The Ron Paul Record [Updated]
 |   (No Ratings Yet)Filed under: Ron Paul — RINO_Hunter @ 8:57 am April 2nd, 2007 |
Examine the following voting record for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and you will see for yourself why he is not endorsed here.
| 12/06/2006 | Abortion Pain Bill | Did Not Vote |
| 09/26/2006 | Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act | No |
| 10/20/2005 | Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill | No |
| 06/22/2005 | Flag Desecration Resolution | No |
| 04/27/2005 | Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act | No |
| 06/03/2003 | Desecration of Flag resolution | No |
| 04/09/2003 | Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act | No |
| 07/17/2001 | Flag Desecration resolution | No |
| 04/26/2001 | Motherhood Protection Act (Substitute Amendment) | No |
| 04/26/2001 | Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 | No |
| 09/30/1999 | Substitute Amendment to Unborn Victims of Violence Act | No |
| 09/30/1999 | Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999 | No |
| 07/15/1999 | Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999 | No |
| 06/30/1999 | Child Custody Protection Act | No |
| 06/24/1999 | Flag Desecration Amendment | No |
| 06/04/1998 | Religious Freedom Amendment bill | No |
| 06/12/1997 | Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment | No |
No votes on Minor notification, and lack of support for the unborn by the means on not protecting pregnant mothers and their unborn children make Ron Paul weak on the abortion issue.
Not limiting Gun manufacturers for frivolous lawsuits, and big bank money grabs by the ACLU and their ilk, makes Ron Paul Weak on Gun Control
Votes against getting the government out of the affairs of my Church makes him weak on defense of the Church.
Votes also show him weak on the defense of the flag.
And when you consider that he has voted no vote to every defense appropriation bill that has come down the pike, you will determine his voting record is more Libertarian than Republican. If you caucus with the Republicans and have this kind of voting record, well that make you a RINO.
The facts and the record speak for themselves.
Update: Want more? Check out this link:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29166.html
Update: I’ve been waiting for this to come out. Over Ron Paul’s long (too long as far as I’m concerned) tenure in the House, he has gone on record with some pretty outlandish statements and claims. A reader at LGF has released some old excerpts of some Ron Paul newsletters, that for some reason the good doctor refuses to unarchive. “Paul has refused to open his own archives of the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Political Report when asked by reporters”. Gee, I wonder why… Here take a look for yourself by clicking the link.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Rino,
I think calling ru paul a libertarain is way off the mark also. He votes contrary to them on gun issues.
……………………………………..
“Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties.”
……………………………………..
http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.shtml
……………………………………..
“We would restore civil liberties and reduce violent crime by repealing America’s 25,000 gun control laws that infringe on the right to self-defense without doing a thing to disarm violent criminals.”
……………………………………..
http://www.anthonygregory.com/CalLibSpeech.html
……………………………………..
Libs don’t seem to have a stance on abortion so one can only guess if he votes the libers line. “Libertarians believe………commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and PERSONAL FREEDOM that marks this country above all others…….”
……………………………………..
They must believe that a person has the “PERSONAL FREEDOM” to abortions and the unborn have no “cival lirberties.” Kind of a contradiction to their beliefs! One right must usurp another Who knows?
……………………………………..
http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml
……………………………………..
They are against censorship so taking a crap on the American flag must be alright. His vote is inline with libers. I find this dangerous when Americans have no sense of patriotism! Pulling a stunt like that will not get your grievances addressed nor does it show any intelligence to form a legitimate case for one.
……………………………………..
http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-blue-ribbon.shtml
……………………………………..
I see ru paul as a leftist liberal. Plain and simple, a donk in disguise!
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
^^^ Conceeded, however his voting record is ‘more’ (L) than (R). More being the operative word here. But you are correct, he is a lib… and a surrender monkey to boot.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Have either of you read the Constitution all of the way through?
“Amendment 10: 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.”
I suppose following THAT part of the Constitution makes one a “left liberal.”
Many of the aforementioned bills are obviously unconstitutional and deserve a NO vote from any that respects the constitution. Some such as the firearms bills are not so obviously unconstitutional. Here’s Ron Paul’s explanation for his vote on the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act”
Gun Rights vs. Centralization: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul91.html
For the record Ron Paul is one of the few members in Congress that Gun Owner’s of America has given a grade of A+ for support of the Second Amendment. In fact, supposedly he’s the only Congressman that has gotten a perfect score with them.
Calling Ron Paul a libertarian is dead on; though, unlike some libertarians he’s strongly pro-life, for protecting our borders and generally conservative on gay issues. Libertarians ADORE Ron Paul.
He could also be termed a strict constitutionalist.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
According to your website: “We believe the Republican Party, has left it’s traditional moorings, based on a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution, State’s rights, social and fiscal conservatism.”
—————————————-
If you’re going to attack Ron Paul for adhering to the Constitution and believing in State’s rights, how can you claim your website stands for these things?
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:08 am
Constitution? Yes I have read it, thank you. If you call state’s rights the ability of a guidance counselor taking your teenage daughter across state lines to get an abortion, because the state that you LIVE in has a parental notification statute, and the neighboring state does not, then we will have to disagree on the terms states rights. Parental rights ALWAYS trump state or federal rights. Do you keep up with current events? Watching the military build up of China, Iran, Korea? Meanwhile, your candidate votes NO to every defense appropriation bill, which if you have read the Constitution, is one of the MAIN purposes of the Federal Government; to provide for the common defense. I can give Paul Kudos for his stance on defending the U.S. Border, but in the realm of overall defense he is lacking.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:59 am
You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. Come back when you’re worthy
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:45 am
Patrick says “Calling Ron Paul a libertarian is dead on; though, unlike some libertarians he’s strongly pro-life, for protecting our borders and generally conservative on gay issues. Libertarians ADORE Ron Paul.
