[wvns] Who is Ron Paul?

Ron Paul Tea Party Gains Momentum
http://www.teaparty07.com/

On December 16th, 1773, American colonists dumped tea into the Boston
Harbor to protest an oppressive tax. This December 16th, American
citizens will dump millions of dollars into the Ron Paul presidential
campaign to protest the oppressive and unconstitutional inflation tax
(which has enabled a flawed foreign policy, a costly war and the
sacrificing of our liberties here at home).

Please join us this December 16th 2007 for the largest one-day
political donation event in history. Our goal is to bring together
100,000 people to donate $100 each, creating a one day donation total
of $10,000,000.

Please pledge via feedburner below to confirm your commitment to donate.

Each day you'll receive an email with our total number of subscribers.
In this way we will know exactly where we stand in our efforts.
Our goal is 100,000 subscribers.

Please pledge now. Please spread the word.

Thank you.

http://www.teaparty07.com/

12,274 pledges at 9:42 am EST 11/14/07
39,341 total visitors - 11/13/07

===

Ron Paul at the National Right to Life Convention in Kansas City, Mo.
June 15, 2007. [photo]

Paul's call to end foreign aid draws small Jewish following
By Beth Young
11/12/2007
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20071112jewsforronpaul.html

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Jim Perry, a 22-year-old Libertarian, made a name
for himself in college when, shortly after moving to New Hampshire to
live free or die, he strapped a gun to his side and marched into a
local Borders book store and proceeded to rip up a copy of his
Massachusetts income tax return.

That sort of fighting spirit is a job requirement in his new post:
executive director of the group "Jews for Ron Paul."

Paul's candidacy was dismissed early on due to his support from white
supremacist, Libertarian and other fringe groups, but the campaign has
begun to pick up steam on college campuses and on the Internet, in
part due to his staunch anti-war stance.

A longtime Texas congressman, Paul raised $4.2 million on Nov. 5 from
37,000 individual donors who agreed to give as part of a "money bomb"
on the anniversary of the failed plot of British mercenary Guy Fawkes
to kill King James I in 1605. In September, he announced that he'd
brought in $5.2 million in the previous three months, putting him
ahead of John McCain in the Republican money race.

Even as Paul makes headway in some circles, organized Jewish support
for his Republican presidential bid is nearly nonexistent, thanks to
the candidate's longstanding stance against providing foreign aid,
including U.S. assistance to Israel.

The Republican Jewish Coalition pointedly did not invite him to
participated in its candidates' forum last month, even though his
fund-raising ability and popularity on the Internet make him a dark
horse with potential to upend the primary race. His reported support
from extremist groups hasn't helped win him favor among Jews.

Still, Paul still commands a loyal, albeit small, Jewish following.
This Jewish support has followed the same pattern as Paul's backing
from other groups -- coming from out-of-the way places on the Internet
and taking mainstream media and political organizations by surprise.

In addition to Perry's "Jews for Ron Paul," there is "Zionists For Ron
Paul," an outfit launched by Yehuda HaKohen, an American immigrant to
Israel, and some of his friends back in the United States.

Some of Paul's Jewish supporters believe that it would be best for
Israel if the United States kept out of Jerusalem's affairs. There are
also those who believe that American aid to Israel is dangerous
because it feeds the perception that Jewish wield too much influence
over U.S. foreign policy.

"Many of us believe the current relationship between the United States
and Israel is a very unhealthy relationship, like that of a man and
concubine, or a slave and master," HaKohen said.

"We think that Israel should be an ally to the United States but not a
vassal to the United States," he added. "I don't think it's important
for me as an Israeli for America to defend me. I don't think it's
morally appropriate for American soldiers to fight Iran for me.
American aid does more harm than good. These are insults to our
national sovereignty."

While traveling from Washington to New Hampshire to campaign earlier
this month, Paul provided a statement to JTA explaining his position
on Israel.

"I support free trade and friendship with all nations, meaning that my
administration would treat Israel as a friend and trading partner.
Americans would be encouraged to travel to and trade with Israel,"
Paul said.

"Our foreign military aid to Israel is actually more like corporate
welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex, as Israel is forced
to purchase only U.S. products with the assistance. We send almost
twice as much aid to other countries in the Middle East, which only
insures increased militarization and the drive toward war. "

In fact, combined U.S. aid to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and other
friendly Arab nations is roughly commensurate with the $2.4 billion
military aid package Israel currently gets.

"We have adopted a foreign policy that has left Israel surrounded by
militaristic nations while undermining Israel's sovereignty by
demanding that its foreign and defense policies be essentially
pre-approved in Washington," he added. "That is a bad deal for Israel,
as sovereign nations must determine on their own what is a most
appropriate national defense. On foreign policy as well, the U.S.
steps in to prevent Israel from engaging in dialogue with nations of
which the U.S. administration disapproves."

Paul is an obstetrician from the small town of Lake Jackson, Texas,
who served in Congress in the 1970s and 1980s as a Libertarian, then
worked as a doctor before returning to Congress in 1997 as a
Republican. He's fiercely pro-life and opposed to gun control,
believes American monetary policy must be reconnected to the gold
standard and advocates an isolationist foreign policy.

Paul's campaign manager, Lew Moore, deflected questions about Paul's
support from neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups

"Ron Paul has beliefs that resonate with people. He empowers an
individual's right to free association. A lot of people like that,"
Moore said. "He does not believe in foreign aid going to any nation,
but that does not have anything to do with individual groups."

Moore said he has visited the Web site of Jews For Ron Paul, but
hasn't worked with the group and doesn't know anything about the size
of its membership. The Paul campaign, he added, was disappointed but
not surprised that Paul hadn't been invited to speak at the recent
Republican Jewish Coalition forum. The campaign manager also said that
he knew of no Jewish groups that had asked Paul to speak.

The RJC's spokeswoman said that Paul's isolationist stance contradicts
her group's belief in strengthening U.S. ties with Israel. Paul's
consistent record of voting against aid to Israel was a factor in the
group's decision not to invite the candidate, Suzanne Kurtz. said.

Kurtz also said the format of the forum, which gave each candidate 45
minutes to address the audience, meant there was not time for all of
the candidates to appear. Only Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John
McCain, Sam Brownback and Fred Thompson spoke. Brownback has since
dropped out of the race.

"It's been clear throughout Ron Paul's tenure in Congress that his
positions regarding Israel and the Middle East are significantly
outside the mainstream of the Republican Party," Kurtz said. "We hold
Paul's positions as both wrong for Israel and wrong for America.
Because of these positions, Paul does not enjoy any support from the
top leadership of the RJC."

