Ron Paul for President 2008

Dec. 20, 2007 - Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny

Before the House of Representatives, July 22, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.

The practice of judicial activism – legislating from the bench – is now standard procedure for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas.

Since the Lawrence decision, many Americans have expressed their concern that the Court may next “discover” that state laws defining marriage violate the Court’s wrongheaded interpretation of the Constitution. After all, some judges simply may view this result as taking the Lawrence decision to its logical conclusion.

One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages, to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions. This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation.

In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to “prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitates congressional action so that state officials are not forced to recognize another states’ same-sex marriage licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from judicial tyranny.

Since the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote in both houses of Congress (and the president’s signature) to become law, it is a more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the president supports protecting state marriage laws from judicial tyranny, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot become law this year.

Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty.

While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church – not the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act.

Americans don’t need new federal programs, and they certainly don’t need more federal control over their schools. They don’t need a disastrous government-run medical system. What Americans do need is a federal government that provides national defense, secures our borders, and does very little else. Needless to say you won’t hear the parties suggesting such a platform anytime soon.
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Dec. 20, 2007 - Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution

By Congressman Ron Paul, Aug. 12, 2003

It’s been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role.

The practice of judicial activism – legislating from the bench – is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

Similarly, a federal court judge in San Diego recently ordered that city to evict the Boy Scouts from a camp they have run in a city park since the 1950s. A gay couple, with help from the ACLU, sued the city claiming the Scouts’ presence was a violation of the “separation of church and state.” The judge agreed, ruling that the Scouts are in essence a religious organization because they mention God in their recited oath. Never mind that the land, once privately owned, had been donated to the city for the express purpose of establishing a Scout camp. Never mind that the Scouts have made millions of dollars worth of improvements to the land. The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says “Congress shall make no law” – a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego. But the phony activist “separation” doctrine leads to perverse outcomes like the eviction of Boy Scouts from city parks.

These are but two recent examples. There are many more, including the case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was ordered by a federal court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from Alabama courthouse property.

The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts – not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.

 


Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Nov. 24, 2007 - Entangling Alliances

By Dr. Ron Paul

In the name of clamping down on "terrorist uprisings" in Pakistan, General Musharraf has declared a state of emergency and imposed martial law.  The true motivations behind this action however, are astonishingly transparent, as the reports come in that mainly lawyers and opposition party members are being arrested and harassed.  Supreme Court justices are held in house arrest after indicating some reluctance to certify the legitimacy of Musharraf's recent re-election.

Meanwhile, terrorist threats on US interests may be more likely to originate from Pakistan, a country to which we have sent $10 billion.

Now we are placed in the difficult position of either continuing to support a military dictator who has taken some blatantly un-Democratic courses of action, or withdrawing support and angering this nuclear-capable country.   The administration is carefully negotiating this tight-rope by "reviewing Pakistan's foreign aid package" and asking Musharraf to relinquish his military title and schedule elections.  

By the time he complies with the requests of the White House sufficiently to continue to receive his "allowance," courtesy of the American taxpayer, his mission will be accomplished.  A more friendly Supreme Court will be installed and enough of the opposition party will be jailed or detained to assure an outcome of the elections that will meet with his approval.  All the while, our administration lauds Musharraf as a trusted friend and ally.

So much for a War on Terror.  So much for making the world safe for democracy.

Free trade means no sanctions against Iran, or Cuba or anyone else for that matter.  Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter.  If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly complicated, no-win entangling alliances.

When we look at global situations today, the words of our founding fathers are becoming more relevant daily.  We need to understand that a simple, humble foreign policy makes us less vulnerable and less targeted on the world stage.  Pakistan should not be getting an "allowance" from us and we should not be propping up military dictators that oppress people.  We should mind our own business and stop the oppressive taxation of Americans that makes this meddling possible.

Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Nov. 19, 2007 - Basra attacks down 90% since British troops left

Digital Journal- Posted Nov 17, 2007
A spokesman for the British Army said violence in Basra has fallen dramatically after the British forces withdrew from the southern Iraqi city early this year. By next month, British will end its combat role in Iraq.
In early September, 500 British soldiers left one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces in the heart of the city in early September and they also stopped conducting regular foot patrols. Since then, the overall level of violence is down 90% according to the British Army spokesman.

The spokesman said, the violence is still there, the Iraqi security still come under attack from the militants in Basra, but has declined by more than 90%.

British forces will fully relinquish control of Basra province to Iraq officials next month and will officially end Britain’s combat role in Iraq. Will US army be the next?

Supporters of war had said if army forces leave the violence will rise, but in Basra, the opposite is being seen. The US army can leave and until normalcy is restored an UN International Peacekeeping force with Arab countries participation to mollify the locals can remain in Iraq. Al-Qaeda or the separatists will have no excuse then to cause violence in Iraq.
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Oct. 12, 2007 - Losing our sovereignty

President Bush Defends Rapist-Murderer To Appease Mexico
By Chuck Baldwin
October 12, 2007


This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071012.html


It seems President George W. Bush will stop at no lengths to appease
Mexico and place the United States under international authority. His
latest fiasco, however, twists logic, mocks justice, and defies
decency.

I am referring to the fact that President Bush is asking the U.S.
Supreme Court to overturn the death penalty of an illegal Mexican
alien convicted of brutally raping and murdering two Houston, Texas
teenagers back in 1993. (I wrote about this case already. See
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070413.html )

Here is Word Net Daily's (WND) latest report of the story: "At issue
is the death penalty verdict for Jose Medellin, who confessed in 1993
to participating in the rape and murder of two Houston teenagers.
Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena were sodomized and strangled with
their shoe laces. Medellin then boasted of keeping one girl's Mickey
Mouse watch as a souvenir of the crime.

"The Bush administration is before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to
overturn the death penalty, at the behest of the International Court
of Justice, a division of the United Nations.

"Medellin and four others were convicted of capital murder and sent to
Texas' death row. A juvenile court sentenced Medellin's younger
brother, who was 14 at the time, to 40 years in prison."

(See the full WND report at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58063 )

Why, you ask, would President Bush appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on
behalf of an illegal alien who murdered two American teenagers?
According to administration officials, it is because "the Texas court
[that convicted and sentenced Medellin] is undermining the president's
efforts to conduct foreign policy."

You read it right. President Bush is defending a rapist-murderer,
because the man is an illegal alien and, therefore, should be turned
over to the authority of a UN "world court." And, according to Bush,
for the State of Texas to refuse to do so undermines the President's
efforts to conduct foreign policy.