He could also be termed a strict constitutionalist.”
……………………………………..
STRONGLY PRO LIFE? That is like saying hitler was a peace activist or Gandhi was a war monger! If he was a “constitutionalist” he would define where states rights start and end. He doesn’t by taking this stand. “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act” “No”
……………………………………..
Don’t offer an opinion as fact unless you cite your sources Patrick.
……………………………………..
I agree 100% with Paul’s border stance, but what I don’t agree with is his “isolationist” mentality. That is dangerous in my opinion. Guarding the borders would not have stopped 9/11. All the terrorists that hijacked our planes were here on visa’s(some expired) and I don’t see where Paul would address this issue. Pulling back away from the world and taking a defensive posture is crazy. Remember “Pearl Harbor?” Do you know what was the direct cause of this attack? It was “ISOLATIONISM” brought about by people, after WWI, who didn’t think America should have been involved in “Europe’s” war! Well guess what? It caused us to have to defend ourselves by going back to “EUROPE.” All your “bring the troops home to guard the borders” is going to do is invite an attack on American soil, PERIOD!
……………………………………..
One last thing. If Paul is “dead on Libertarian”, why does he call himself a Republican? Why do you give him a pass on his political “cross dressing”? The Republican party was started with the goal of limiting and taking away states rights. The right of each state to choose whether or not it wanted slavery! States rights were the direct cause of the Civil War.
……………………………………..
http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/kansas.htm
……………………………………..
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/repub.html
……………………………………..
Now, before you pop off with me not wanting states rights, take a deep breath! I think states rights are a constitutional right that CAN’T be infringed upon! But, when states rights bar me from taking my gun with me where ever I choose to travel in America, then I say the states need to be put under the federal government’s heal until my, and all other American’s, rights are protected! States abuse their rights when they legislate our freedoms away and should be compelled to obey the constitution or pay the consequences of Federal intrusion upon the guilty state.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I’ll reply more extensively tonight, but for now.
………………..
Here’s Ron Paul’s explanation for his vote on the interstate parental notification act:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr063099.htm
………………..
Not sure I agree with him on this one, but all the other aforementioned bills violate the tenth amendment. The flag burning is one thing in which yes he is more libertarian.
………………..
As for his stance on abortion. It’s very clear. He’s said it was the greatest challenge of our time. He’s written a book about it (Challenge to Liberty). He put forth a constitutional amendment banning it (can’t find a link now). He put forth the “Sanctity of Life Act of 2005″ which would recognize a fetus as a person from conception, strip the appellate judiciary from ruling on issues concerning sexuality, and allow states to ignore previous rulings. He also put forth the other bill attacking judicial activism that I pointed to in the other thread. He’s beloved as a strong pro-life advocate by the Constitution Party (www.constitutionparty.org), and they are farther right than the Republican party and Patrick Buchanan. They would like him or Tancredo to run on their ticket for president.
…………………
As for me checking my facts, I have. You all can continue to smear Ron Paul for being a constitutionalist and believing in state’s rights intentionally trying to mislead people to believe he’s anti-gun, pro-choice, and anti-religion but the fact remains… it’s a smear and 100% false. He’s obviously an extreme believer in state’s rights, ie decentralization.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Patrick, HIS voting record is what is “smearing” him. What part of his voting record don’t you believe? Are you saying his votes are 100% false? You are failing to make a case for him.
……………………………………..
As for his A+ rating from the “Gun Owners of America”, I would like to know what his affiliation to this group is? His endorsement more than likely earned him this false rating.
……………………………………..
“The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.”
-Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
……………………………………..
http://www.gunowners.org/
……………………………………..
The NRA has him at a B.
……………………………………..
Even a donk earned a higher rating than Paul.
……………………………………..
September 29th, 2006
PAUL GETS ONLY A “B.”
VICTORIA, TX — The National Rifle Association-Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) announced today that Shane Sklar, Democratic candidate for Congress (TX-14), has received an “A” Rating, while Republican Ron Paul received a “B.”
……………………………………..
http://www.shanesklar.com/news_DETAILS.php?news_ID=53
……………………………………..
So Patrick, we aren’t “smearing” Paul. His voting record is. He has no one to blame for that, but himself.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
The NRA gave him a B only recently because of his “NO” votes on the aforementioned bills which are indeed unconstitutional. They have no respect for the Constitution outside of the second amendment. Ron Paul takes a very literal interpretation of the Commerce Clause (hence his “NO” vote on an interstate abortion law), and believes strongly in the tenth amendment and state’s rights, hence the two Gun control bills above.
………………
Are you reading any of the links I’m posting?
………………
Here’s a bill he introduces each year of so: H.R. 1096: Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1096)
As described by Ron Paul:
“Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the “instant” background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on “semi-automatic” weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the “sporting purposes” test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a “destructive device” simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be “non-sporting.”
………………….
Do a quick search of Ron Paul’s website (www.house.gov/paul). It has weekly articles from him for the past ten years he’s been in office. Do a search on guns or abortion. Seriously I can’t do all the work for you.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
“Constitution? Yes I have read it, thank you. If you call state’s rights the ability of a guidance counselor taking your teenage daughter across state lines to get an abortion, because the state that you LIVE in has a parental notification statute, and the neighboring state does not, then we will have to disagree on the terms states rights.”