Hadar Susskind, the Washington director for the Jewish Council on
Public Affairs, said that his organization has had little interaction
with Paul during his tenure in Congress, in part due to the fact that
Paul has received very few committee appointments.

"Ron Paul is an interesting political figure. For good or for bad he
takes public positions that are unpopular within his party," said
Susskind, whose organization does not endorse candidates. "But he's
not a member who we've had a tremendous amount of interaction with."

Perry, of Jews for Ron Paul, acknowledged that there's been a stigma
attached to Paul's candidacy due to the right-wing extremist groups
that support him.

"I'm supporting Ron Paul because he supports the Constitution," he
said. "When the freedom message brings people together like this does,
people start changing their views."

For Perry, an Orthodox Jew, there is a connection between his own
religious beliefs about personal responsibility and the Libertarian
philosophy underpinning Paul's candidacy.

"It's the idea that people are meant to be equal and free in a just
society. Those are the same things that draw me to be an observant
Orthodox Jew," said Perry, who commands an Internet forum whose
advisers include political and law professors spanning the country. "I
believe Judaism puts strong emphasis on individual meaning, personal
responsibility," he said, adding that God "calls us to take
responsibility for our own actions."

Perry said that his Internet forum is advised by political and law
professors spanning the country. In addition to the 12-member board,
the group has 48 members on its Facebook site and 80 members signed
into its Yahoo account.

Perry often tells the story of one white supremacist that he's become
friendly with at Ron Paul meet-ups.

"Here I am a kipah-wearing, fringes-hanging Orthodox Jew and he had a
tattoo with the National Alliance. He starts to see me as a human
being," Perry said. "I've met him seven times, and I've gotten him to
drop the title of white supremacist. He's getting his tattoo covered
up. I think that freedom message, when really taken seriously, brings
us together. I would be very comfortable inviting him over for Shabbos
dinner."

HaKohen, of Zionists for Ron Paul, acknowledged that Paul's followers
include groups that might make Jews uncomfortable, but he sees the
campaign as an effort to broadly redefine the American political
landscape.

"I've never been excited in my life by an American politician. I never
heard an American politician speak the language he's speaking. He's
avoided nothing and answered honestly," he said. "That's why a lot of
young people, liberals, college students, back him. I'm sure a lot of
Arabs support him. If you have Zionists, Muslims and white
supremacists supporting him, he's someone who really resonates with
people."

HaKohen is a member of the Zionist Freedom Alliance, a student
movement on 20 college campuses in America dedicated to Israeli
nationalism. The group is socially liberal, but takes a hard-right
stance on Israeli border issues.

Despite his enthusiasm, HaKohen is not getting his hopes up about the
GOP candidate's chances.

"I can see how people might dismiss him," HaKohen said. "He's not
gonna win."

[With friends like that, who needs enemies?! -WVNS]

===

Ron Paul distortions and smears
Glenn Greenwald
Monday November 12, 2007

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html

I'm not trying to be Ron Paul's advocate but, still, outright
distortions and smears are distortions and smears. In an otherwise
informative and legitimate (and widely-cited) post today about Paul's
record in Congress, Dave Neiwert claims:

Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's
freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S.
flag.

He then links to two bills which Paul introduced in Congress which
would, in essence, amend the Constitution in order to allow
prohibitions on flag burning.

But Neiwert's claim here is, in one respect, completely misleading
and, in another respect, outright false (in both cases, I assume the
error is unintentional). Unlike Hillary Clinton -- the Democratic
Party front-runner who, "along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah
Republican, introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal" --
Ron Paul was and is vehemently against any and all laws to criminalize
flag burning, including the constitutional amendment he introduced. He
introduced that amendment solely to make a point -- one he makes
frequently -- that the legislation being offered to criminalize flag
burning was plainly unconstitutional, and that the only legitimate way
to ban flag burning was to amend the First Amendment.

Indeed, he only introduced those flag-burning amendments in order to
dare his colleagues who wanted to pass a law banning flag burning to
do it that way -- i.e., the constitutional way. When introducing his
amendments, he delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech on the
floor of the House explaining why he considered anti-flag-burning
measures to be "very unnecessary and very dangerous." And he urged his
colleagues to vote against them, including the ones he introduced:

As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very
dangerous. I want to make a few points along those lines.

It has been inferred too often by those who promote this amendment
that those who oppose it are less patriotic, and I think that is
unfair. . . .

It has also been said that if one does not support this amendment to
the flag that they are disloyal to the military, and that cannot
possibly be true. I have served 5 years in the military, and I do not
feel less respectful of the military because I have a different
interpretation on how we should handle the flag. But nevertheless, I
think what we are doing here is very serious business because it deals
with more than just the flag.

First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment
to the Constitution is to impose values on people -- that is, teach
people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism is. But we
cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that
a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do
not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these
values that we want to teach.

Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through
coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there
are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have
to enforce these laws.

Rep. Paul did exactly the same thing with the invasion of Iraq, which
he opposed. He argued (accurately) that the only constitutional method
for Congress to authorize the President to invade another country was
to declare war on that country. The Constitution does not allow the
Congress to "authorize" military force without a war declaration. Rep.
Paul thus introduced a Declaration of War in the House on the ground
that such a Declaration was constitutionally required to invade Iraq
-- and he then proceeded to vote against the AUMF (because, unlike
Hillary Clinton, he actually opposed the invasion). Thus, saying that
Paul wants to outlaw flag burning (as Neiwert's post does) -- or that
he supported the war in Iraq -- is just false.

* * * * *

This raises a broader point. It has become fashionable among certain
commentators to hurl insults at Ron Paul such as "huge weirdo,"
"fruitcake," and the like. Interestingly, the same thing was done to
another anti-war medical doctor/politician, Howard Dean, back in 2003,
as Charles Krauthammer infamously pronounced with regard to Dean that
"it's time to check on thorazine supplies." Krauthammer subsequently
said that "[i]t looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again."

For a long time now, I've heard a lot of people ask: "where are the
principled conservatives?" -- meaning those on the Right who are
willing to oppose the constitutional transgressions and abuses of the
Bush administration without regard to party loyalty. A "principled
conservative" isn't someone who agrees with liberals on most issues;
that would make them a "principled liberal." A "principled
conservative" is someone who aggressively objects to the radicalism of
the neocons and the Bush/Cheney assault on our constitution and
embraces a conservative political ideology. That's what Ron Paul is,
and it's hardly a surprise that he holds many views anathema to most
liberals. That hardly makes him a "fruitcake."

Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of a sovereign country that had
not attacked us and could not attack us -- as did some of the
commentators now aggressively questioning Ron Paul's mental health or,
at least, his "seriousness." She supported the occupation of that
country for years -- until it became politically unpalatable. That war
has killed hundreds of thousands of people at least and wreaked untold
havoc on our country. Are those who supported that war extremist, or
big weirdos, or fruitcakes?

Or how about her recent support for Joe Lieberman's Iran warmongering
amendment, or her desire to criminalize flag burning, or her vow to
strongly consider an attack on Iran if they obtain nuclear weapons? Is
all of that sane, normal, and serious?

And I read every day that corporations and their lobbyists are the
bane of our country, responsible for most of its ills. What does it
say about her that her campaign is fueled in large part by support
from exactly those factions? Are she and all of her supporters
nonetheless squarely within the realm of the sane and normal? And none
of this is to say anything of the Giulianis and Podhoretzs and Romneys
and Krauthammers and Kristols with ideas so extreme and dangerous, yet
still deemed "serious."

That isn't to say that nobody can ever be deemed extremist or even
crazy. But I've heard Ron Paul speak many times now. There are a lot
of views he espouses that I don't share. But he is a medical doctor
and it shows; whatever else is true about him, he advocates his
policies in a rational, substantive, and coherent way -- at least as
thoughtful and critical as any other political figure on the national
scene, if not more so. As the anti-Paul New York Sun noted today, Paul
has been downright prescient for a long time in warning about the
severe devaluation of the dollar.

And -- as the above-cited efforts to compel Congress to actually
adhere to the Constitution demonstrate -- few people have been as
vigorous in defense of Constitutional principles as those principles
have been mangled and trampled upon by this administration while most
of our establishment stood by meekly. That's just true.

Paul's efforts in that regard may be "odd" in the sense that virtually
nobody else seemed to care all that much about systematic
unconstitutional actions, but that hardly makes him a "weirdo."
Sometimes -- as the debate over the Iraq War should have demonstrated
once and for all -- the actual "fruitcake" positions are the ones that
are held by the people who are welcome in our most respectable
institutions and magazines, both conservative and liberal.

* * * * * *

This whole concept of singling out and labelling as "weirdos" and
"fruitcakes" political figures because they espouse views that are
held only by a small number of people is nothing more than an attempt
to discredit someone without having to do the work to engage their
arguments. It's actually a tactic right out of the seventh grade
cafeteria. It's just a slothful mechanism for enforcing norms.

Under the right circumstances, enforcement of norms might have some
utility. Where things are going relatively well, and the country has a
healthy political dialogue, perhaps there isn't much of a need to
expand the scope of ideas that we consider "normal." Having all the
people whose views fit comfortably in the mainstream stigmatize as
"fruitcakes" all those whose views are outside of the mainstream
might, under those happy circumstances, bear little cost.

But our country isn't doing all that well right now. Our political
dialogue isn't really vibrant or healthy. It seems rather self-evident
that it is preferable to enlarge the scope of ideas that we consider
and to expand the debates that we engage. The "norms" that have
prevailed over the last six years have led the country quite astray
and are in need of fundamental re-examination, at the very least. That
a political figure (or pundit) clings loyally to prevailing norms
isn't exactly evidence of their worth, let alone their mental health.
The contrary proposition might actually be more plausible.

There is something disorienting about watching the same people who
cheered much of this on, or who will enthusiastically support for
President a candidate who enabled and cheered much of it on, trying to
constrict debate by labeling as "weirdos" and "fruitcakes" those who
have most aggressively opposed it all. As the debates of 2002 should
have proved rather conclusively, the arguments that are deemed to be
the province of the weirdos and losers may actually be the ideas that
are right. They at least deserve an honest airing, especially in a
presidential campaign with as much at stake as this one.

* * * * * *

For anyone with any questions about what this post means and, more
importantly, what it does not mean, please see here (Update II).

UPDATE: Bruce Fein is an example of a conservative who -- by virtue of
his outspoken opposition to Bush lawbreaking -- has generated
substantial respect among Bush critics, including many liberals. Yet
Fein hasn't changed his views at all. He is, for instance,
emphatically pro-life, and rather recently urged that "President
George W. Bush should pack the United States Supreme Court with
philosophical clones of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas
and defeated nominee Judge Robert H. Bork." Fein is still a hard-core
conservative, but a principled one. At least in that regard, I would
compare Fein to Paul.

On another note, I wrote in my prior post concerning Paul that I found
the efforts (by Neiwert and others) to smear him by linking him to
some of his extremist and hate-mongering supporters to be unfair (for
reasons I explained here). Neiwert responded and compiled what he
thinks is the best evidence to justify this linkage here.

For reasons I'll detail at another time, I found virtually all of that
to be unpersuasive, relying almost entirely on lame
guilt-by-association arguments that could sink most if not all
candidates (the only arguably disturbing evidence in this regard is
this 1996 Houston Chronicle article, which Neiwert didn't mention, and
the pro-Paul response is here). Everyone can review the evidence --
all of which is quite old and very little of which relies on any of
Paul's own statements -- and make up their own minds.

UPDATE II: Interesting, and otherwise passed on without comment (h/t
selise):

UPDATE III: For a sense of how consistently Paul applies his
principles regarding the proper role of the federal government,
consider his emphatic opposition to a Congressional Gold Medal to be
awarded to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, on the ground that "appropriating
$30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit
of Ronald Reagan's notion of the proper, limited role for the federal
government" (on the other hand, his recent vote in favor of the
Congressional resolution to condemn MoveOn.org, which he'd presumably
justify on the ground that it is non-binding, certainly seems in
tension with his underlying view of federal power).

There is certainly ample ground to dispute Paul's view of the proper,
constitutional role of the federal versus the state government in
various matters. That is probably a worthwhile debate to have. But the
claim that Paul's federalism is just an unprincipled ruse to promote
some sort of neo-Nazi or racist agenda is plainly belied by such acts,
and is exactly the type of dishonest smear designed to discredit his
views without bothering to do the work to engage and refute them.

UPDATE IV: The aforementioned Bruce Fein is legal counsel to the Ron
Paul campaign. Liberal pro-choice feminist Naomi Wolf recently sang
Paul's praises, hailing him as "the outsider Republican presidential
candidate who has long upheld these [constitutional] values and who
was an early voice warning of the grave danger to all of us of these
abuses."