One has to wonder: just what kind of foreign policy does President
Bush want to conduct? Apparently, Bush's foreign policy determines
that it is more important to appease the Mexican government than see
justice done for two American families who had their teenage daughters
raped and murdered by an illegal alien from Mexico.

Remember, this is from a President who, when he was Governor of Texas,
signed more than 150 death warrants. This is the same man who mocked
condemned prisoner Karla Faye Tucker after she had accepted the Lord
Jesus Christ as her personal Savior and had appealed to Bush for
clemency. In fact, George W. Bush just might be the only chief
executive in American history to publicly mock someone who was about
to die.

See http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/karla.html

See also
http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/canopy/2525/karlamain.html

See also http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670

In his autobiography, "A Charge To Keep," G.W. Bush addressed the
subject of granting clemencies for people convicted of capital crimes.
He said that it was not his job "to replace the verdict of a jury
unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or
evidence that the trial was somehow unfair." He has now obviously
forgotten this principle.

Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz is arguing on behalf of the state
court and its death penalty. He called Bush's actions "breathtaking."
He told the Houston Chronicle, "It is emphatically not the province of
the president to say what the law is. If this president's assertion of
authority is upheld in this case, it opens the door for enormous
mischief from presidents of either party. What might these presidents
be inclined to do if they had the power to flick state laws off the
books?"

According to WND, Alliance Defense Fund Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull
said he expected justices Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg to
side with President Bush. For example, when Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg was General Counsel with the ACLU, she wrote a law review
article "advocating that American foreign policy be under the United
Nations." According to Bull, the Medellin case "is manna from heaven"
for Ginsburg.

The Medellin case might be manna from heaven for Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
but it is rotten potatoes for the American people. And President Bush
is the cook in the kitchen serving up this garbage.

Is it any wonder that former Mexican President Vicente Fox told Larry
King Live last Tuesday evening that he and President Bush had agreed
to "create a new regional currency in the Americas." (See the story at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58052 )

Fox was asked by a listener what he felt about the possibility of
having a Latin America united with one currency. According to the CNN
transcript obtained by WND, "Fox answered in the affirmative,
indicating it was a long-term plan. He admitted he and President Bush
had agreed to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas--a free
trade zone extending throughout the Western Hemisphere, suggesting
part of the plan was to institute eventually a regional currency."

Is there anyone who cannot see what Bush is doing? He has committed
the United States to a trilateral, hemispheric government in which
each of the three nations--the U.S., Mexico, and Canada--are united
under one regional authority. This is why President Bush demonstrates
such stubborn resistance to any plan that would attempt to keep the
United States independent of this newly formed regional authority.

Because of Bush's plan to merge the U.S. into a North American
Community, he is determined to grant illegal aliens amnesty, and he is
willing to demand that illegal aliens who rape and murder American
citizens must be turned over to a "world court."

It is time the American people face the reality that President Bush is
deliberately and intentionally sacrificing America's sovereignty and
independence in order to fulfill his elitist plans for global
unification. If our congressmen and senators had any real courage,
they would impeach this man and his Vice President for treason.

The sad reality is, however, many of our congressmen and senators are
just as guilty as Bush and Cheney. Furthermore, if the American people
themselves would break away from "American Idol" and their favorite
college football games long enough to see what was really happening in
this country, we would not have these bozos in Congress to begin with.

America's biggest threat is not from al Qaeda; it is from these
conniving internationalists in Washington, D.C.  An al Qaeda terrorist
can possibly knock down a building or bridge and kill a few of us, but
these traitors (from both major parties) in Washington have the power
to enslave the whole country--and that is exactly what they are in the
process of doing.

So, in the name of "conducting foreign policy," President George W.
Bush is doggedly defending a Mexican rapist-murderer. However, what he
is really doing is working to appease his elitist Mexican counterparts
so they together can implement their New World Order agenda. I don't
know about anyone else, but it makes me want to puke!

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender
includes contact information and a method of removal.

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php

To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/unsubscribe.php

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so
does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column
is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web
site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin
for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in
scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact
chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com.

When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless
otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon
address list.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.
Comments (1) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Oct. 12, 2007 - Patriotism

-America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.
Alexis de Tocqueville

These are quotes from Memoirs of a Superflous Man by Albert Jay Nock

"I am profoundly thankful that during my formative years I never had contact with any institution under State control; not in school, not in college, nor yet in my three years of irregular graduate study. No attempt was ever made by anyone to indoctrinate me with State-inspired views — or any views, for that matter — of patriotism or nationalism. I was never dragooned into flag-worship or hero-worship, never was caught in any spate of verbiage about duty to one's country, never debauched by any of the routine devices hatched by scoundrels for inducing a synthetic devotion to one's native land and loyalty to its jobholders. Therefore when later the various aspects of contemporary patriotism and nationalism appeared before me, my mind was wholly unprepossessed, and my view of them was unaffected by any emotional distortion."

"What is patriotism? Is it loyalty to a spot on a map, marked off from others spots by blue or yellow lines, the spot where one was born? But birth is a pure accident; surely one is in no way responsible for having been born on this spot or on that. Flaubert had poured a stream of corrosive irony on this idea of patriotism. Is it loyalty to a set of political jobholders, a king and his court, a president and his bureaucracy, a parliament, a congress, a Duce or Fuhrer, a camorra of commissars? I should say it depends entirely on what the jobholders are like and what they do. Certainly I had never seen any who commanded my loyalty; I should feel utterly degraded if ever once I thought they could. Does patriotism mean loyalty to a political system and its institutions, constitutional, autocratic, republican, or what-not? But if history has made anything unmistakably clear, it is that from the standpoint of the individual and his welfare, these are no more than names. The reality which in the end they are found to cover is the same for all alike. If a tree be known by its fruits, which I believe is regarded as good sound doctrine, then the peculiar merit of a system, if it has any, ought to be reflected in the qualities and conditions of the people who live under it; and looking over the peoples and systems of the world, I found no reason in the nature of things why a person should be loyal to one system rather than another. One could see at a glance that there is no saving grace in any system. Whatever merit or demerit may attach to any of them lies in the way it is administered.

"So when people speak of loyalty to one's country, one must ask them what they mean by that. What is one's country? Mr. Jefferson said contemptuously that 'merchants have no country; the mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.' But one may ask, why should I? This motive of patriotism seems to me perfectly sound, and if it should be sound for merchants, why not for others who are not merchants? If it holds good in respect of material gains, why not of spiritual gains, cultural gains, intellectual and aesthetic gains? As a general principle, I should put it that a man's country is where the things he loves are most respected. Circumstances may have prevented his ever setting foot there, but it remains his country."

Ron Paul-

"I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.  The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power.  He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.

Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism—that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people, and the culture.  The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition becomes that the leaders be not criticized.

