

There are many videos about him on Youtube - just look to the right if you check out the video link I posted above.

[Sonomamark]

Uh, d-cat?

Ron Paul is not "more a Libertarian than a Republican". Ron Paul is a flat-out right-wing theocratic nutcase.

He's ardently homophobic, supports withdrawal of the US from the UN, and was considered the best choice for President on the white-supremacist website Stormfront because, among other things, of his strident opposition to hate crime legislation, support for banishing all forms of governmental support for the poor, and their assessment that "Ron Paul is the least likely to support government crackdowns on Pro-White organizations, and the most likely to veto such measures".

The war is a big issue. It's a huge mess, and we have to get out of it. But that doesn't mean that everyone who opposes the war is someone to support. Ron Paul makes Dick Cheney look like a hippy. Unless you're a right-wing religious fundamentalist, there is no reason at all even to consider voting for him.

The beauty of the Internet, folks, is that if you dig, you find stuff. Making a decision about who to vote for based on what candidates say in speeches is, well, not such a great methodology. Find out their issue positions, what interests support them, where their money comes from and what they've stood for in the past, and you get a much better picture.


Mark

Here are some words of Ron Paul:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

ThePhiant,

Ron Paul did indeed vote against the war. He was also one of the few to have voted against the Patriot Act. Watch this 3 minute video clip to hear his views on the war:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmPS0XmeBw

Also, I think you are putting words in Orchard Dweller's mouth. She never said 9 trillion went to Mexico. She said we are 9 trillion in debt. I doubt that you follow the subject but we are very close to an economic collapse. There is a lot I could respond to but I'm not sure I want to put the effort into it right now.

But don't be too quick to write off Dr. Paul (he is more a Libertarian than a Republican). Check him out - you might be pleasantly surprised. He really is a unique individual - a statesman rather than a politician. He's not a lawyer like the rest, he's a OB/GYN of 30 years who has delievered over 4,000 babies, as well as being a 10 term congressman. He has consistently been against the war and has never wavered, and I strongly believe that he is the only winnable candidate who will truly bring the troops home.

There are many videos about him on Youtube - just look to the right if you check out the video link I posted above.

[radio4progressives]

Most people who identify as Libertarians in this country, traditionally fall into the far Right of the U.S. political spectrum. However, most Leftists (who I associate with personally) have more in common with Libertarians than so called "moderates" in that Leftists (Socialist Libertarians) and Right wing Libertarians (Conservative Libertarians) share a deep abiding appreciation, and respect for the U.S. Constitution, and expect government to (above all else) adhere to it's principles in spirit, word and deed (as a whole) and most particularly the Bill of Rights (contained within the first Ten Amendments).

Those of us on the left who hold these shared common values, (not fully articulated or stipulated here in this post) are generally described as Socialists Libertarians -- (no, it isn't a contradiction in terms) .. which explains (what I think of as misplaced) admiration for Ron Paul.

I do respect Ron Paul for his courage of convictions and strong principles. And I agree with a number of his positions wrt to government keeping off our backs and out our bedrooms, but on foreign policy, in particular..

I have the opportunity to hear him speak on a number of issues on progressive and alternative media, such as Air America and elsewhere, but orcharddweller is right on this point: the Korporate M$M does not want the likes of Ron Paul, or Dennis Kucinich for that matter. (they work together on a number of legislative issues particularly de-funding and ending the war, as with other Constitional issues like domestic spying etc vis a vis the Patriot Act etc.) ..

But like with most Conservative Libertarians, we part company on fundelmental issues like strenghtening the infra-structure of our towns and communitues, particularly wrt access to healthcare & education for all which requires some form of taxation.

Ron Paul (like any good Libertarian) is against all social programs for ANYONE... citizens and undocumented-workers (and their families).

Libertarians are flat out against all domestic programs that serve to improve society. They would rather build prisons than schools. they would rather have an uneducated society, as long as their kids get what they need first.

Libertarians are not able to get the connection between an educated and healthy community/society, is a more stable, healthy and "secure" society.