Have Bruce Fein and Naomi Wolf been concealing a neo-Nazi agenda which
they are finally able to express through the Ron Paul campaign, or are
they simply impressed by the obvious convictions and intense (though
rare) passion he brings to issues which they seem to think are of
vital importance -- restoration of our constitutional framework and
the rule of law, along with principled opposition to America's
imperialistic and militarized role in the world?

===

Political positions of Ron Paul
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Ron_Paul

The political positions of Ron Paul have been called conservative,[1]
Constitutionalist,[2] and libertarian.[3] Paul's nickname "Dr. No"[4]
reflects both his medical degree and his contrarian insistence[5] on
"never vot[ing] for legislation unless the proposed measure is
expressly authorized by the Constitution."[6][7]

[edit] Foreign policy

[edit] Nonintervention, not isolationism
Paul upholds a foreign policy of nonintervention.[8] This policy
avoids entangling alliances with other nations, in the tradition of
Washington, Jefferson, and Madison,[9] in order to avoid being drawn
into wars not related to defense. He believes that war must be fought
only to protect citizens, it must be declared by the U.S. Congress,
and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as planned: "The
American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in
Iraq."[10] He has also said that rather than closing U.S. military
bases, the government should build fewer bases internationally and
keep as many U.S. bases open as possible.[11] Paul denies being an
isolationist: he advocates "conducting open trade, travel,
communication, and diplomacy with other nations".[12]

Iraq
Paul objected to and voted against the Iraq War Resolution,[13][14]
and continues to oppose U.S. presence in Iraq, charging the government
with using the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties. He believes a
just declaration of war after the September 11, 2001 attacks would
have been against the actual terrorists, Al-Qaeda, rather than against
Iraq, which had no connection to the attacks.[15] When America seeks
war, Paul believes Congress must fully approve it with a complete
declaration of war, which would allow all resources to be dedicated to
victory. However, the original authorization to invade Iraq (Public
Law 107-243), passed in late 2002, authorized the president to use
military force against Iraq to achieve only the following two specific
objectives: "(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding
Iraq."[16] Accordingly, Paul introduced legislation to add a sunset
clause to the original authorization.[17]

During the 2003 invasion, he found himself "annoyed by the
evangelicals' being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to
contradict everything that he was taught as a Christian. The religion
is based on somebody who's referred to as the Prince of Peace."[18]
Paul's consistent opposition to the war expanded his conservative and
libertarian Republican support base[19] to include liberal Democrats.
For example, the Austin Chronicle, an alternative liberal[20]
newspaper, shifted its description of Paul from "erratic"[21] to
strong and principled.[22][23]

Iran
Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with
Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the
aisle."[24] He claims the current circumstances with Iran mirror those
under which the Iraq War began, and has urged Congress not to
authorize war with Iran.[25] In the U.S. House of Representatives,
only Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against the Rothman-Kirk
Resolution, which asks the U.N. to charge Iranian president Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad with violating its genocide convention and charter.[26]

International organizations
Paul opposes political organizations and arrangements that he believes
override U.S. sovereignty, such as the International Criminal Court,
the United Nations, the North American Union, the Law of the Sea
Treaty, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North
America. He supports withdrawing funds from and ending participation
in such organizations.[27]

Other interventions
In a National Public Radio interview, Paul advocated a "moral
statement" rather than direct intervention in humanitarian missions
such as in Darfur or Rwanda.[28] Accordingly, he was the only "no"
vote on House Resolution 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment
Act of 2007.[29] National Journal rated Paul's foreign policy as 20%
conservative in 2004 (25% in 2003).[30]

[edit] Free trade, not managed trade
Paul is a proponent of free trade, but has opposed some "free trade
agreements" (FTAs).[31] He calls the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and similar proposals "international managed trade"
agreements, saying they serve special interests and big business, not
citizens.[32] He often proposes instead that the U.S. engage in
unilateral free trade by the simple abolition of trade barriers at
home (similar to Hong Kong's approach), rather than send massive,
unaccountable foreign aid.

He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA),
holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S.
sovereignty, and was unconstitutional.[31] He has also voted against
the Australia–U.S. FTA, the U.S.–Singapore FTA, and the U.S.–Chile
FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that "fast track"
powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate
FTA's on the country's behalf, are unconstitutional, and that
Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTA's.[32]

[edit] Secure borders and legal immigration
Paul believes that the government, neglecting a Constitutional
responsibility to protect its borders, has concentrated instead on
unconstitutionally policing foreign countries.[33] During the Cold
War, he supported Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative,[34] intended
to replace the "strategic offense" doctrine of mutual assured
destruction with strategic defense.

Paul's immigration positions sometimes differ with libertarian think
tanks and the official platform of the U.S. Libertarian Party.[35] He
believes illegal immigrants take a toll on welfare and Social Security
and would end such benefits, concerned that uncontrolled immigration
makes the U.S. a magnet for illegal aliens, increases welfare
payments, and exacerbates the strain on an already highly unbalanced
federal budget.[36] Paul's Congressional voting record earned a
lifetime grade of B and a recent grade of B+ from Americans for Better
Immigration.[37]

Paul believes all immigrants should be treated fairly and equally,
under law, through "coherent immigration policy". He has spoken
strongly against amnesty for illegal immigrants because he believes it
undermines the rule of law, grants pardons to lawbreakers,[38] and
subsidizes more illegal immigration.[39] Paul voted for the Secure
Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100
kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico. He
believes it a folly to spend much money policing other countries'
borders, such as the Iraq–Syria border, because he thinks the
U.S.–Mexico border can be crossed by anyone, including potential
terrorists.[40]

Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should
not be granted automatic citizenship.[41] He has called for a new
Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and
"end automatic birthright citizenship", in order to address welfare
issues.[42]

[edit] Constitutional response to terrorism
Letters of marque and reprisal
Paul, calling the September 11, 2001, attacks an act of "air piracy",
introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Letters of marque and
reprisal, authorized by the Constitution, Article One, Section Eight,
would have targeted specific terrorist suspects, instead of invoking
war against a foreign state.[15] Paul reproposed this legislation as
the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.[43] He voted with the majority
for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Terrorists in Afghanistan.[44]