…………………
Well, am I to assume that you agree that the other bills were unconstitutional and you were mistaken in characterizing him as you did?
…………………
Parental rights ALWAYS trump state or federal rights.
…………………
Agreed individual rights ALWAYS trump state or federal rights, because there are no actual state and federal rights. What’s at issue here is which level of government legislates what is a right and what is not.
…………………
Do you keep up with current events? Watching the military build up of China, Iran, Korea? Meanwhile, your candidate votes NO to every defense appropriation bill, which if you have read the Constitution, is one of the MAIN purposes of the Federal Government; to provide for the common defense. I can give Paul Kudos for his stance on defending the U.S. Border, but in the realm of overall defense he is lacking.
…………………
Ron Paul is all for defense. Even rather large sums. He also believes one of the only roles of the federal government is defense, and that we have a right to defend ourselves if we are attacked regardless of international consensus. He stated this much when he voted in favor of invading Afghanistan. However, the constant appropriations bills for Iraq are a completely separate issue. Ron Paul does not believe it is our duty to govern or protect other nations even if it is done with good intentions. Nor does he believe that we should violate the individual sovereignty of foreign individuals by trying to prop up West-friendly governments. He is a believer in natural rights of individuals in the US AND abroad. The lives of foreigners should not be seen as mere pawns in a global game of risk. Limited government at home with unlimited government abroad is nonsense. Eventually the unlimited government abroad will come home to roost. Even more horrifying is the fact that it can be used as easy ready to use propaganda for terrorists.
…………………………..
On another note, wasn’t one of Bin Laden’s goals to bankrupt us by engaging us in unending wars? When exactly will terrorism be “defeated”?
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Some other articles:
Baptist Pastor and former Constitution Party VP candidate Chuck Baldwin on Ron Paul:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=23154
“In addition, Ron Paul has been the most outspoken defender of constitutional government in the entire congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and big government.”
On Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act…
“Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children.”
….. and for the finale:
“Ron Paul has served as a conservative congressman from Texas for over 16 years. He currently has a 100% rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably the most relevant and accurate reflection of a congressman’s true conservative record out there.”
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Seriously, are you reading what your posting? What does this link you provide, have to do with the “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act?”
……………………………………..
Patrick says, “Here’s Ron Paul’s explanation for his vote on the interstate parental notification act:”
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr063099.htm
……………………………………..
That is the “CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT” H.R. 1218
The “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act” is H.R.748
……………………………………..
Seriously, do I have to do all your work for you?
……………………………………..
So let me get this straight. Paul votes “NO” on the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act”, “A law protecting firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products”, because this is unconstitutional?
……………………………………..
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr1036.html
……………………………………..
Where in the constitution does it say that you, Patrick, will be held liable for when your friend or neighbor commits a crime using something you sold him/her? If you sell your car and the purchaser kills someone with it, you are liable?
……………………………………..
Patrick, you support Paul and I support Tancredo. Thank you for your comments and we’ll have to agree to disagree.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
First… How did isolationism cause Pearl Harbor? Secondly our economy benefited to a large degree from staying out of WW1 and WW2 until the very end.
……………………
As for why he runs as a Republican, there are two reasons:
1) He in actuality is almost a pure conservative, albeit a very radical one. The only things he finds himself in disagreement with conservatives on is victimless crimes such as drugs. Furthermore he often takes far more decentralized fiscally conservative stances than your typical conservative. He’s also ideologically a libertarian, though he disagrees with the party line on abortion, immigration, and homosexuality those debates are hardly settled within the movement.
……
As Ronald Reagan said:
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
For links, just do a search on the quote.
……
2) Each of the individual states have tyrannical laws mostly applicable ONLY to third parties to keep them off of the ballot and out of debates. The rules are different in every state. Many require tens of thousands of notarized signatures just to get on the ballot. Furthermore there are many other fail-safe laws at the state and federal level to prevent them from getting on the ballot if all else fails. For example, here in Texas some very large number of signatures is required for a candidate to get on the ballot. The catch? If you sign the petition, you are forbidden by law from VOTING in any primaries that year. Ron Paul has tried to make use of the Fourteenth Amendment and its enforcement clause to remedy these unjust laws as the 14th is one of the few amendments which gives federal legislative authority over the states, but no one was interested.
…………….
Because of this trying to run on the ballot as a third party candidate is a waste of effort. The LP has been quite successful lately with getting on the ballot in each state or nearly every state, but each year they have to fight again to retain it. The other third parties are hopeless. Here in Texas you will never see any third parties on the ballot outside of the LP.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
One last thing about foreign build-ups.
………….
When the US threatens military action against a nation as it does regularly in the form of resolutions in Congress for the US government to pursue “regime change” as the US did with Iraq in 1998, OF COURSE they are going to build up their military.
………….
When you declare foreign countries to be evil, and then immediately proceed to attack one, it goes without saying that the other two WILL build up arms. Especially when the declared policy of the government is to “spread democracy” through military means.
…….
…….
…….
One last thing regarding guns and abortion. If any one of you can find me a single anti-gun or pro-choice piece of legislation that Ron Paul has authored or voted YES to, then that will mean something. NO votes are fairly meaningless given Ron’s constitutional views… almost everything is unconstitutional.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Ron Paul voted AGAINST the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act and where is unconstitutional measures in that What about all of the rights of the unborn bills he passed on, oh he voted no. Sure he wrote some of his own legislation, but if you can’t get anybody to co-sponsor it, it how far to you think it will get. To me it’s just window dressing..