The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual.  Without a better understanding and a greater determination to reign in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution, will disappear.

Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring.  Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security.  Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty."

As a Believer, my true citizenship is not tied to any earthly domain.  My second birth made me a future resident of a heavenly city.  My city's builder and maker is God.  My leader is truly worthy of my devotion and worship- His righteousness does inspire my loyalty.  I can trust that all things will be just.  Being a patriot of Heaven will be no grievous chore.


But, for now, I sojourn in the land of my first birth.  I long to be an enthusiastic patriot, but I find the aspect sorrowful.  America has ceased to be great, because she has ceased to be good-  millions of babies murdered every year with the permission of our elected officials; perversion and lasciviousness on every corner; apathy and self-interest becoming the hallmark of American culture. Can I be a patriot of this enviroment?

So, I find myself leaning towards a combined definition of patriotism.  According to Nock, my patriotism can and should be focused on any place that encompasses what I hold most dear- righteousness, goodness, courage, kindness, generosity, peace, long-suffering, beauty, industry, inventiveness, justice, forgiveness, liberty, mercy and grace.  As things stand, there is no earthly country, even America, that can inspire my loyalty based on these things.

And that's where Dr. Paul's definition of patriotism becomes relevant.  If I'm to be a true patriot of my homeland, it is my responsibility to do all that I can to steer America back to the path on which she began.  As a true patriot, I have the obligation to dissent from and challenge my leaders- openly, consistently and continuously- when their lies, greed and machinations threaten all that is still right and good. When they trample the law of our land and take away our freedoms in the name of security, it is my patriotic duty to call them out and challenge their right to do so.  I can not sit and repine about how America is losing her virtue- that's the path of murmurers, complainers and cowards.  I must stand, prepare for sacrifice, and be ready to engage the enemy. 

And I must be willing to do this alone or with a host beside me- comrades similarly occupied in exposing the deceitfulness in which our country has been deluged.

My hope is that there are still more true patriots in our country, than not.  I believe that the usurpers bent on gaining power and lining their pocketbooks are still out-numbered by those who want to live in a country that is still "the land of the free and the home of the brave".

 
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Oct. 10, 2007 - Alexis de Tocqueville


Quotes by Alexis de Tocqueville

-The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

-A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.

-All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.

-America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Oct. 8, 2007 - Huckabee- A small-government conservative?

Writes Dean of ForestFire-

There has been some growing admiration for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee since the second GOP presidential debate. I received about four e-mails from friends wanting my take on Huckabee. I will let Huckabee’s record speak for itself:

1. Governor Huckabee signed sales tax hike in 1996; 

2. Governor Huckabee supported internet sales tax in 2001;

3. Governor Huckabee opposed repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002;

4. Governor Huckabee signed tax increases on gasoline (1999) and cigarettes (2003);

5. Governor Huckabee signed into law a $5.25 per day bed tax on private nursing home patients in 2001;

6. Governor Huckabee proposed sales tax increase in 2002;

7. Governor Huckabee opposed congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003;

8. Governor Huckabee allowed 17% sales tax increase to become law in 2004; 

9. Governor Huckabee, by the end of his tenure, was responsible for a 37% higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes;

10. Governor Huckabee refused to take the pledge to not raise taxes if elected President in 2007;

11. Governor Huckabee is responsible for spending increases of 65.3% from 1996 to 2004;

12. Governor Huckabee is responsible for a 20% increase in the number of state government workers;

13. Governor Huckabee increased and expanded ARKids First which is a massive government program that provides ‘free’ (i.e. socialized) health coverage for thousands; 

14. Governor Huckabee supported the 2003 Republican-initiated (sadly) Medicare prescription drug plan which is a massive and unfunded liability shouldered by us taxpayers. It is the largest new government entitlement program since LBJ;

15. Governor Huckabee raised the minimum wage in April 2006 from $5.15 to $6.25 an hour and encouraged Congress to take the same thereby hurting business and the free market;

16. Governor Huckabee supports ‘price-gouging’ legislation which is just a veiled threat against free enterprise and the free market;

17. Governor Huckabee called No Child Left Behind “the greatest education reform effort by the federal government in my lifetime,” even though it was bloated and stripped schools of local control and increased federal spending on education by 48% without any real reform;

18. Governor Huckabee signed into law Arkansas’s first statewide smoking ban against private property establishments. This was a gross violation of private property rights and a huge act of big/nanny government;

19. Governor Huckabee has banned soda from Arkansas public schools and is promoting the big/nanny government agenda of regulating what we eat and drink;

Bottom Line: Governor Mike Huckabee is no conservative and he is no heir to the Goldwater/Reagan legacy of LIMITED GOVERNMENT and INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FREEDOM. Mike Huckabee is a big government tax-and- spender who can’t be trusted to uphold the Reagan legacy if elected President.


Resource: ClubForGrowth.org , The Cato Institute

What amazes me is that this information is not hard to find, yet most voters will not take the time to research the candidates.  There is way too much trust in the main-stream-media- particularly Fox News.  I fail to see how anything owned by Rupert Murdoch could be considered a source of reliable information.  And if you don't know who he is- then shame on you.  Do some research and pay attention to his political contributions.  He gave quite a bit to the top two Dems running for President.

 


Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Oct. 7, 2007 - Homeschoolers for Ron Paul Coalition

Comments (1) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Sep. 27, 2007 - Desperate Conservatives

This is the typical conversation I have with strangers about the upcoming Presidential Primary-

 Me: So, who do you intend to vote for in the Republican Presidential Primary?
Them:  Oh...  I'm leanin' towards Fred Thompson.

 Me: Really?  Why is that?

 Them: Oh.... I don't know.  I guess I like him better than ol' _______ (fill in the blank with Guiliani, Romney or McCain)

 Me:  What is it about Thompson's voting record that leads you to believe he's a better choice than _____ (fill in the blank again)?
Them:  Well, I really don't know about his voting record or anything.  But he's from TN and he seems to be a real conservative.

 Me:  So, you're not concerned that he was a lobbyist for many years, including lobbying for a pro-choice organization?

 Them: Blank stare

 Me: Or that he's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations?

 Them: Confused blank stare

 Me: Or that he has voted to continue funding non-constitutional, big-government federal programs like the National Endowment for the Arts?

Them: Look of dawning suspicion

 Me: Or that he voted to expand NAFTA and allow more foreign workers in to the US for farm work?  Or that he played a big role in getting the McCain-Feingold legislation passed- which restricts the activities of grassroots organizations in regards to campaigns- restricting free speech? Or that he voted for affirmative action? and against property rights?

 Them: Look of deep concern  Well, who are you voting for?