Investigation
Paul supports reopening investigation into the attacks to discover why
the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not act on 70 internal field
tips: "We had one FBI agent, I think sent dozens and dozens of memos
to his superiors saying that there are people trying to fly airplanes
but not land them, and nobody would pay any attention."[45] He would
also investigate why the various intelligence agencies could not
collaborate on information to prevent the attacks while spending $40
billion per year.[45][46] He has called the 9/11 Commission Report a
"charade": "Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at
home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the
9-11 Commission recommends."[47]

Rejection of conspiracy theory
Paul does not believe the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were
a government conspiracy and has explicitly denied being a 9/11
truther, arguing the issue is not a conspiracy but a
bureaucracy.[45][46] He believes the 9/11 Commission Report's main
goal was "to protect the government and to protect their ineptness -
not ... to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war
.... Some who did want to spread the war would use it as an
opportunity. But, it wasn't something that was deliberately
done."[45][48] He does not think the government would have staged such
an attack.[49] When asked whether "9/11 was orchestrated by the
government", Paul emphasized, "Absolutely not."[50]

John Gibson of Fox News confronted Paul about being interviewed by
truther Alex Jones. Gibson asked Paul to "say right here and now that
you completely disavow the 9/11 truth movement and the whole idea that
the U.S. government was in on the 9/11 attack", which Paul immediately
did.[51] Gibson later expressed doubts over Paul's explicit disavowal,
claiming Paul does believe the government staged the 9/11 attack:
"9/11 truthers evidently raised millions for Ron Paul. Why doesn't he
just admit that he's with them, blaming the U.S. government for the
9/11 attacks?"[52] Paul says both Jones and Gibson "try to put words
in my mouth"[51] and "try to twist what I say and turn it into that,
and I think some of my supporters lean in that direction, but that's
not my position."[45]

[edit] Economy

[edit] Lower taxes and smaller government
Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased
substantially. He supports the abolition of the Internal Revenue
Service, most Cabinet departments, and the Federal Reserve.[53] Paul's
campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!".[54] He
would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and
scope of government to its Constitutional limits, noting that he has
never voted to approve an unbalanced budget; he has observed that even
scaling back spending to 2000 levels eliminates the need for the 42%
of the budget accounted for by individual income tax receipts.[55] He
has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax
and supports the repeal of the sixteenth amendment.[56] Paul has
signed a pledge not to raise taxes or create new taxes, given by
Americans for Tax Freedom.[57] Paul has also been an advocate of
employee-owned corporations (such as employee stock ownership
plans).[58] In 1999, he co-sponsored The Employee Ownership Act of
1999, which would have created a new type of corporation (the
employee-owned-and-controlled corporation) that would have been exempt
from most federal taxes.

John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, an
organization that promotes lower tax rates, has said, "Ron Paul has
always proven himself to be a leader in the fight for taxpayer rights
and fiscal responsibility .... No one can match his record on behalf
of taxpayers." Paul has been called a "Taxpayer's Friend" by
Berthoud's organization every year since he returned to Congress in
1996, scoring an average percentage of 100%, tying Tom Tancredo for
the highest score (1992–2005) among all 2008 presidential candidates
from Congress.[59] National Federation of Independent Business
president Jack Farris has said, "Paul is a true friend of small
business.... He is committed to a pro-small-business agenda of
affordable health insurance, lower taxes, tort reform, and the
elimination of burdensome mandates."[60]

Paul has stated: "I agree on getting rid of the IRS, but I want to
replace it with nothing, not another tax. But let's not forget the
inflation tax."[61][62] In other statements, he has permitted
consideration of a national sales tax as a compromise if all taxes can
not be eliminated. He has advocated that the reduction of government
will make an income tax unnecessary.[63] Paul would substantially
reduce the government's role in individual lives and in the functions
of foreign and domestic states; he says Republicans have lost their
commitment to limited government and have become the party of big
government.[64] He would eliminate most federal government agencies as
"unnecessary bureaucracies", such as the Internal Revenue Service,[55]
the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the
Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management
Administration, and the Interstate Commerce Commission.[65] Paul would
"essentially" eliminate the CIA; while retaining functions like
intelligence-gathering, he would eliminate operations like
overthrowing foreign governments and assassinations. He says this
activity is kept secret even from Congress and "leads to trouble."[66]
He also commented, "We have every right in the world to know something
about intelligence gathering, but we have to have intelligent people
interpreting this information."[67]

Paul's opposition to the Federal Reserve is supported by the Austrian
Business Cycle Theory, which holds that instead of containing
inflation, the Federal Reserve, in theory and in practice, is
responsible for causing inflation. In addition to eroding the value of
individual savings, this creation of inflation leads to booms and
busts in the economy. Thus Paul argues that government, via a central
bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic
recessions and depressions. He has stated in numerous speeches that
most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the
central bank because it funds many government activities. He says that
to compensate for eliminating the "hidden tax"[68] of inflation,
Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut
government services, either of which could be politically damaging to
their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the
poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes
select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as
more money is placed in circulation.[69]

His warnings of impending economic crisis and a loss of confidence in
the dollar in 2005 and 2006 were at the time derided by many
economists, but accelerating dollar devaluation in 2007 has led
experts like former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan to reconsider
Paul's hard money policies.

[edit] Opposition to inflation and the Federal Reserve
Paul adheres deeply to Austrian school economics and libertarian
criticism of fractional-reserve banking, opposing fiat increases to
money in circulation;[70] he has authored six books on the subjects,
has pictures of classical liberal economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray
Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises hanging on his office wall,[71][72] and
is a distinguished counselor to the Mises Institute.[73] Paul opposes
inflation as an underhanded form of taxation, because it takes value
away from the money that individuals hold without having to directly
tax them. He sees the creation of the Federal Reserve, and its ability
to "print money out of thin air" without commodity backing, as
responsible for eroding the value of money, observing that "a dollar
today is worth 4 cents compared to a dollar in 1913 when the Federal
Reserve got in." In 1982, Paul was the prime mover in the creation of
the U.S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has voiced
concern over the dominance of the debt-based monetary system and
called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through a gradual
reintroduction of hard currency, including both gold and silver.[18] A
commodity standard binds currency issue to the value of that commodity
rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the
commodity.

Paul condemns the role of the Federal Reserve in creating
inflation.[74][75] The Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission
states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in
their monetary role by Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and
6, and Section Ten, Clause 1, "The Constitution forbids the states to
make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt,
nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal
tender." The Commission also recommended that the federal government
"restore a definition for the term 'dollar.' We suggest defining a
'dollar' as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine."[76] On
multiple occasions in congressional hearings, Paul has sharply
challenged two different chairmen of the Federal Reserve, Alan
Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.