—-
As far as the war and isolationism, I’d rather kill a Rattlesnake than let it bite me (even if it’s in my neighbors yard). That’s just how I roll.
—-
You can expound upon the virtues of your candidate all day long here, but to me Ron Paul just doesn’t meet muster. So we’ll have to agree to disagree. I haven’t picked my horse yet, but the more I hear from Tancredo, the more I like him. So at the moment I’m leaning Team Tancredo.
April 4th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Patrick Says:
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
First… How did isolationism cause Pearl Harbor?
……………………………………..
Well there you have it! This is exactly how Paul thinks, or doesn’t think! Do you see how absolutely lame this question is?
……………………………………..
HOW DID ISOLATIONISM STOP PEARL HARBOR?
……………………………………..
Thank you for your comments Patrick. Everybody reading this has learned a lot about Paul.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
After Patrick’s last comment about “Isolationism”, I have come to the conclusion that he must not know much about American history!
……………………………………..
After WWI, America turned to “isolationism” because many in the anti-war crowd, “opposed any action by the government that would drag the country into another European war.” A republican president, Warren G. Harding, was elected president and he promply pulled the nation into “isolationism.” America turned her back on her freinds and allies. “During the 1920’s and 1930’s, America was in isolation, i.e. ’she kept to herself and took little part in international relations’ (conferences and treaties between the nations).In addition America, isolated herself in terms of trade. Tariffs (import duties) were put on foreign goods to protect American industry. (Because they could not sell their goods to America, European countries could not afford to buy agricultural goods (farm produce) from the USA. This was one of the causes of the Depression.)”
……………………………………..
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/america/isolationism.htm
……………………………………..
“For the most part, American isolationism came to an end during World War II, particularly following the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor in December of 1941.”
……………………………………..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism
……………………………………..
Because isolationism mentality had America believing that we were safe from the worlds hate, attacks and wars, we suffered an attack on our SOIL! Pearl Harbor.
……………………………………..
So I leave with the genius of sage, Albert Einstein.
” The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
April 4th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
And we are talking about this bill ‘Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act’ not the ‘CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT’
—-
Bill Number: S 403
—-
Official Title of Legislation:
—-
S 403: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.
—-
Highlights:
—-
Prohibits an individual, excluding the minor’s parents, from knowingly transporting the pregnant minor across state lines in order to obtain an abortion, as a way to escape state laws requiring parental consent (Sec 2431(a)(1))
—-
Establishes a fine or up to one year of imprisonment or both for anyone who violates this law (Sec 2431 (a)(1))
—-
Provides an exception to the law if the life of the minor is endangered (Sec 2431(b)(1))
—-
Suggests that an affirmative defense to prosecution may be used if a person was presented with documentation that the minor’s State had waived the parental notification requirements, or reasonably believed that the minor’s parent was notified and/or gave consent (Sec 2431(c)(1-2))
—-
Prohibits an individual from transporting a minor across state lines to get an abortion after the individual has committed incest with the minor (Sec 2432)
—-
Stipulates that physicians may be fined or imprisoned for up to one year or both if they perform an abortion that violates parental consent notification requirement laws of another state (Sec 2435 (a)(1))
—-
Provides exceptions to the law if the physician was presented with documentation from the minor’s State waiving parental notification requirements, the minor declares that she is the victim of sexual abuse, the life of the minor is endangered, or the minor is physically accompanied by her parent (Sec 2435 (b)(2-5))
April 4th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Here’s my two cents… Ron Paul is NOT a Republican, he may caucus with them, but that don’t make him one. Now, I’ve been away from the blog for a while lurking around at digg and other places just snooping around. I see that Paul’s following includes a wide range of supporters from 9/11 truthers to all out conspiracy dingbats replete with tin foils hats. And if you dare to disagree with them, then you are a neo-con (or worse), and one even called me a RINO (hah, of course I got worse than that too). And in my circles, you are judged by the people you associate with. I won’t carry Carl Rove’s water, and never have. I have no sympathy for the Republican’s current situation and the abysmal ‘06 election results, the Republicans did that to themselves. As for Ron Paul, he has been described as an Independent, a Constitutionalist, and a Libertarian, geez that’s a lot of hats. Me. I know the good doctor as Dr. No. He has a stellar record of inaction, and obstruction. It’s easy to vote ‘No’ and cry ‘unconstitutional’, that is the lazy way out, the cowards way out. The same goes for the Paul stance, or lack thereof, for defense. And while we’re at it the current climate of ‘cut and run’ is the cowards way out. He can talk a mean game, but when the time comes, he just can’t ‘bring it’. Take the blinders off and look at his record one more time and you will find he is a fraud. You can try and peddle your Guyana Punch here, but I doubt you’re gonna get any takers.
.
Me, I’m going to support someone that will stand up for America, who will defend it inside and out, that will stand up for the family, for my religious freedom, and for my ability to keep my guns if the need should ever arise that require patriots to oust a tyrannical government. And Ron Paul doesn’t measure up on my Presidential yard stick.
.
You can put a tutu on a pig, but that don’t make him a ballerina.
April 4th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Here is more of Paul’s “states rights” at work!
……………………………………..
Did you know that the US Constitution protects your right to travel from state to state but traveling inside a state can be blocked by the government at any time?
……………………………………..
“Although the right to interstate travel is clearly established by our jurisprudence, the United States Supreme Court has not decided the question of whether the Constitution protects a right to intrastate travel.”