So I could never VOTE for Ron Paul, (Kucinich would be my guy) but none the less I RESPECT him, and don't think of him as a "right wing nut job".

Again, I've listened to a number of interviews with him on Air America and alternative media. He's pretty open and honest about his positions, and I can only respect him for that and hold him in high esteem for fighting for his real beliefs.

Ron Paul is against social service programs for illegal immigrants, as they work as an incentive for people to come over here. Our economy cannot afford it anymore. We're 9 trillion dollars in debt. We just cannot continue taxing people and printing money. The dollar and the economy are at near collapse. Tax payers are already paying nearly half of their income in over all taxes.

Ron Paul is not against foreign aid, but believes such efforts would better be organized by the more efficient private sector. He believes with the big overbloated government out of the way, this type of work can return back to churches and charities and other caring persons. With lower income taxes, Americans will not only have a stronger economy but more money and more time to donate to things they feel are important. Have you been satisfied with the way the government has been handling things?

Regarding Libertarians, I believe they stick to the Constitution, as elected officials are sworn to uphold, rather than be reactionary. I would not say that Ron Paul is reactionary. I think just the fact that he was one of the few people to have voted against the war and the Patriot Act is a good indication that he stands by his principals. His voting record is impecible. Ron Paul is a compassionate man but he votes against some social programs, because he doesn't believe the government should have a hand in it. As an OBGYN, he didn't accept Medicare, but provided care at reduced cost or for free to those who couldn't afford it. Ron Paul just believes government should be smaller, have less power, and should stay out of people's lives and pocketbooks as much as possible.

[d-cat]

Hi Sonomamark,

You're free to support whomever you want, and believe what you want to believe. All I suggested was that one should check him out because they might be pleasantly surprised. I'd suggest that to you as well, because a lot what you wrote about him is just plain wrong or misrepresented. I don't have the time now, but maybe I'll come back with some more info another time.

Also, you might do some research into what the UN is really all about, and look into the CFR which all the ambassadors are members of. They paint a pretty picture but there is much more below the surface. It was quite a shocker to me.

UN


USSR

Uh, d-cat?

Ron Paul is not "more a Libertarian than a Republican". Ron Paul is a flat-out right-wing theocratic nutcase.

He's ardently homophobic, ...

[OrchardDweller]

Ron Paul is not "more a Libertarian than a Republican". Ron Paul is a flat-out right-wing theocratic nutcase

Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988, and many of his views are Libertarian, and he has strong support from Libertarians.

He's ardently homophobic,

If you are referring to his stance on same sex marriage, Ron Paul voted against 'Same Sex Marriage Resolution' (Vote to pass a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in the U.S. consists only of the union of a man and a woman, and federal and state constitutions can not be construed to require marriage or legal incidents of marriage be conferred in other unions)
https://www.vote-smart.org/issue_key...878&can_id=296

Ron Paul believes that federal government power is not to be used to redefine marriage. He believes in individual rights, not group rights. He is a strict Constitutionalist and supports the idea that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I have researched Ron Paul, and read quite a lot of his writings, but have never come across anything about his personal views on homosexuality. But whatever they are, it doesn't matter as he believes very strongly that the government should stay out of people's private lives as much as possible.

Here is a video of his response when questioned about the 'don't ask don't tell' policy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4UAhbMRpQU

And here is one homosexual's opinion of Ron Paul:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2yIxMtQLZU

supports withdrawal of the US from the UN,

Do you realize that we are now at a point now where the UN laws can override the US Constitution? Do you not value the Constitution? Do you not believe in sovereignty?

and was considered the best choice for President on the white-supremacist website Stormfront because, among other things, of his strident opposition to hate crime legislation, support for banishing all forms of governmental support for the poor, and their assessment that "Ron Paul is the least likely to support government crackdowns on Pro-White organizations, and the most likely to veto such measures".

Just because some white-supremacists support Ron Paul does not mean that Ron Paul is a white-supremacist. African Americans support Ron Paul as well, but that doesn't mean Ron Paul is African American.