Paul has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold
transactions.[77] He has repeatedly introduced the Federal Reserve
Board Abolition Act since 1999,[78] to enable "America to return to
the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one
where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a
commodity such as gold"; it has received virtually no mainstream news
coverage.[79] He opposes dependency on paper fiat money, but also says
that there "were some shortcomings of the gold standard of the 19th
century ... because it was a fixed price and caused confusion." He
argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would
prevent inflation, but adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold
standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver
should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal
Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal
Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."[80] He
supports parallel currencies, such as gold-backed notes issued from
private markets, competing on a level playing field with the Federal
Reserve fiat dollar. He believes this would restrain inflation, limit
government spending, and eventually eliminate the ability of the
Federal Reserve to "tax" Americans through inflation (i.e., by
reducing the purchasing power of the currency they are holding),[81]
which he sees as a form of theft.

Paul suggests that current efforts to sustain dollar hegemony,
especially since collapse of the Bretton Woods system following the
United States' suspension of the dollar's conversion to gold in 1971,
exacerbate a rationale for war. Consequently, when petroleum producing
nations like Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela elect to trade in Petroeuro
instead of Petrodollar, it devalues an already overly inflated dollar,
further eroding its supremacy as a global currency. According to Paul,
along with vested American interests in oil and plans to "remake the
Middle East", this scenario has proven a contributing factor for the
war against Iraq and diplomatic tensions with Iran.[82][83] National
Journal rated Paul's economic policy as 53% conservative in 2004 (47%
in 2003).[30]

[edit] Support of nonviolent tax resistance
In an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News, June 26, 2007, in
speaking of income tax resistance, Paul said that he supports the
right of those who engage in nonviolent resistance when they believe a
law is unjust, bringing up the names of Martin Luther King, Lysander
Spooner, and Mahatma Gandhi as examples of practitioners of peaceful
civil disobedience; but he cautioned that those who do should be aware
that the consequences could be imprisonment.[84] He said that current
income tax laws assume that people are guilty and they must then prove
they are innocent, and he believes this aspect of tax law is unfair.
However, he said that he prefers to work for improved tax laws by
getting elected to Congress and trying to change the laws themselves
rather than simply not paying the tax.

[edit] Social Security protection
Paul says that Social Security is in "bad shape .... The numbers
aren't there"; funds are depleting because Congress borrows from the
Social Security fund every year to fund its budget.[11] He considers
himself the rare member of Congress who has voted for such little
spending that it has never required borrowing from existing Social
Security funds. To stem the Social Security crisis and meet the
commitment to elderly citizens who depend on it, he requires that
Congress cut down on spending, reassess monetary and spending
policies, and stop borrowing heavily from foreign investors, such as
those in China, who hold U.S. Treasury bonds. Paul believes young
Americans should be able to opt out of the system if they would like
not to pay Social Security taxes.[11]

[edit] Minimization of market interference
Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market
process.[85] He also endorses defederalization of the health care system.

Paul was one of only three members of Congress that voted against the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act: it "imposes costly new regulations on the
financial services industry [that] are damaging American capital
markets by providing an incentive for small US firms and foreign firms
to deregister from US stock exchanges."[86]

In an interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Paul said he
favors ending the United States Post Office legal monopoly on first
class mail delivery by legalizing private competition.[87]

[edit] Limiting spending to Constitutional powers
In order to restrict the federal government to its Constitutionally
authorized functions, Paul regularly votes against almost all
proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes,[88]
often opposed by a heavy majority of his colleagues. On January 22,
2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415[89] voting to oppose a House
measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and
Reconstruction, as an unauthorized use of taxpayer money.

In a speech on June 25, 2003, criticizing giving Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom Tony Blair a Congressional Gold Medal of Honor, Paul
said, "These medals generally have been proposed to recognize a life
of service and leadership, and not for political reasons — as
evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan support for awarding
President Reagan, a Republican, a gold medal. These awards normally go
to deserving individuals, which is why I have many times offered to
contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other members, to
finance these medals."[90] He has also been criticized for being the
only dissenting vote against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks, and
Mother Teresa the medal. The medals and ceremonies held to bestow them
on recipients are expensive. Texas Monthly awarded him the "Bum Steer"
award for voting against a congressional honor for cartoonist Charles
Schulz, but also noted, "When he was criticized for voting against the
[Parks] medal, he chided his colleagues by challenging them to
personally contribute $100 to mint the medal. No one did. At the time,
Paul observed, `It's easier to be generous with other people's
money.'"[91]

[edit] Civil liberties

[edit] Constitutional rights

[edit] Freedom of religion in public life
Paul has consistently advocated that the federal government not be
involved in citizens' everyday lives. For instance, he believes that
prayer in public schools should neither be prohibited nor mandated at
the federal or state level.[92][93]

In a December 2003 article entitled "Christmas in Secular America",
Paul wrote, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state
has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of
our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views
were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the
drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both
replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal
government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the
First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an
official state church like the Church of England, not to drive
religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a
robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches
serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in
importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what
no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral
and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right
and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is
the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as
institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and
many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith
in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war
against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian
heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."[94]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have
removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any
State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or
establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal
courts.[95] If made law, this provision would permit state, county,
and local governments to decide whether to allow displays of religious
text and imagery.

Paul has sponsored a Constitutional amendment which would allow
students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow
anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to
compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be
said in schools.[96]

[edit] Freedom of speech
In June 2003, Paul voted against a Constitutional amendment to
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United
States.[97] In 1997, Paul introduced a Constitutional amendment giving
states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag of the United
States to make the point that banning flag burning is
unconstitutional..[98]

[edit] Freedom of the Internet
In 2006, a "Technology voter guide" by CNET awarded Paul a score of
80%, the highest score out of both houses of Congress. Paul has been
criticized for voting against legislation to help catch online child
predators, one of the votes used in the CNET guide. In response to
critics, Paul said, "I have a personal belief that the responsibility
of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents
and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too
arbitrary." He also believed that the proposed law was
unconstitutional.[99]

Paul voted against an amendment[100][101] that would have legally
protected network neutrality: "One of the basic principles, a basic
reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of
the Internet, which is a very, very dangerous precedent to set."[102]
Paul was also asked, "Do you trust the Verizons or the AT&Ts of the
world to give internet users equal access to all media online?" He
replied, "Well, quite frankly I don't understand all the details, but
if you believe in the free market you try to work out a way to solve
those problems through contractual arrangements, not through depending
on government regulation, so yes they are difficult and like I admit,
I don't understand all those problems that we face, although the point
I make is I have a healthy disregard and fear of the bureaucrats doing
it because once you do that, those big companies are going to
regulate, they're going to be the lobbyists and the politicians that
regulate the law, and I think you'll be in worse shape."[103]

[edit] Right to keep and bear arms
The only 2008 presidential candidate to earn Gun Owners of America's
A+ rating, Paul has authored and sponsored pro-Second Amendment
legislation in Congress. He has also fought for the right of pilots to
be armed.