……………………………………..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/03/AR2007040301938.html
……………………………………..
Got that?
April 4th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I found this comment on an erroneous digg posting about ronpaul.cementlagoon.com and just had to share it. A nice little slap at the end.
I couldn’t resist, how I love good sarcasm!
.
taken from http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Another_Ron_Paul_Hit_Piece
.
[ nazuraki by nazuraki on 3/29/07 - 2 diggs
Let's check those polls.
.
Hey, will you look at that! Ron Paul climbed all the way up to THREE PERCENT! (Of the Republican Primary vote, that is!)
.
He's really got a chance now. You guys aren't wasting your time at all. ]
April 5th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Ron Paul, “The Taxpayer’s best friend” was on the Edd Hendy/Pat Gray show this moning. I now see why he attracts the ‘9/11 Truthers’ and ‘conspiracy dingbats’. The guy is a loon. Talk about self-efficating, what an ego. As soon as the podcast is available, I will post it here in the main pages. Here’s a little sample of what to expect.
—-
“The CIA set up the Radical Islamic Schools in Saudi arabia”
—-
Unbeliveable, and in lock step just like his followers, if you oppose him, then you MUST be carrying the water for the Bush Administration. At this point, Edd and Pat give him the business. What a complete and total boob.
August 10th, 2007 at 3:10 am
AS YOU CAN TELL BY THE NAME “PATRIOT ACT”, THE NAME OF A BILL DOES NOT ALWAYS JUSTIFY ITS PURPOSE!!!!!!!!!
IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT UP THE NAME, ALSO PUT UP A LINK TO WHAT THE ACTUAL BILL STATES!!!
August 10th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
First of all, you can turn the flames off by pressing the CapsLock key, you can find it next to the “A” on your keyboard (it’s just bad etiquette to SHOUT). Second, the “Patriot Act” is not even mentioned anywhere in this thread. Which brings me to my third point, due to your comments off topic relevance, and bad form, I think this was a lame attempt to pimp a website [removed], otherwise known as comment spam.
-
If this is not the case, then you’re just another dope addled libertarian/liberal masquerading as a conservative, or in other words a Rontard.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:59 am
RHINO; THAT’S JUST MEAN SPIRITED CALLING OUT A NUBE LIKE THAT!!!!! YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:24 am
First of all, FDR was in power during the longest period of the Great Depression - from ‘32 onward. The FED’s inaction and FDR’s corporatist policies prolonged the Depression. FDR was in no way an isolationist. He meddled everywhere. FDR encouraged Poland to stop negotiating with Germany over the Danzig corridor, and then bullied the UK and France into going to war with Germany over the Danzig corridor. then colluded with them to drag the USA into the war.
“Neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a ground for war, if Washington had not continually pressed for it,” — US Ambassador, William C. Bullitt.
FDR provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. FDR froze Japanese bank accounts, cut off their oil, and refused to sell them scrap steel. He could have prevented it, but refused to negotiate. He knew it was going to happen, but did not warn the commanders at Pearl Harbor. To blame any aspect of WWII, especially Pearl Harbor on isolationism is absolutely ludicrous.
“A small group of men, revered and held to be most honorable by millions,” wrote Toland, “had convinced themselves that it was necessary to act dishonorably for the good of their nation-and incited the war that Japan had tried to avoid.”
By not minding our own business, we knowingly allied with the most murderous regime in history and crushed their most fervent enemies - removing the major checks on Communist expansion. At the cost of 75 million lives we permitted Communism to take over half of Europe and most of Asia. By our enormous aid we enabled the USSR to become a world power and threaten our interests worldwide. Communist regimes killed 120-150 million of their own citizens worldwide during the 20th century. All of them had a “Made in the USA” stamp. We ended up spending the next 50 years trying to clean up the mess we created.
“I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans’ around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler’s pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realise that Hitler was right. He offered us the cooperation of Germany; instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Union. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentlessly pursued now, only under a different label.” - Sir Hartley Shawcross, UK Attorney General and Nuremburg prosecutor.
And are you aware of exactly WHO funded Hitler? Wall Street and London bankers, that’s who. The same group who funded the Bolshevik takeover of Russia.
When you start wars, you have NO idea what the outcome will be. Despite any delusions, the tiger has you by the tail - not the other way around.
The only people to win WWII were these: bankers, military-industrial complex, world Communism and world Zionism.
Maybe for you, that result was worth the hundreds of millions of lives and trillions of dollars spent.
Not me.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:01 am
[...] himself Steve to the main blog because it was just too good to be left on the nether-regions of the The Ron Paul Record comments section. Steve’s comments are in [...]
September 15th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article The Ron Paul Record, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Don’t argue with pigs like RINO, you waste your time and you annoy the pigs!
September 27th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Mike: So you bring nothing, eh..
October 9th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
[...] to see through the charade. And before you Rontards start crying for proof, you can find it here, and all the explanations in the comments section. Be sure to read all of it before you start [...]
October 9th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
a suggestion to all, when you read the laws coming out of congress, have a legal dictionary with you, it is not written in regular english, read the definitions, also you should be reading your state constitutions.
October 10th, 2007 at 10:01 am
dls: Whatever.. go ahead and keep on believing the delusion that Ron Paul is a ‘Pro-Life’ candidate. Just because he says he’s ‘Pro-Life’, his voting record doesn’t show it, irregardless of whether or not he thinks the provision is Constitutional or not. It’s a ploy he uses to hide behind, just like how he handles earmarks. It’s called having your cake and eating it too, an easy way to avoid having to make the hard decisions, or having to take the heat that comes from your vote.