He voted against hate crime legislation because it is unconstitutional. It is against free speech. Who knows what the government will tell us not to talk about next?

Ron Paul votes according to the Constitution. It's what our elected officials swear to do when they take office.

Ron Paul makes Dick Cheney look like a hippy.

If you think someone who wants to decriminalize marijuana and drugs makes Cheney look like a hippy, then that's your logic.

The beauty of the Internet, folks, is that if you dig, you find stuff. Making a decision about who to vote for based on what candidates say in speeches is, well, not such a great methodology. Find out their issue positions,

Yes, and you can find out Ron Paul's positions right here:
www.ronpaullibrary.org

what interests support them,

Exactly! In the case of Ron Paul, it's not the corporate lobbyists. In fact, he is known to them as "Dr. No". It is well known that the lobbyists don't even bother knocking on his door anymore because he turns them down consistently. If you check out videos of his supporters, they often carry signs which read "Say Yes to Dr. No".

where their money comes from

Ron Paul has raised at least 6 million dollars in campaign funds so far, the average donation being under $100. Donations to his campaign come from average Americans, not from corporations, unlike other candidates.

and what they've stood for in the past, and you get a much better picture.

I agree, and Ron Paul has the most consistent voting record of any candidate. He votes according to the constitution so it's very simple.
Here is an interview with Dr. Paul from 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian. With the exception that he is now against the death penalty, you can see that he is the same man with exactly the same positions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew

Here are some words of Ron Paul:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

Ron Paul is very well-read in history and is considered an expert on the Constitution and the founding fathers. So I would think that what he states here is true.
You can find the full text here:
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=337
It is actually written in defense of freedom of religion.

Well, after hearing your concerns, it would seem that you should like Ron Paul, but just don't know very much about him. Maybe you only hear about him from his opponents, which includes corporate media. I believe this is a do or die time for our freedoms and our Republic and I would encourage you to do a bit more research. You might have a look at this video for starters. It's about the CFR, which d-cat mentioned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM

[Valley Oak]

Hey, "D-Cat," (what a 'hip' name. Reminds me of Jack Kerouac) everybody can see, from your posting those two symbols, how insidious the UN must be simply because there are some visual elements that are the same as the old USSR! OOOH, look out for the big, bad UN! It's going to invade and take over the USA and the entire world. AAAH! Be careful! The UN is like the old commies! UGH! We should declare war on the UN and kill everybody in it including that mustache jerk that Bush put there!

Edward

[Sonomamark]

d-cat, now you have called me a liar, and I suggest that you are either deeply misinformed, or deliberately trying to misinform others.

Here is the link to the Ron Paul quote I provided earlier. People can check it out for themselves:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

What he is saying here is that he believes the establishment clause should be thrown out the window, and the laws of the United States should be predicated on his idea of Christianity. Y'all like that?

Those who are interested can check his voting record with the League of Conservation Voters, NARAL, the AFL-CIO, ACLU, NAACP, NRA, Conservative Union, etc., to get a good picture of his execrable voting record.

I won't link to Stormfront because it's so revolting that I don't want to give them Google mojo, but you can look for it yourself. Why are white supremacists supporting Ron Paul? Doesn't that BOTHER you?

As for the UN...please. Maybe you should try to do some research somewhere other than the American Opinion Bookstore. The UN is a force for tremendous good in the world, bureaucratic and hamstrung (mostly by the US and China) as it is. Certainly it is a stronger force for good than the US is under the Bush Administration. I wish it were stronger. I'm not scared by your "Communism" boogeyman and I'm historically and politically well enough informed to know that you're just fear-mongering, either intentionally or just out of ignorance.

Tellya what. You get back to us and tell us all Ron Paul's positions on these five issues...

• Abortion
• The Endangered Species Act
• Hate crime legislation
• Affirmative action
• Tort reform

...and then explain to this progressive community why they should waste ten seconds thinking about supporting him. Good luck.