 Me: I'm so glad you asked
♦           ♦           ♦         ♦          ♦

Thompson Surge Means Conservatives Are Desperate
By Chuck Baldwin
September 14, 2007


This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070914.html


Many conservatives (including Christian conservatives) seem to be
jumping on the Fred Thompson bandwagon. As far as Republican
presidential contenders go, the biggest loser of the Thompson surge is
Mitt Romney. Many conservatives were supporting Romney only because
they perceived him as being the best chance to beat Rudy Giuliani. A
Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani presidential election is a
conservative's worst nightmare. Romney has the charm and money and is
now saying the "right" things. Hence, he has enjoyed moderate support
in the early goings of this campaign season. However, Romney's liberal
track record is very disconcerting to conservatives. In their hearts,
conservatives cannot trust Romney.

The entrance of Fred Thompson in the presidential race immediately
took a toll on the Romney campaign. Romney's support is dropping like
the temperature in northern Idaho in the wintertime. That trend will
probably continue, as more conservatives catch the Thompson wave.

The problem is, Thompson is not a conservative. Worse still (for the
GOP), Thompson cannot beat Hillary in a general election. Mark my
words, if Fred Thompson is the Republican nominee next November,
Hillary Clinton is your next president.

For that matter, I see only one Republican contender who might be able
to beat Hillary in the 2008 general election: Ron Paul. Yes, you read
it right. Ron Paul.

If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, conservative Christians will
stay home or vote third party. (It is past time for conservative
Christians to abandon the GOP, anyway. I encourage readers to check
out the Constitution Party as a viable alternative. See
http://www.constitutionparty.com/ )
A Republican cannot win the White House without widespread support
from evangelical Christians. And Giuliani will never have widespread
support from evangelical Christians.

Newt Gingrich is toying with the idea of entering the race, but the
truth is out about Newt. His infidelities, his membership in the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and his past betrayal of
conservative principles precede him. Newt is damaged goods. He has
little chance of obtaining the Republican nomination, and even if he
did, he has no chance of beating Hillary. None. Zero. Zilch.

The only Republican with the potential to pull an upset victory over
Clinton is Ron Paul. He is extremely popular among constitutionalists,
independents, and many Christians (including me). He is doing very
well in fundraising and on the Internet. And if Paul's message was
given a fair hearing, evangelical Christians and traditional
conservatives would come to support him.

The only reason that some conservative Christians do not already
support Ron Paul is because they, themselves, do not understand
constitutional government. Years of Republican chicanery and
compromise have taken a toll on conservatives to the point that many
of them don't understand truth when they see it. However, this could
change. The more people learn about Ron Paul and constitutional
government, the more they like him and it.

On the other hand, the more people learn about Fred Thompson, the more
they will dislike him. As with Gingrich, Thompson is a member of the
sinister cabal, the CFR, whose principle purpose for existence seems
to be the construction of one-world government and the destruction of
U.S. independence and sovereignty. This means Thompson will do nothing
to stop illegal immigration. (See
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070905/NATION/109050083/1002
 )
He will do nothing to stand in the way of the emerging North American
Union, and the NAFTA Superhighway, and he will continue the push for
globalization.

In addition, Fred Thompson is the personification of a Washington
insider-lobbyist. Thompson was a lobbyist for twenty years before
being elected to the U.S. Senate. He represented organizations like
the Tennessee Savings and Loan Association and deposed Haitian
President Aristide. He continued lobbying after he left the Senate,
including representing a British insurance company that wants to limit
payments to the families of those who died from asbestos exposure. In
fact, Thompson's presidential campaign is literally overflowing with
advisors and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees
of lobbying firms. (See
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296339,00.html )
If Thompson was elected President, he would be the country's first
Lobbyist-in-Chief.

On the life issue, Fred Thompson's record is clearly pro-choice. In
1991 and 1992, Thompson was a paid lobbyist for the pro-abortion
organization, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health
Association. He also lobbied against the Republican Party's pro-life
plank. According to Terry Jeffrey, "[W]hen Fred Thompson was in the
United States Senate, both times he ran for the Senate he ran as a
pro-choice candidate."

One of the Religious Right's most respected leaders, Richard Viguerie,
recently said this about Fred Thompson: "Fred Thompson's record may
appear to be 'conservative,' but only by comparison with Rudy
Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, and a Less-of-a-Big Government
Republican is still a Big Government Republican. And given his lack of
conservative leadership as a Senator, it would be a grave mistake to
expect conservative leadership from him as President."

However, there is another glaring (and I mean glaring) reason why any
Republican presidential contender outside Ron Paul will not defeat
Hillary next November: every other Republican presidential contender
supports the Iraq war. That means every one of them (except Ron Paul)
is completely out of touch with over two-thirds of the American
electorate. And the longer our troops keep dying in Iraq, the more out
of touch the GOP will become with a vast majority of the American
people.

President Bush has already made it clear that he intends for American
troops to remain in Iraq for years--if not decades--to come. And it
also seems clear that the GOP presidential candidates (except Ron
Paul) plan to follow Bush's madness.

Republicans need to wake up to reality: people are sick of George
Bush, and they are sick of the Iraq war. Good grief! In less time than
our troops have been in Iraq, our men and women in uniform defeated
the combined forces of Germany, Japan, and Italy during World War II.
In Iraq, we have not been able to secure the city of Baghdad.

When America's top military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus,
was asked if all the efforts in Iraq--including the latest surge--make
America safer, his answer was an astounding, "I don't know." That is
an incredible statement. After more than four years of combat in a
country approximately the size of Texas, more than one-half trillion
dollars in cost, and the sacrifice of thousands of American lives, our
top military commander cannot honestly say that America is any safer.
Yet, Bush says we are "winning," and he wants our troops to stay in
Iraq indefinitely.

I dare say that by the time November 2008 rolls around, support for
the Iraq war could be so low that the Republican Party may be lucky to
even be competitive in the national elections, no matter who their
candidate is (unless it is Ron Paul). This is because every single one
of the other GOP presidential contenders (including Fred Thompson) is
on record as supporting a continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq. In
addition, most of them are on record as supporting an expansion of the
war into other parts of the Middle East. (Interestingly enough,
however, none of them wants to discuss--much less threaten--the real
sponsors of terrorism: Russia and China.)

That Fred Thompson is surging to the position of Republican
presidential frontrunner means that conservatives are desperate.
Unfortunately, they do not seem to be desperate enough to look at
their own erroneous policies. Neither are they willing to look at the
recipe for their own recovery: principled, constitutional government.

I already hear the fat lady warming up.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender
includes contact information and a method of removal.