Shameful if you ask me..
November 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
All you did was list some votes you disagreed with. You didn’t shoot them down on Constitutional grounds, because you can’t. If he votes against something that sounds like a great idea on its surface, you interpret that as a vote in opposition of the idea. This is where you go wrong when analyzing Paul. If he votes against something, you can bet that the Constitution compels him to do so. This is why Constitutional sticklers like myself are supporting Paul. He stands his ground to defend the integrity of the Constitution, even if he has to do it alone. Anyone can vote YEA for everything that feels good, just look at the Democrats.
All this post says to me is that you are perfectly happy to see the Constitution violated, if necessary, to further your beliefs. This is where we differ; I view anyone who violates their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as a domestic enemy, whether they do so to advance communism or any other ideology.
You are in desperate need of a refresher course on your own modern roots. This video pretty well sums up why I’ve always been a registered Republican: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1777069922535499977
November 6th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
RON PAUL IS NOT PRO-LIFE, how hard is that for you to understand? Show me WHERE he is pro-life besides his damned news letter article. Sure he talks a mean game, but he votes for the ability for your High School guidance counselor to take your teenage daughter across stae line to get an abortion! NOT PRO-LIFE. He uses his interpretation as soemthing not meeting Constitutional muster as a crutch, so he doesn’t have to take the heat for taking a stand.
HE RON PAUL, the man himself, he him, asked for earmarks to the tune of 400 million dollars, those earmarks in turn were put into appropriation bills which he voted againnst KNOWING FULL WELL HIS COLLEAGUES would VOTE for it, so HE wouldn’t have to. That my friend is under handed.
He is just like every other politician on the beltway, he is not the sainted savior that you and all of your ilk profess him to be. He is a FRAUD!
He is an isolationist, he wants to do away with the CIA, he thinks we are the reason for all the troubles in the world, he’s a truther, he knowingly takes money from other truthers and white supremacists.
And how dare you, I have never been registered anything other than as a Republican.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Once again, you refuse to address the actual words you are pretending to respond to. Here, I’ll repost my previous post, with helpful [BREAK] markers. When you see [BREAK], you should STOP READING and respond DIRECTLY to the previous text. After this repost, I will do the same for your previous post. Using this method, we can have what is known as a RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION.
*** BEGIN REPOST ***
“All you did was list some votes you disagreed with. You didn’t shoot them down on Constitutional grounds, because you can’t.”
[BREAK] - Here would be a good place to either: A) shoot down Paul’s votes on Constitutional grounds, or, B) concede that this cannot be done. Moving along…
“If he votes against something that sounds like a great idea on its surface, you interpret that as a vote in opposition of the idea. This is where you go wrong when analyzing Paul. If he votes against something, you can bet that the Constitution compels him to do so.”
[BREAK] - To the previous, you may wish to simply acknowledge your false interpretation of Paul’s motives, and thank me for illuminating you.
“This is why Constitutional sticklers like myself are supporting Paul. He stands his ground to defend the integrity of the Constitution, even if he has to do it alone. Anyone can vote YEA for everything that feels good, just look at the Democrats.”
[BREAK] - No need to respond directly, although you might agree that your argument against Paul is essentially the same used by the radical left-wing extremists at Daily KOS (you *really* need to read this link): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787
“All this post says to me is that you are perfectly happy to see the Constitution violated, if necessary, to further your beliefs. This is where we differ; I view anyone who violates their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as a domestic enemy, whether they do so to advance communism or any other ideology.”
[BREAK] - Your options here include agreeing that you are willing to see the Constitution violated for your own interests, or denying it, and thereby agreeing that its integrity must be upheld. The Constitution is not a “pick and choose” document, as the gun-control lobby would like to believe. It is all or none.
“You are in desperate need of a refresher course on your own modern roots. This video pretty well sums up why I’ve always been a registered Republican: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1777069922535499977 ”
[BREAK] - It would be nice to hear that you actually sat through the most inspirational 28 minutes in 20th century conservative history, but if you didn’t, at least admit that you are too stubborn to click any link provided by a “Paulbot.”
*** END REPOST ***
And now, on to your last post:
“RON PAUL IS NOT PRO-LIFE, how hard is that for you to understand? Show me WHERE he is pro-life besides his damned news letter article. Sure he talks a mean game, but he votes for the ability for your High School guidance counselor to take your teenage daughter across stae line to get an abortion! NOT PRO-LIFE. He uses his interpretation as soemthing not meeting Constitutional muster as a crutch, so he doesn’t have to take the heat for taking a stand.”
[MY RESPONSE] - He is an OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies and who is quoted as saying that he never saw an instance where an abortion was necessary. It is ludicrous to suggest that he would “support” your imaginary guidance counselor scenario. He indeed prefers the states to deal with most issues rather than the federal government — and so does the Constitution. Not because he supports abortion, but because he recognizes the proper order of sovereignty: individual > family > community > state > nation. National sovereignty comes last. But the worst part of your above text is “taking a stand.” This is liberal dogma at its best. There’s a reason they’ve chosen the label of “progressives”; they want us to think that their ideas are the logical progression, and that we must “take a stand” to advance society. Well, taking a stand against the Constitution makes you a domestic enemy — period.
“HE RON PAUL, the man himself, he him, asked for earmarks to the tune of 400 million dollars, those earmarks in turn were put into appropriation bills which he voted againnst KNOWING FULL WELL HIS COLLEAGUES would VOTE for it, so HE wouldn’t have to. That my friend is under handed.