The good news, of course, is that Paul is the Republican Nader of 2008. He appeals to the right fringe, and he's peeling off support from candidates that actually have a chance of winning. On that score, I say, go Ron! I hope you campaign heavily in states where Republicans are fighting to hold Senate seats.


M

Hi Sonomamark,

You're free to support whomever you want, and believe what you want to believe. All I suggested was that one should check him out because they might be pleasantly surprised. I'd suggest that to you as well, because a lot what you wrote about him is just plain wrong or misrepresented. I don't have the time now, but maybe I'll come back with some more info another time.

Also, you might do some research into what the UN is really all about, and look into the CFR which all the ambassadors are members of. They paint a pretty picture but there is much more below the surface. It was quite a shocker to me.

UN


USSR

[d-cat]

Edward (roble),

Here are some videos (and quotes) that I hope you and others will check out. I'm hoping it'll be just the start of your research into the subjects.

The CFR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKxWZP_hldI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pLRWiqNsnY

North American Union
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
https://video.google.com/videoplay?d...00745194023737

The Amero
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

The New World Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeNRn3kEjYQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl1VIhdpl4c

VeriChip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2udoNmQkR4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKHtyuzuKUA

America: Freedom To Fascism
https://video.google.com/videoplay?d...80303867390173

Who Controls the World
https://video.google.com/videoplay?d...35120990840079


The sooner we all become aware of what is happening, the better our chances of stopping it. We don't have too much time left. One more "emergency" and the Bush administration might implement NSPD 51 and we will be living under martial law.

Here is Ron Paul talking about The New World Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UydCZJeQPPQ

----------

"NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order."- Henry Kissinger

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years…. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” - David Rockefeller, Bilderberg Meeting, June 1991 Baden, Germany

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” - David Rockefeller

"The United Nations is the greatest fraud in all history. Its purpose is to destroy the United States."- John E. Rankin, U.S. Congressman.

“The Trilateral Commission is international…(and)…is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.” - Barry Goldwater, U.S. Senator in his book “With No Apologies.”

“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.” - Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State

“The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, the Trilateral Commission – founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller – and the Bilderberg Group have prepared for and now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years.” - Dr. Johannes Koeppl, former official of the German Ministry for Defense and adviser to NATO.

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." - Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg Group, Evian, France, May 21, 1992

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." - James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg, who was active in the United World Federalists for a World Government, stated before the U.S. Senate, February 17, 1950.

"What Boutros-Ghali proposes is closer than anyone on the planet should ever want to get to a transnational military force that could override and eventually abolish national sovereignty altogether and in the process set up the United Nations itself as the power apparatus of an unelected global elite."- Samuel Francis, Human Events, August 22, 1992.

Hey, "D-Cat," (what a 'hip' name. Reminds me of Jack Kerouac) everybody can see, from your posting those two symbols, how insidious the UN must be simply because there are some visual elements that are the same as the old USSR! OOOH, look out for the big, bad UN! It's going to invade and take over the USA and the entire world. AAAH! Be careful! The UN is like the old commies! UGH! We should declare war on the UN and kill everybody in it including that mustache jerk that Bush put there!

Edward

[d-cat]

I just wanted to clarify that Libertarians are not against social programs to improve society - but rather against the government being involved.

Please watch this 8 minute video of a 1988 interview with Libertarian candidate Ron Paul, as he speaks on the subject and gives reasons for his view. As stated above in the post by Orchard Dweller, with the exception of the death penalty which he is now against, his positions in the interview are the same as they are now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew

Most people who identify as Libertarians in this country, traditionally fall into the far Right of the U.S. political spectrum. However, most Leftists (who I associate with personally) have more in common with Libertarians than so called "moderates" in that Leftists (Socialist Libertarians) and Right wing Libertarians (Conservative Libertarians) share a deep abiding appreciation, and respect for the U.S. Constitution, and expect government to (above all else) adhere to it's principles in spirit, word and deed (as a whole) and most particularly the Bill of Rights (contained within the first Ten Amendments).
...