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php

To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/unsubscribe.php

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so
does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column
is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web
site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin
for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in
scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact
chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com.

When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless
otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon
address list.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Sep. 21, 2007 - Ron Paul Secrets Revealed

This is a snippet from the article More Ron Paul Secrets Revealed by attorney Jennifer Haman-

Is a Ron Paul Presidency practical? Not only is it practical, but it is realistic, and offers true hope and change for those of us not in the "club." A Ron Paul Presidency will be a Presidency for the people, bringing real change and growth for the general public. A Ron Paul Presidency will offer you all you wish was true, but didn’t think possible anymore. Is it practical to regain our freedoms? Yes. Is it practical to regain our liberties? Yes. Is it practical to lessen the burdens placed on us by our government? Yes, yes, yes. You can have what you want. All you have to do is ask for it by voting for Ron Paul.

Read the entire article here-More Ron Paul Secrets Revealed http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/haman4.html

One of the points she hits upon in her article is the idea of "voting for the lesser of two evils".  We've all either heard that said or have said it ourselves in regards to politics.  Most of us have been guilty of voting for the candidate that we believe can win against the "more evil" candidate, even if we didn't particularly like or agree with the "less evil" candidate.  The result?  The winner is always "evil". 

We have no excuse this election.  We do not have to compromise and choose "evil".  But it takes integrity and backbone to make this decision.  Our fears must be discarded and truth embraced-

God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind- II Tim. 1:7

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free- John 8:32
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Sep. 18, 2007 - My Journey to Dr. Paul

My Journey to Dr. Paul

Since I grew up in Dr. Paul's congressional district in south Texas, I've been aware of who he is and what he believes for most of my life.  Before moving to Alabama, the last time I voted in Texas was the same year that Dr. Paul decided to run for Congress again against Republican incumbent, Greg Laughlin.  The day before the primary, I received two pieces of campaign literature in my mailbox.  One was from Dr. Paul's campaign, stating what he believed, his past voting record, and what he would try to accomplish if he was elected.  The second was from Laughlin.  As I read it, I became confused.  It had very little to say about Laughlin or his voting record, but it did claim that Dr. Paul was pro-abortion; it even included a quote taken directly from one of Dr. Paul's books.  When I looked again at the postcard from Dr. Paul, I noticed that the address listed was just down the street from the apartment I lived in.  So, I decided to go for a walk and see if I could discover the truth.

The office was easy to find and the staffers were friendly and eager to help.  I didn't say much, but just handed them the postcard from the Laughlin campaign.  They read it over with looks of outrage.  But instead of disparaging Laughlin, one of the staffers walked over to a bookshelf and pulled down the book by Dr. Paul that the quote was taken from.  After leafing though it, he found the quote and then handed the book to me so that I could read the quote in context.  It was immediately clear, that Dr. Paul was not pro-abortion- indeed, quite the opposite.

Now, the good news is that I learned the truth and voted for Dr. Paul in that primary.  The bad news is, that I became cynical about politics in general, and politicians in particular.  While I realized that Dr. Paul was a clear exception to the "typical" politician, I also figured that most of the other politicians were more likely to be along the ilk of Greg Laughlin.

Moving to Alabama didn't help much.  The politics of this state are notoriously corrupt- the best (or worse) example being the Birmingham mayoral and city council positions.  While I voted, it was with a sense of futility.  I had no doubt that I was voting for the lesser of two evils. 

I continued to followed Dr. Paul as he served in Congress, keeping up with his voting record and reading his Texas Straight Talk articles.  His no-compromise attitude and no-nonsense articles never failed to impress me.

During this time I began to take an interest in homeschooling.  My children were still very young then, but I wanted to be prepared to take on this important aspect of child-rearing.  I began to study different educational philosophies, look at the different curriculum available, and to learn about the Alabama laws regarding home education.  It's very fortunate that I immediately came into contact with a group of fiercely independent homeschoolers.  While they followed the letter of the law, they made it very clear that they resented the government intrusion.  I'm so glad that this attitude rubbed off on me- it's had a great impact on the shaping of my political beliefs.

What delighted me is how often Dr. Paul's name would come up in our conversations.  Even here in Alabama, he was recognized by these homeschooling families as the one US congressman who consistently voted to protect our freedoms and uphold the Constitution. 

Then I began to see his name in other forums.  As I delved into the writings of Austrian economists, over and over again I'd see Dr. Paul quoted or canonized as our Constitutional hero.  While I had understood how important he was to the Texas 14th Congressional District, I had not realized the impact he was having on our entire nation.  While not known to the general public, he was a hero to the freedom-loving patriots who understood the importance of a free-market and constitutional government. 

And so, he became my hero as well.

Well, everyone wants to shake hands with their hero and I also wanted my four children to have a chance to meet Dr. Paul.  So, in the summer of 2006, while I was in Texas visiting my family, I called his Lake Jackson office and asked if my kids and I could come by to meet him.  I only expected a brief few minutes- he's a busy man after all and I wasn't even a constituent.  Instead, he led us to a conference room and we spent the next 45 minutes discussing homeschooling, Austrian economics, the war and the Constitution.  No formality, no awkwardness- just one citizen talking to another citizen.  He is a gracious man.

Later, when he announced that he was running for President, there was no doubt in my mind that I would become involved and help anyway that I could.  Now, I had no idea how deeply I would become embroiled in the Alabama campaign at a state-wide level or that I would be a part of this Educational Freedom Coalition- it's almost like having a full-time job again.  But, here's some more good news...  I'm losing my cynicism.  Being involved with this campaign has brought me into contact with thousands and thousands of people who are all willing to make the needed sacrifices to restore our country to it's constitutional principles.  I had begun to think that not enough people cared, that we couldn't make a difference. 

This campaign has proved otherwise.  We're already making a difference.

Thank you, Dr. Paul.  You are my hero.
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Sep. 18, 2007 - The Truly Uninformed

Arby took exception to my latest blog entry and I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt-

Sep. 18, 2007 - Untitled Comment
Posted by Arby (24.145.244.230)
You've done a very nice job of depicting all conservatives, in general, and all Thompson supporters, in particular, of being uninformed. Of course, neither are true.


Sep. 18, 2007 - Uninformed?
Posted by shanajk (67.143.163.144)
You're right. Of course that's not true. I'm sure it's just the ones I happen to meet. I'm so glad that there are informed people like you out there.


Hmm, but now, after reading op-ed columnist, George Will's latest article at the Washington Times, I find that I was wrong about who it is that's truly uninformed.

Here are some snippets-
Sean Hannity,  who is no Torquemada conducting inquisitions of conservatives, asked Thompson: "When you look at the other current crop of candidates -- Republicans -- where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?" Thompson replied: "Well, to tell you the truth, I haven't spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions."