He is just like every other politician on the beltway, he is not the sainted savior that you and all of your ilk profess him to be. He is a FRAUD!”
[MY RESPONSE] - I admit this looks bad to the misinformed, and his opponents like to try and make hay out of it. The reality, however, absolves Paul from any wrongdoing here, but it requires a bit of education. Earmarks are money that has already been appropriated. Paul cannot change that this money has already been stolen from the taxpayers; what he *can* do it try to see to it that his constituents back home are among those who will benefit from it. This is the only reasonable position he or anyone else can take. If he did not make these requests, the beltway bureaucrats would give it to their bosom buddies. You then accuse him of collusion in his votes against the container bills, but I see it as continuing to do the right thing. Again, yes he tries to get already spent money to be spent on his constituents, but he’d still prefer that the waste never occur, so he votes no to the bill. The most important part, which you overlook, is that HE VOTES NO TO APPROPRIATING THOSE MONIES IN THE FIRST PLACE.
“He is an isolationist, he wants to do away with the CIA, he thinks we are the reason for all the troubles in the world, he’s a truther, he knowingly takes money from other truthers and white supremacists.”
[MY RESPONSE] - He is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist, and so were the Founding Fathers. The distinction is non-trivial; Google is your friend there. Yes, he agrees with the reports from the CIA and 9/11 commission that warn us of the effects of blowback. We are not the reason for all the troubles in the world, but we bear a large responsibility for the troubles here at home. Paul is only repeating the sound advice of Thomas Jefferson, who said, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Although you didn’t address the UN and other “world government” organizations, I’ll guess that you support them, and give you a quote from George Washington, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” As to the “truthers” issue, et al, I’ve seen no evidence that he “is one.” He has stated that they are free to believe what they wish (what a concept!). I see no logic in guilt by association. I’m sure bin Laden has a horse in this race; should we condemn that candidate as an Islamic Fascist? I’ll quote my other reply to another post: “A vote is a vote. If a pothead supports him because he thinks he’ll get to smoke dope all day without fear of being thrown into a cage and submitted to anal rape, that’s a vote for Ron Paul. If a billionaire supports him because he’s a stingy old bastard and wants to keep every dime of his money and never donate to charity, that’s a vote for Ron Paul. If a UFO “true believer” supports him because he thinks he’ll finally get a peek at Area 51, that’s a vote for Ron Paul.”
“And how dare you, I have never been registered anything other than as a Republican.”
[MY RESPONSE] - How dare I what?
November 6th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
After several months of responding to libertarians, and wild eyed liberals that support Ron Paul, I don’t do respectful anymore. At least you haven’t thrown out the ‘neocon’ label yet, to your credit.
So I’ll play…
On abortion, Ron Paul hides behind the Constitution. Although the Constitution does not exactly spell it out, I do believe that the abortion issue is covered there:
Webster defines posterity as the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation or all future generations. I believe that life begins at the moment of conception. So if we take that out to the next logical step, that life constitutes our posterity, for which the Constitution states “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” not our ’selected’ posterity. We are not given the right to choose, and that right to choose is not spelled out anywhere else in the Constitution either.
And I’ve already told you, I have read his article on abortion. He talks a nice game, but I don’t think he backs it up. But as an OB/GYN, he, more than most, should understand that a life is being taken. He does deserve KUDOs for voting for the Partial Birth abortion bill, but beyond that I think his voting record on abortion is weak.
And I believe he does this to a fault. So he defends his interpretation of the Constitution, but who is to say his interpretation is the right one? On matters of defense, I think he’s dead wrong. The first and foremost job of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense, without it you can not have tranquility or justice because you may have a country, but you won’t have it for long. You can only have liberty as long as you are willing to fight for it. And I don’t see him voting for many of the defense appropriation bills. To his credit, he does seem solid on Veteran’s Affairs, but that’s about it.
As to the ‘earmarks’, it’s still a ponzi scheme to me. I’ve heard this rebuttal before, and I’m not buying it, it’s all too convenient. So Ron Paul get his cake, and gets to eat it too. The problem here is: Ron Paul brings home the bacon, or in this case ‘the pork’, and then calls himself the ‘Tax Payers Best Friend’. To me this is disingenuous at best. If he was to stand his ground, like you say he does, then he wouldn’t request the earmarks in the first place. irregardless of whether the money gets spent or not. And where does the Constitution say it has anything to do with the ‘American Wild Shrimp” industry anyway. After all, Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. So, if your going to play the Washington games, don’t try and pawn yourself off as someone that doesn’t.
Ah, but that defeats the whole theory of the ‘blowback principle’. Here’s Ron Paul in his own words:
So, according to him, we are responsible for all the evils of this world. For me, this alone is enough reason not to vote for him. I am a firm believer in “Peace through strength”. Roosevelt was an isolationist, but that didn’t work out real well for him did it. We were attacked anyway. There are evil people in this world. And sometimes, those evil people rise to positions of power, and have to be dealt with. There’s some great comments in the thread for this article on HotAir that refute the premise of we created the middle-east problems like Iran, and the Taliban. You have to wade through a lot of stuff to find the pearls.
Uhm, I thought Ron Paul was a “free trader” isn’t that an alliance. So I guess you think NATO was a bad idea. And as for the UN, we should abandon it, kick them out and let them move to Geneva. In my book UN = Undermining Nations (specifically, the U.S.). Nothing good has come from that group of corrupt America haters that we basically pay all the bills for. We should flush that turd. That anti UN enough for you?