In the first chapter of his book, Freedom Under Siege, Paul argued
that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on
government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow
self-defense. When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own
machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not
is, I think, irrelevant."[104] Paul believes that a weapons ban at the
federal or state level does not work either. "Of course true
military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals
on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban
does nothing to make us safer."[105] Rather, he sees school shootings,
plane hijackings, and other such events as a result of prohibitions on
self-defense.[106]

[edit] Jury nullification
Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that
jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the
case. "The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand
of government through the common-law jury is as old as the Magna Carta
(1215 A.D.). The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle
and incorporated it into our Constitution." He notes that this
democratic principle is also stated in Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man",
Supreme Court of the United States decisions by Chief Justice John
Jay, and writings of Thomas Jefferson. Paul states that judges were
not given the right to direct the trial by "instructing" the jury.[107]

[edit] Habeas corpus
In the first Republican debate (2007) in California, Paul stated that
he would never violate habeas corpus,[108] through which detainees can
seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. This is also a pledge in the
American Freedom Agenda signed by Paul.[109] National Journal rated
Paul's overall social policies as 54% conservative in 2004 (47% in
2003).[30]

[edit] Opposition to federal violations of liberty
Patriot Act
Paul broke with his party by voting against the Patriot Act in 2001;
he also voted against its 2005 enactment. He has said, "Everything we
have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the
war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America."[47] Paul opposes
reintroducing the draft, and has spoken against federal use of
torture[110] and the apparent abuse of executive authority during the
Iraq War to override Constitutional rights.

REAL ID Act
Paul voted against the REAL ID Act of 2005 (an attempt to create a
national identification card), which has been challenged as violating
the Constitutional separation of powers doctrine and other civil
liberties. Enforcement of the Act has been postponed until December 2009.

Domestic surveillance
Paul has spoken against the domestic surveillance program conducted by
the National Security Agency on American citizens. He believes the
role of government is to protect American citizens' privacy, not
violate it.[111] He has signed the American Freedom Agenda pledge not
to violate Americans' rights through domestic wiretapping and to
renounce autonomous presidential signing statements, which rely on
unitary executive theory.[109]

Conscription
Paul is opposed to reintroducing the draft.[112] In 2002, he authored
and introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives
expressing that reinstatement of a draft would be unnecessary and
detrimental to individual liberties, a resolution that was endorsed by
the American Civil Liberties Union.[113] In the 110th Congress, he has
proposed a bill which would end Selective Service registration.[114]

Eminent domain
Paul opposes eminent domain. He wishes to "stop special interests from
violating property rights and literally driving families from their
homes, farms and ranches." He opposes "regulatory takings ....
Governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of
their properties — all without paying 'just compensation'."[115]

Affirmative action
In 1997, Paul voted to end affirmative action in college
admissions.[116][117] Paul criticizes both racism and obsession with
racial identity:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views
humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists
believe that all individuals who share superficial physical
characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in
terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality,
the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism.
Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."[118]

Additionally, in his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege, he compares
society's values to the values of television wrestling, citing racism
as among the negative qualities:

There are times when it seems like we get our system of values from
television productions. Professional wrestling is one of the few
programs which started on TV in the late 1940s and now claims more
viewers than ever. There are no rules, and it is associated with
contrived (but unreal) violence: mockery of the referee, racism,
absence of sportsmanship, yelling, screaming, and hatred. Reasonable
rules of decency are totally ignored. The shows get worse every year;
belts, chains, and cages are now part of the acts. Twenty wrestlers
are put into a ring without a referee and a free-for-all erupts -- the
more violent, the more the crowd cheers the ridiculous charade.

American Community Survey
He views the new American Community Survey questions as "both
ludicrous and insulting", believing that the information is simply
none of the government's business.[119]

[edit] States' rights
A number of Paul's positions on civil liberties are based on states'
rights, the idea that U.S. states possess certain rights and political
powers in relation to the federal government. According to Paul,
"States' rights simply means the individual states should retain
authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal
government in Article I of the Constitution."[6].

[edit] Pro-life legislation
Paul is strongly pro-life, and calls himself an "unshakable foe of
abortion". He believes that, for the most part, states should retain
jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential
on his view, recalling a late abortion performed during his residency,
"It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby
taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket."[120] During a May
15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes,
Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his
libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can
you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that
since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians
should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression"
against a fetus, which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing
legal rights.[121]

Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S.
Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to
legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no
authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue".[122]

Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would
have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges
to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[123] In
2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed
"any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim
related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of
federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states
to prohibit abortion.[95] In 2005, Paul voted against restricting
interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[124]

In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade," Paul voted in favor
of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has
described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure". He also
introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling
on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of
marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in
these areas to no longer be binding.[125] He once said, "The best
solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a
Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several
states retain jurisdiction."[126]

[edit] Stem-cell research regulation
Paul supports stem-cell research generically, as evidenced by his
sponsoring the Cures Can Be Found Act of 2005 (H.R. 3334), a bill "to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide credits against
income tax for qualified stem cell research, the storage of qualified
stem cells, and the donation of umbilical cord blood." However, Paul
believes the debate over the embryonic category of stem-cell research
is another divisive issue over which the federal government has no
jurisdiction:

"Those engaged in this debate tend to split into warring camps
claiming exclusive moral authority to decide the issue once and for all.
On one side, those who support the President's veto tend to argue
against embryonic stem cell research, pointing to the individual
rights of the embryo being discarded for use in research. On the other
hand are those who argue the embryo will be discarded any way, and the
research may provide valuable cures for people suffering from terrible
illnesses.
In Washington, these two camps generally advocate very different
policies. The first group wants a federal ban on all such research,
while the latter group expects the research to be
federally-subsidized. Neither side in this battle seems to consider
the morality surrounding the rights of federal taxpayers ...."[127]
Paul voted "no" on a bill banning human cloning at the federal level.[128]