He also is unfamiliar with the details of his own positions. Consider his confusion the next day when talk radio host Laura Ingram asked him about something he ardently supported -- the McCain-Feingold expansion of government regulation of political speech. His rambling, incoherent explanation was just clear enough to be alarming about what he believes, misremembers and does not know.

Thompson said he had advocated McCain-Feingold to prevent, among other things, corporations and labor unions from "giving large sums of money to individual politicians." But corporate and union contributions to individual candidates were outlawed in 1907 and 1947, respectively.

Ingraham asked about McCain-Feingold's ban on issue ads that mention a candidate close to an election. He blamed an unidentified "they" who "added on" that provision, which he implied was a hitherto undiscussed surprise. But surely he knows that bills containing the ban had been introduced in previous sessions of Congress before passage in 2002.

Read the entire article here-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202025.html?referrer=emailarticle

I sincerely hope that Thompson's supporters are more informed than the candidate they support.
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Sep. 10, 2007 - The Ron Paul epiphany by Vox Day

The Ron Paul epiphany
Posted: September 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Judging by the sounds of the laughter of the other Republican candidates directed at their rival, Ron Paul has now reached the second of Mohandas K. Ghandi's four stages. It is still unlikely that he will win the nomination of a party which has proven it doesn't deserve him, but it is far less unlikely than it was back when Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain were still considered "electable" by most political observers. The candidates, never a particularly bright lot, may be laughing, but as the neocons and party leaders turn to Fred Thompson in desperation, more intelligent observers are not.

Why is there so much cheering for Ron Paul?

– Andy McCarthy, National Review, Sept. 5, 2007

The reason there is so much cheering for Ron Paul is that he is the only Republican who has staked out popular positions on the two most significant issues of the 2008 election cycle. He is anti-occupation and pro-border control. No amount of Bush administration spin is going to change the fact that "the surge" is strategically irrelevant, that the neocon's Democratic World Revolution is a total failure and that Mexico is being allowed to invade the United States. In short, Ron Paul is the only Republican whose positions on the two primary issues are different than Hillary Clinton's stance on them, and, more importantly, are more credible and more popular than Hillary Clinton's. He is the only Republican whose nomination can realistically be considered a potential impediment to what otherwise looks like a Democratic landslide.

The Gay Old Party's leadership, which is far more interested in propositioning interns and policemen than the Constitution, hates Ron Paul and quite rightly feels threatened by him. But their incessant spreading of fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding his candidacy is no more believable than a Microsoft treatise on Linux. In fact, I surmise that most of the top Republicans would prefer a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidency to a Paul one. This may be why they have drafted the sluggish, uncharismatic Thompson; Giuliani, Romney and McCain are so obviously unelectable that none of them can even manage to put themselves in a position to get run over by Hillary in November.

When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on.

– Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 7, 2007

What's going on is the same as in 1976 and 1980, the Republican peasantry is rebelling against the choices that their lords and masters have laid before them. This is not merely a threat to the Republican leadership, but to the very concept of the bifactional ruling party that rules America in a "bipartisan" spirit. Ron Paul threatens the notion of politics as a team sport; his focus on actual constitutional principles makes him equally appealing to anti-occupation, pro-border Democrats as to anti-occupation, pro-border Republicans. That's why he is the only candidate in either party whose support ranges from devout Christian conservatives to gay, peacenik Ralph Nader fans.

Between now and November 2008, many Americans will experience the Ron Paul epiphany, in which the scales will fall from their eyes, and they will suddenly realize that they do not want the nation to continue in the direction that George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Fred Thompson, Hussein Osama and Rudy McRomney all intend on taking it. At this point, a 1976 scenario looks far more likely than a 1980 one, but then, few pundits thought Ron Paul would still require consideration at this point in the campaign.

The choice is simple. If you want to live under an EU-style regime that is intent on invading and occupying other countries in the name of democracy for the forseeable future, vote for any of the so-called major candidates. It doesn't matter which one. There is no significant difference between President Bush and Sen. Clinton, or between Sen. Thompson and Sen. Obama. If, on the other hand, you wish to live in a nation where the United States government is governed by the Constitution, you had better support Ron Paul. This may be your only opportunity, for it is entirely possible that this will be the last time such a choice is presented to you.


Vox Day is a Christian libertarian opinion columnist. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and IGDA, and has been down with Madden since 1992. Visit his blog, Vox Popoli, for daily commentary and spirited discussions open to all.
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Aug. 30, 2007 - The Republican Schism by David McClain

One thing is clear. In order to have even the slightest hope of winning in 2008, the Republican Party must be whole and it must be able to attract some moderate Democrats. But there is only one candidate capable of building that coalition. Right now Ron Paul is bringing together libertarians, traditionalists, independents, and Democrats.

Read the rest. Also, see his new video, Ron Paul: A Man for All Seasons.
Comments (1) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Aug. 28, 2007 - Conservative Republicans Have Only One Choice In 2008

Conservative Republicans Have Only One Choice In 2008
By Chuck Baldwin
August 28, 2007


This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070828.html


Let's cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice
for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP
frontrunners, Paul is the real deal.

No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John
McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic
conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three
dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as
conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious.

For an ongoing review of the major presidential aspirants, I invite
readers to visit this web page often:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/election2008.php

The more that conservatives (and the rest of America) learn about the
GOP's "top tier" candidates, the more they will dislike them. This
fact does not bode well for the GOP in the 2008 general election
should one of these five men obtain the nomination. Plus, G.W. Bush
has forever wasted the antiquated "lesser of two evils" philosophy. As
they say here in the south, "That dog won't hunt." Not anymore.

On the whole, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are head and shoulders
above the aforementioned "top tier" candidates, especially on the very
important illegal immigration issue. They are also opposed to
so-called "free trade" agreements, and they are both pro-Second
Amendment. This is a plus. Hunter supports preemptive war, however,
and he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions
Act, which disqualifies him for President, in my judgment. I confess
to liking Tom Tancredo. He strikes me as an honest man and was a
bulldog in fighting Bush's amnesty for illegal aliens proposal.
However, he also voted for the Patriot Act and Military Commissions
Act. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are strong on the life issue, but
they are dismal on immigration and Big Brother issues. All that said,
it is Ron Paul alone who contains the "whole package."

He has a twenty-year record as a conservative congressman that is
virtually unblemished. Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and
senators in Washington, D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of
office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States. That, all by itself, should be worth a conservative's support.

In fact, Ron Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills
offered by both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol
Hill as "Dr. No." This moniker comes from both his "no" votes and the
fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN physician who has
delivered more than four thousand babies.