As for ‘trooferism’ you might want to watch this video. Plus, all the appearances with the well known 9/11 conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and the well known campaign donations from the same. Sorry, can’t sell me on the fact he isn’t a “truther”.
That’s got to be one of the most absurd statements I’ve ever read. What about illegals, would you take their vote too? What about felons? Martians perhaps? And the whole cage thing, personal, experience? You brought it up. I live in the real world where we are judged by the company we keep. Sorry again.. but keep trying…
And finally, you make the assumption that I am not or have not always been a Republican. Like all Rontard’s before you, you imply that if we don’t agree with Ron Paul, then we are liberals, ‘neocons’, or in your words ‘a domestic enemy’. I simply don’t agree with Ron Paul’s take on the Constitution.
What I am looking for in our next President is someone:
And I don’t think Ron Paul is that guy.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
You said you would play, then you didn’t. If you’re going to pick and choose which of my points you wish to respond to, I’ll simply skip over the cruft of your post and get the what I see as the real gem:
“What I am looking for in our next President is someone:
* Strong on defense (at home, and abroad)
* Willing to close the border
* For actual immigration reform (no amnesty)
* Stop reckless spending
* Cut government waste
* Cut entitlements
* Reduce the size of Government
* Willing to stand up for family values
* Stop the infanticide (known as abortion)
* Who will not pander to special interest groups for votes (i.e. Illegals)
* Protect our National sovereignty
* Who will not surround himself with idiots like Rove
* And finally, stop selling our country off piece by piece to foreign entities
And I don’t think Ron Paul is that guy.”
I nearly did a spit take with my adult beverage when I read this. The *only* part where you break with Paul, according to the above, is with one half of one sidebar in parenthesis. And I quote, “and abroad.”
That’s it. The end. On no other point do you disagree with him, according to your own statements. None. Nadda. Nill. Zilch. Zippo.
Everywhere else, you are a “Ronbot.” But you are afraid to take the plunge and vote for a guy who doesn’t poll well, because you are afraid to side with a longshot. And, if I had to guess, I’m sure you’d get a good ribbing from the guys at work if you sided with “that crazy kook” who still believe s the Constitution is something more than a curiosity to be displayed under glass like a FREAKING MUMMY. If more people like you would actually buck the heck up and do the right thing for your kids’ futures, he wouldn’t *be* a longshot.
Only Paul can beat Clinton, but since you people are so bent on waging war that you won’t vote for Paul, well…I’ll check back for your commentary when we swear in Billary Jefferson Rodham-Clinton for its third term.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Are you sure you were not rolling a big fattie when you read my comment, or maybe the bong smoke was getting in your eyes. You know smoking that stuff makes you obtuse (that’s stupid, for those of you from Lake Jackson). I answered your questions, you just didn’t like my answers.
So let me break it down for you one last time
Strong on defense (at home, and abroad)
Uhm, not even close, not at home or abroad. Ron Paul has an abysmal record on defense issues. He votes no to almost every Defense appropriations bill. And his stick your head in the sand foreign policy is dead wrong and will get millions of us killed. That’s one down…
Willing to close the border
He wants to move our military from Iraq to the Border, wow for such a Constitutionalist, you would think he would know that the constitution prevents him from doing that. Maybe he can send down some “mall security guards”, he seems to think pretty highly of them. Now that’s two…
For actual immigration reform (no amnesty)
Don’t care what Paul thinks of it, he doesn’t have a viable solution for the previous so this is mute. That’s three..
Stop reckless spending
Earmarking porker just like all the rest of them. Four down…
Should I continue,.
I think I will…
Cut government waste
4 million for the Commercial Shrimp industry, bought shrimp lately, I think they’re doin’ just fine… That would be Five..
Cut entitlements
No arguments, so one for your side…
Reduce the size of Government
Still no arguments, so that makes two for you…
Willing to stand up for family values
If memory serves, voted against the “Defense of Marriage Act”. so where did I leave off, oh yeah, That’s six…
Stop the infanticide (known as abortion)
I think I;ve beat this dead horse enough, not pro-life, There’s seven…
Who will not pander to special interest groups for votes (i.e. Illegals)
Panders to Wild American Shrimp, Truthers, and Jew haters, But in fairness will call this one a draw.
Protect our National sovereignty
Seems to me that his Ostrich Defense foreign policy stance will leave us with our ass hanging out. And since he will do away with the Intelligence agencies, We’ll all be blind and stupid. Eight…
Who will not surround himself with idiots like Rove
Just threw this in because the current administration pisses me off.
And finally, stop selling our country off piece by piece to foreign entities
Although Ron Paul is a rabid “freetrader”, I don’t know if this would change. BTW, I am for free trade, as long as everyone has equal footing. So I’ll concede this point as another draw.
Verdict: 8 -2
So don’t flatter yourself by trying to count me in to your Rontard camp. And if the jihadist manage to set off a nuke, dirty bomb or big ass nasty car bomb in your town, remember who you were calling a war monger…
And why don’t you show us all your poll that says Ron Paul beats the Billary, oh, and not one of those gen’d up from some Rontard site or one from the internet (we all know how you Rontards like to spam those), a nationally recognized poll please..
November 9th, 2007 at 10:28 am
phoobear: Still waiting for your poll numbers… tick.. tick.. tick..
November 9th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
And and for the Rontard trolls:
Another good read on how RuPaul is not a social con, http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29166.html