[Neshamah]

Well meaning people often grow the government into immense proportions. These super governments can accomplish amazing things, alleviate suffering, and make the world a better place, but sooner or later, someone comes along who will abuse that power.

Given our ever-expanding government, Bush or someone like him was inevitable, and unless we the people vote against all the front-runners, his successor might well be worse. I don't like all of Ron Paul's positions, but he is the only major candidate committed to shrinking the executive power.

Left to themselves, most who are established will take advantage of the environment and of those who are not yet established. Therefore the government does have a greater role than that envisioned by Libertarians. However, before we can grow a good government, we need to shrink the present one.

~ Neshamah

[d-cat]

Sonomamark,

You are thinking within the system. Ron Paul wants to change that system.

Your concern for Affirmative Action is irrelevant when Ron Paul wants to dismantle the Department of Education. The quality of education here since the federal government has been involved has changed the US from producing the world's smartest people to now the most stupid in the industrialized world.

With the abolishment of the illegal Federal Reserve, we would no longer suffer the effects of inflation, and minorities would be more prosperous and more able to start businesses and hire locals. With the abolishment of the illegal income tax, minorities would have more money to support these businesses, as well as local private schools.

Under a Ron Paul presidency, issues would be dealt with more on a state and local level where we would have more effect on how we wish things to be. And the diversity in the ways that issues would be dealt with across the country would encourage further improvement. Having a centralized system is not as effective as a system with competition.

Ron Paul will end the war and put a stop to this country's imperialism. We are all concerned about the environment, but what about the depleted uranium in the bombs we are dropping that is poisoning both the environment and living things on an unfathomable scale. What do you think a nuke would do to the environment?

Do you think the Democratic candidates will do anything different? Did they impeach Bush and Cheney? Both parties have been bought out and are controlled by the ruling elite. That is, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Dr. Ron Paul. Gambling odd organizations (whose existence depends on being right) say that only Ron Paul can beat Hillary. Kucinich can't.

Maybe you think things might be better under a Hillary administration. Did you know that she is being supported by ultra right wing media mogal Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX News? Have you heard Hillary's comments of no option being off the table concerning Iran?

I'm beyond this fake left/right paradigm. It's a puppet show to make us think we have some choice in the matter. With the exception of a few, they are all members of the CFR. Hillary and Edwards attend Bilderberg meetings!

Ron Paul upholds The Constitution, as all elected officials are sworn to do, so his voting record on an issue will reflect first whether it is allowed by the Constitution or not, and whether the federal government should be involved. It does not necessarily reflect his personal views.

On Abortion, Ron Paul believes it is not an issue for the federal government to be involved in. He believes that this controversial issue should be left at the state, local or individual level. After a 30 year career as an OB/GYN (he has delivered over 4000 babies), his personal view is that of being against it. He does not believe that there should be a one-size-fits-all policy for everyone. The religious south can have it their way, as can liberal Sonoma County.

I have been pro-choice all my life. Dr. Paul is very intelligent, and he has much more knowledge on the subject than I do, and his stance has made me question my own long held view. Though I am not convinced either way, I know it's safe to vote for him in regard to this issue because his position is that the federal govt should stay out of it.

On Affirmative Action, Dr. Paul has voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race. He believes in individual rights, not rights derived from belonging to any group.

On Tort Reform (which the tobacco and asbestos industries promote), Dr. Paul has voted NO on capping damages in medical lawsuits, NO on prohibiting lawsuits against food providers, and YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits.

On Hate Crime Legislation, Dr. Paul believes it is an infringement on free speech, and that the govt should have no say in what people can or cannot say, as the First Amendment states.

I am not familiar with his stand on The Endangered Species Act, and was unable to find information on this on the web. His general view on environmental issues is that the environment is better protected in the hands of the private sector rather than in the hands of government, as it was in poor and socialist countries. He believes environmental decisions should generally be left at the state and local level. people should not be told what they can or can't do on their own property, unless what they do effects those around them in a negative way.