If one wants a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes
on conservative, constitutional issues, the best place to look is the
Freedom Index in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always
ranks as the most conservative congressman from either chamber or
either party. His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few
congressmen or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul does
it routinely.

See the Freedom Index here:
http://www.jbs.org/files/fi-110-1.pdf

Ron Paul's commitment to the sanctity of human life goes beyond
rhetoric. He is the man who sponsored H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity
of Life Act of 2005." Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized
the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "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.
In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade
decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In
plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is
more than interesting to me that none of the Religious Right's pet
politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's
pro-life bill.)

In addition to being willing to stop the illegal alien invasion, Ron
Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out
against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the
Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being
promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR).

Another critical issue in next year's election is the gun issue (it is
always a critical issue where freedom is concerned). On this issue,
Ron Paul stands atop the field. Because Paul truly supports the
Constitution, he truly supports "the right of the people to keep and
bear arms." Period. Should Ron Paul become President, gun owners would
have the best friend they ever had.

For a comprehensive review of the presidential contenders' records on
the Second Amendment, go here:
http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/

Regarding the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Paul is a
traditional conservative of the order of George Washington and Robert
Taft. Not ignorant of military matters (he is an Air Force veteran),
Paul subscribes to a historical American approach of no entanglements
with foreign nations. In fact, in the area of foreign policy, Ron Paul
stands alone as a traditional, constitutional, American statesman.

Unlike his neocon counterparts, Ron Paul believes in an independent
America. He believes that it is not America's responsibility to police
the world. He believes America's political leaders are duty-bound to
protect the interests of the United States, not the interests of
internationalists. Accordingly, he opposed the unprovoked and
preemptive invasion of Iraq. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's
principled position.

In fact, those conservatives who have followed President Bush's
preemptive war doctrine are the ones who have abandoned historical
conservative principles. Before G.W. Bush changed the landscape,
conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, mostly subscribed
to Augustine's "just war" theory regarding accepted protocols for the
conduct of war. Today, however, many professing conservatives have
foolishly followed Bush's "preemptive war" theory, which, before now,
was practiced mostly by pagan emperors. Not so with Ron Paul. As a
Christian, he still subscribes to "just war."

Of course, Ron Paul believes in protecting America from terrorists. He
authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.
According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a
constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the
authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors
who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to
only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited
authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the
practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in
blood and treasure of waging such an operation."

If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not
have lost nearly 3,500 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1
trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which
there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr.
Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his
al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future
terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case
today.

And speaking of Christianity, Ron Paul's testimony is clear. He has
publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And for
Paul, this is not political posturing, it is a genuine personal
commitment. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that he does not
wear his Christianity on his sleeve, as do so many politicians (of
both parties).

Just recently, Ron Paul said these words, "I have never been one who
is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact,
the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to
be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that
Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in
all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man,
but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for
the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving
Creator."

Could conservative Christians ask for a testimony that is any clearer?

Should Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, he would almost
certainly win the general election. His constitutional, common-sense
ideals would be attractive to such a broad range of voters, I dare say
that he would win a landslide victory, no matter who the Democrats
nominated. Conservatives, independents, libertarians, union members,
and even some liberals (mostly those who oppose the war in Iraq and
Bush's Big Brother schemes) would support Ron Paul. The challenge is
winning the Republican nomination.

Face it: the big money interests, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, the
international bankers and GOP hierarchy will never support Dr. Paul.
He is too honest, too ethical, too constitutional, and too independent
for their liking. Therefore, the only chance Ron Paul has of winning
the Republican nomination is for every Christian, every conservative,
and every constitutionalist within the GOP to get behind him.

Conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008:
Ron Paul.


(c) Chuck Baldwin

NOTE TO THE READER:

This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender
includes contact information and a method of removal.

To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php

To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/unsubscribe.php

Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so
does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column
is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web
site address is included.

Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin
for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in
scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact
chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com.

When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless
otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon
address list.

Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Aug. 27, 2007 - Why Ron Paul Can Win

Excerpts from Why Ron Paul Can Win by Paul4Prez

Read it in it's entirety here- http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-ron-paul-can-win.html

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Why Ron Paul Can Win

My first article back in March asked the question, "Can Ron Paul win?" I concluded that he could, if we all did our part to help his campaign, largely because of the weakness of the leading Republican candidates. That remains the single best reason to remain optimistic about his chances, but the past few months have given Ron Paul supporters even more reasons....

Ron Paul remains the most conservative candidate across a wide range of issues. He remains the only Republican contender opposed to the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, and the only one with proven appeal to independents and Democrats, even as he articulates a clear vision of smaller government and a strict adherence to the Constitution....

Ron Paul can win, but only if we take our efforts to the next level. The foundation is in place, but the campaign is just beginning.
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Aug. 22, 2007 - An Informed Political Decision for Bible Believing Christians

This is a fantastic blog entry-
http://insightfortoday.blogspot.com/2007/08/informed-political-decision-for-bible.html

Snippet-
I am writing this article because I am so upset with the Church, at large. Christians, for the most part, are so misinformed about our natural world. Many churches teach and many Christians confess Scriptures, claiming the promises of God. Yet, when it comes to choosing leaders to legislate and to execute just laws for which they are authorized to do, most Christians and church leaders are asleep at the wheel. No one cares what the church thinks. The church is a laughingstock in the earth, generally speaking. All people, Christian and Non-Christians, need to be informed about placing leaders in positions of authority over us. Politics and religion govern most of our lives in one form or another, directly or indirectly. Everything that we do is basically governed by laws: doing business, banking, investing, education, taxes, travel etc. are all regulated by laws of the government somehow. If you ask most Christians (regardless of ethnicity) about politics, they will give you many reasons why they choose a candidate, or they don’t get involved in politics at all. From my experiences, most people pick political candidates for the wrong reasons. But here at BG Street, we don’t want to hear the mainstream media rhetoric, and we don't care about what your parents taught you. We want relevant information, so that we can process it and make sound decisions that will help us and the ones we love. So let’s see what the issues are (in line with Scripture, common sense and the US Constitution), and not what partisan politicians think.
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Aug. 22, 2007 - Homeschoolers for Ron Paul Meetup

Want to help educate homeschooling families about the Homeschoolers Best Friend- Dr. Ron Paul?

Then come join the Homeschoolers for Ron Paul meetup- http://ronpaul.meetup.com/801/

There's a permanent link in the right-hand column.

Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

Aug. 18, 2007 - 101 Reasons you should vote for Ron Paul

Saturday, August 18, 2007

http://theronpaulblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/101-reasons-christians-catholics-and.html

101 Reasons Christians, Catholics, and Conservatives Should Vote Ron Paul

1. He Supports the Constitution.

2. He Believes In Religious Freedom.

3. He Has Never Voted For A Tax Increase.

4. He Is Against Public Funding Of Abortion.

5. He Is Against Funding Abortion Abroad.

6. He Is Against The National I.D. or Real I.D. Act.

7. He Believes In The "Just War Theory".

8. He Supports The Rights Of Private Property Owners.

9. He Wants Us Out Of The U.N.

10. He Wants Us To Trade With Nations And Not War With Them.

11. He Is For 2nd Amendment Rights.

12. He Opposes NAIS.

13. He Wants To Shrink The Federal Government, Not Expand It.

14. He Has No Plans To Start A War With Iran Or Anyone Else.

15. He Wants To Bring Our Troops Home.

16. He Does Not Belong To The CFR (Council On Foreign Relations).

17. He Has Not Received Campaign Contributions From Rupert Murdoch (Like Hillary).

18. His Running Mate Most Likely Will Not Have Shot Anyone In The Face.

19. He Wants To End The I.R.S..

20. He Wants To Cut Spending......Really, Cut Spending.

21. He Is Against Eminent Domain.

22. He Is Against The Nafta Superhighway.

23. He Is Against The North American Union Or SPP (It Exists Google It).

24. He Is For The Principle Of Sound Money.

25. He Is Against The Idea of The Amero (Google It).

26. He Is Against The Federal Reserve's Monopoly On Monetary Regulation.

27. He Is Philosophically Opposed To Big Government.

28. He Voted Against The Misnamed Patriot Act That Stripped Us Of Our Rights.

29. He Is For The Bill Of Rights.

30. He Knows The Meaning Of Liberty.

31. He Was 1 Of 4 People That Supported Reagan Early On.

32. He Has Been Married For 50 Years, Which Is An Achievement These Days.

33. He Is Not Married To Hillary.

34. His Supporters Love Him.

35. He Is A Once In A Lifetime Candidate.

36. Because His Record Is Consistent.

37. He Is Against Funding The So-Called War On Drugs (Another Unsuccessful War).

38. He Is Actually Against Funding Many Unsuccessful Federal Programs.

39. He Does Not Want To Ruin Healthcare By Nationalizing It, (Like Hillary, Obama, et al.)

40. He Is A Student Of History.

41. He Votes In Accordance With The Constitution.

42. He Will Not Forcibly Implant Us Or Our Troops With Microchips Or Like Devices (It's For Your Safety, Of Course).

43. He Is The Only Conservative, In The Traditional Sense, Left.

44. Republicans Love Him Because He Is For Small Government.

45. Democrats Love Him Because He Will End The War For Oil.

46. Libertarians Love Him Because He Wants The Government Out Of Their Business.

47. He Is The Only Electable Republican Candidate.

48. He is Against The Creation Of A Surveillance Society (See London).

49. He Supports Homeschool Rights.50. He Wants To End The Corporate Welfare System That Is Destroying Our Government's Credibility.

51. He Tells It Like It Is. He Is Truthful.

52. He Reads.

53. As A Doctor, He Is Informed On The Healthcare Issue.

54. He Has Not Been Hannitized.

55. He Has The Courage To Speak Out Against What Is Wrong.

56. He Will Be Good For The Economy (Freedom Generally Is Good For The Economy).

57. He Wants Us Out Of The WTO And Like Organizations.

58. The I.R.S. Is Scared Of This Guy.

59. He Is Smart Enough To Prefer Gold Over Paper.


60. He Knows The Term FIAT-CURRENCY and knows what it means.

61. He Wants To Secure Our Borders.

62. He Favors Guarding Our Country Over Policing The World.

63. He Opposed The War From The Beginning.

64. He Authorized The Hunt For Osama Bin Laden.

65. He Believes Local Governments Are Better Suited To Handle Their Own Issues.

66. He Is Willing To Listen And Reason With Others.

67. He Is A Christian Who Believes Christ Was Right When He Said, "Blessed Are The Peacemakers".

68. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

69. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

70. He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

71. He has never taken a government-paid junket.

72. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

73. He voted against regulating the Internet.

74. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

75. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

76. He Is Against Selective Service Registration.

77. He Is Against A Mandatory Draft.

78. He Is Still Not Married To Hillary.

79. He Has The Support Of The Youth.

80. His Campaign Has People Across The Country Motivated.

81. His Supporters Are Enthusiastic.

82. He Is Educated.

83. He Wants To Apply The Golden Rule In Government (How Radical).

84. He Believes in Freedom Of Speech.

85. He Believes In Individual Rights

86. He Believes Those Rights Come From Our Creator.

87. He Does Not "Move With The Herd".

88. He Has Delivered Over 4,000 Babies And Values Life.

89. He Doesn't Have To "Act The Part" Because He Is What He Is.

90. He Has Not Waffled On The Abortion Issue As Every Other Republican Candidate.

91. He Has Faced Tremendous Opposition With Dignity.

92. He Is Optimistic

93. He Values The Traditions That Have Kept Us Free.

94. He Understands That Monopolies Are Bad Things.

95. He Understands The Difference Between Individual And Government Responsibility.

96. He Understands Inflation Is Not Just The Prices Going Up, But Rather The Value Of Money Going Down.

97. You Will Feel Good About Your Vote For A Change.

98. You Will Know You Have Done The Right Thing.

99. For The First Time In A Long Time, You Will Not Be Voting "For The Least Worst".

100. You Will Help Undo The Damage Done To Our Country Over The Last Several Decades.

101. He Is Our Last Hope For A Free Nation.

Bonus: Since I said He Is Not Married To Hillary Twice I Will Include One Final Reason:

102. He Will Win!

Posted by Against All Tyranny at 2:29 PM
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link

<- Last Page :: Next Page ->

About Me

Homeschoolers For Ron Paul
********No, I'm not Dr. Ron Paul, but I am his biggest fan. There is no other 2008 Presidential Candidate more dedicated to protecting the rights of parents to educate their children without government influence than Texas Congressman, Dr. Ron Paul. www.RonPaul2008.com

Links

� Home
� View my profile
� Archives
� Email Me

Links

Home
View my profile
Archives
Email Me
www.RonPaul2008.com
Daily Paul
Homeschoolers for Ron Paul
Homeschoolers for Ron Paul Meetup
Homeschoolers for Ron Paul Facebook
Get To Know Ron Paul
Ron Paul Forum
Ron Paul Library
Veterans for Paul
Ludwig von Mises Institute Home
Consent of the Governed

Homeschoolers For Ron Paul