********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 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/ en-us Homeschool Blogger Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:18:00 -0600 Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:18:00 -0600 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 They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.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. http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/448173/ Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:18:00 -0600 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/448173/ 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.   http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/448168/ Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:15:00 -0600 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/448168/ 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. http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/432874/ Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:53:00 -0600 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/432874/ 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. http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/430035/ Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:03:00 -0600 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/430035/ 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. http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/407633/ Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:07:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/407633/ -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".   http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/407399/ Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:32:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/407399/ 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. http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/406645/ Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:36:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/406645/ 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.   http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/404761/ Mon, 8 Oct 2007 07:30:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/404761/ http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/404449/ Sun, 7 Oct 2007 15:25:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/404449/ 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. http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/398420/ Wed, 26 Sep 2007 23:14:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/RonPaul2008/398420/