For me, there are more pressing issues. Repealing the Patriot Act. Restoring The Constitution. Nullifying NSPD 51. Restoring Habeas Corpus. Restoring Posse Comitatus. Ending warrantless searches. Ending warrantless wiretapping. Ending our imperialistic ventures. Because I believe unless these fundamental and perilous issues are not resolved, none of the other issues will really matter. If they are not resolved, we will in the end have nothing to say about any issues.

Ending the war, abolishing the illegal Federal Reserve, ending the unconstitutional income tax, returning to a sound monetary policy, stopping Codex Alimentarius, and being free from national ID cards and the VeriChip are other urgent issues for this country's future. Ron Paul is the only electable candidate who will take on these issues which threaten our freedom and our Republic. If these issues are not faced head on, this country and the world will continue to slide toward an abyss that we will not be able to climb out of.

You say Dr. Paul is the Republican Ralph Nader, appealing to the right fringe. Well he appeals to me (liberal), and these liberals. He even appeals to this Green Party member. Ron Paul is this famous liberal's hero. A recent poll on a popular Ron Paul message board with thousands of members showed that the majority there were Democrats. Ron Paul's message of freedom is uniting the people of this country, and is even bringing the people of the world together, and that is a very beautiful thing. Especially after all the divisiveness and hatred we have suffered for so long.

Regarding his appeal being fringe, look at the MSNBC poll results from last nights GOP debate (video).





So if you continue to feel so strongly against Ron Paul, you better start to worry. Because this man, who believes in individual liberty, and freedom, the Constitution, free speech, less taxes, less war, and less government in our lives, just might be the next president of the United States of America.





https://liberalsforronpaul.com/ https://www.democratsforronpaul.com/ https://www.libertarians4paul.com/ https://www.veteransforpaul.org/ https://www.demsforronpaul.org/ https://studentsforpaul.org/ https://christiansforronpaul.com/home.htm Hispanics For Ron Paul Bikers For Ron Paul https://catholicsforronpaul.blogspot.com/ https://www.grannywarriors.com/

https://www.canadiansforronpaul.com/ https://asia4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ https://europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ https://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ https://belgians4paul.blogspot.com/ https://ronpaulbrazil.wordpress.com/ https://bavaria-for-ron-paul.blogspot.com/ https://www.holland4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ https://ronpaulfr.blogspot.com/ https://indiansandpakistanisforronpaul.wordpress.com/ https://ronpaulish.blog.onet.pl/

Ron Paul Meetup Groups

Australia
Sidney: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/759
Perth: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/419
Brisbane: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/122

Canada
Toronto: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/99
Montreal: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/22
Vancouver: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/533
Calgary: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/487

Germany
Munich: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/719
Berlin: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/440

Iraq
Baghdad: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/690

Ireland
Athlone: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/515

Italy
Verona: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/686/

Japan
Tokyo: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/756
Niigata: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/436

New Zealand
Dunedin: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/452

Russia
Saratov: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/442

South Korea
Seoul: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/173

Slovakia
Bratislava: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/583*

Thailand
Bangkok: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/672

United Kingdom
London: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/362
Edinburg: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/82

and there are probably many more...

[OrchardDweller]

Ron Paul upholds The Constitution, as all elected officials are sworn to do, so his voting record on an issue will reflect first whether it is allowed by the Constitution or not, and whether the federal government should be involved. It does not necessarily reflect his personal views.

Right. For example, he is against the federally run Medicaid and Medicare. But not because he doesn't care about people. As a physician he didn't accept Medicare/Medicaid, but helped those with limited funds free of charge or at a reduced rate.


H.R.194 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to the purchase of prescription drugs by individuals who have attained retirement age, and to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the importation of prescription drugs and the sale of such drugs through Internet sites.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce; House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 2/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

H.R.195 : To provide greater health care freedom for seniors.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (5)
Committees: House Ways and Means; House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 2/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

H.R.1898 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for medical expenses for dependents.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/17/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 4/17/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

H.R.3343 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make health care coverage more accessible and affordable.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 8/2/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 8/2/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.



Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act
Ron Paul Speech to Congress
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=929

Ron Paul on lowering the cost of healthcare
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=474

[Sonomamark]

I am not familiar with his stand on The Endangered Species Act, and was unable to find information on this on the web. His general view on environmental issues is that the environment is better protected in the hands of the private sector rather than in the hands of government, as it was in poor and socialist countries.

I rest my case.

d-cat, I hope you are enjoying the weather on Mars, and that the little messages from the Mothership continue to give comfort. Being fresh out of both Kool-aid and tinfoil hats, I fear I will not be able to communicate with you further.


M

[Sonomamark]

Right. For example, he is against the federally run Medicaid and Medicare. But not because he doesn't care about people. As a physician he didn't accept Medicare/Medicaid, but helped those with limited funds free of charge or at a reduced rate.

So: your proposal for health care reform is that those who have no coverage should rely on doctors and hospitals to give services away out of charity?

Hmm. How...Victorian.

Not sure the shareholders of medical and pharmaceutical companies are going to like that much. Undermines shareholder value, you know. In fact, violates legal requirements to seek to maximize return for investors, if it affects the bottom line.

Oh, but--I'm sorry, I was talking about the real world. Never mind.


M

[d-cat]

Ending the war should be a top priority to anyone with concerns for the environment.

The depleted uranium (DU) in the bombs we drop is very damaging to both the environment and all living things. It has a half life of 4.5 billion years (!) and using it around a gulf, or anywhere else, should be a major concern to both environmentalists and humanitarians alike.

There is no candidate who has been more consistently and vehemently against the war from the very start than Ron Paul.


A Post-War Disaster For Environment and Health
https://www.ratical.org/radiation/dhap/

Depleted Uranium - The Real Story
https://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0102/010216.htm

Nothing Depleted About 'Depleted Uranium'
(warning: disturbing photos of children)
https://www.globalresearch.ca/index....articleId=1777

Depleted Uranium Haunts Kosovo and Iraq
https://www.globalresearch.ca/index....articleId=3715

Depleted Uranium - The Perfect Monster Kills Quietly
https://www.rense.com/general72/ddu.htm

[d-cat]

North American Union driver's license created
https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57502




Regions and Jurisdictions
https://www.aamva.org/MembershipLeadership/Regions/

[ThePhiant]

as far as I know there was only one black woman who stood up against.
the rest was only thinking about their own career

WHERE WAS RON PAUL WHEN THE WAR STARTED?????
WHERE WAS RON PAUL BEFORE THE WAR STARTED?????

[d-cat]

U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency
Bush's SPP power grab sets stage for military to manage flu threats
https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/p...TICLE_ID=57369

goodbye sovereignty, goodbye Posse Comitatus!

[ThePhiant]

D cat

do you have a voting and attendance record on Ron Paul
sounds like he has a lot of slogans
but where are his deeds?????????????????

U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency
Bush's SPP power grab sets stage for military to manage flu threats
https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/p...TICLE_ID=57369

goodbye sovereignty, goodbye Posse comitatus!

[d-cat]

as far as I know there was only one black woman who stood up against.
the rest was only thinking about their own career

WHERE WAS RON PAUL WHEN THE WAR STARTED?????
WHERE WAS RON PAUL BEFORE THE WAR STARTED?????

Are you still thinking that? I'm sure you can find the correct info using Google.
He had indeed voted against the war, and against the Patriot Act.

Here is some of what he was doing before and when the war started:


Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace - November 24, 1997
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=21

Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base - February 2, 1998
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=31

US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq - February 16, 1998
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=33

Middle East peace: déjà vu all over again - November 2, 1998
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=70

Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes - December 21, 1998
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=77

Statement in Opposition to House Resolution on Iraq, Speech to Congress, December 19, 2001
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=734

Why Initiate War on Iraq? Speech to Congress, March 20, 2002
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=719

War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law?
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=267

The Case against War in Iraq - September 9, 2002
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=269

for more go here
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=2
or here
https://www.house.gov/paul/

also, you can go to Youtube and GoogleVideo to see his speeches.

[d-cat]

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.