[edit] Capital punishment
Paul stated in August 2007 that at the state level "capital punishment
is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime", but he does not
believe that the federal government should use it as a penalty.[129]

In Tavis Smiley's All-American Forum debate at Morgan State in
September 2007, Paul stated: "Over the years I've held pretty rigid to
all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion of the death penalty. For
federal purposes I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe
it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if
you're poor and you're from the inner city you're more likely to be
prosecuted and convicted, and today, with the DNA evidence, there've
been too many mistakes, and I am now opposed to the federal death
penalty."[130]

[edit] Education
Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal
control over education and education should be handled at a local and
state level. He opposes the federal No Child Left Behind Act, voting
against it in 2001 and remaining opposed to it as an ineffective
federal program.[131]

Paul has proposed the use of education tax credits, included in his
bill the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612), which provides a
$3,000 tax credit to families to choose their own schools. He has also
introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, which would provide
for a tax credit for up to a $3,000 donation to the public or private
school of the taxpayer's choice, which would provide accountability
and more money to America's schools from a local level.[132] Paul has
also proposed tax credits of $5,000 per year for each family, which
could be used for any school-related expenses, whether the children of
the family attend public or private school or are home-schooled.[133]

Paul has rejected government-issued vouchers in favor of education tax
credits. Paul supports the right of state and local school districts
to implement education vouchers according to the 10th Amendment of the
Constitution, but he does not believe they should exist on a federal
level. He says that vouchers are given to certain students favored
over others, and it is not fair for some middle-class parents to have
to pay their child's own way at a private school while other parents'
children are selected for government voucher programs. He opposes the
welfare state generally,[134] and says that in their current form,
vouchers are a form of welfare given to some over others; they would
be worthwhile if they resulted in an equal amount of money being taken
out of the public school system, but the end result is usually more
money on both vouchers for private schools and more money for the
public school system. He says that vouchers would only work if they
gave public schools some competition and forced public schools to get
better, but when the public school gets all the money it would have
and more even with vouchers as competition, the public system has no
reason to get better.[132]

Paul says that when voucher proponents say that students have a right
to a good education and give vouchers as the answer, it means that
private schools must fall under federal regulations to ensure that
they are meeting students' rights. He says that if given the choice of
which private school to attend, parents may choose to use their
taxpayer-voucher to attend a school objectionable to some, such as one
run by, for example, the Nation of Islam, and for that situation not
to happen, government control over which schools are acceptable for
vouchers would have to be injected. He asserts that colleagues have
mentioned before that to take vouchers, religious schools would have
to seek government accreditation under the Department of Education. He
argues that this would in effect be a forced accreditation process
because schools that choose not to take part will not be seen as
having the "government's seal of approval" and may go out of business.
He points to how the federal government has used federal funding for
universities to tell universities what policies they must accept, and
that the government would try to do the same with private schools.[132]

[edit] Sexual orientation legislation
Same-sex adoption
On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the
District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to
prohibit federal funding.[135]. Of these, Amendment 356 would have
prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal
payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote
the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care
system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between
individuals who are not related by blood or marriage", whether
same-sex or heterosexual. It should be noted that Rep. Ron Paul has
has never voted in favor of a federal law which gives the federal
government powers not enumerated in the Constitution, such as those
regulating marriage or funding adoption. [136][137][138][139]

Voluntary associations
Paul opposes all federal efforts to redefine marriage, whether defined
as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including
anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating
marriages should be left to the states, not subjected to judicial
activism.[140] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal
Marriage Amendment in 2004.

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in
1996, which limited the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit
Clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize "same-sex marriages"
performed in other states if they so choose. He co-sponsored the
Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing
cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage
Act.[140][141] Paul has said that federal officials changing the
definition of marriage to allow "same-sex marriage" is "an act of
social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[142] Paul stated
that "Americans understandably fear" the nationwide legalization of
same-sex marriage.[143] He says that in a best case scenario,
governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise
have no say in marriage.[144] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to
interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social,
sexual, and religious sense.[145][146] Additionally, when asked if he
was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all
voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[145]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have
removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon
the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of
sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based
upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based
upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual
orientation."[95] If made law, these provisions would allow states to
regulate sexual practices and "same-sex marriage" independently.

Don't ask, don't tell
In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Paul said about the
U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:

"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that
we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as
they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as
belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or
women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as
individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if
there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it
should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is
disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of
homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual
rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very
important problem."[146]

Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google,
stating that he would not discharge troops for being homosexual if
their behavior was not disruptive.[145]

[edit] Environmental protection
Paul believes that polluters are aggressors, and should not be granted
immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. In a radio
interview with Dennis Miller, Paul claimed that environmental
protection has failed under collectivistic countries he feels have not
respected private property, and spoke of the effects of private
ownership as envisaged by the libertarian:

"The environment is better protected under private property rights
.... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We
can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on
their property .... Too often, conservatives and libertarians fall
short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying,
'Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us
.... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute.' So I
don't particularly like that method."[147]
He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions
standards, should be handled between and among the states or regions
concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators
determining our air standards."[148]

In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, he co-sponsored a bill
preventing the US from funding nuclear power plants in China.[149] He
has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry,
saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas
industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and
gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[11] Rather
than bureaucrats in Washington giving subsidies that favor certain
technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than
sugarcane, he believes the market should decide which technologies are
best and which will succeed in the end.[11] He also sponsored an
amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[150] Paul
believes that nuclear energy is an alternative that should be
considered, because it is a clean and efficient fuel and could help
with powering efficient electric cars.[11]

Paul believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow
hemp production and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states
to decide this issue. Hemp can be used in producing sustainable
biofuels.[151] This would help North Dakota in particular; the state
has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel
and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for
years.[151]

Paul voted against bills in both 2004 and 2005 that would shield a
Saudi Arabian royal family-owned group from liability for a possibly
cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into the groundwater in
New England. A Saudi-owned lobbying group spent more than $1.5 million
lobbying Congress since 1998 to limit their liability for the additive
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), for which cleanup costs in New
England would be billions. The bill included $1.8 billion for
federally-funded cleanup of New England municipalities and another $2
billion to give to companies to help them phase out the additive. The
provision was inserted into President Bush's energy bill of January
2004 by Majority Leader Tom DeLay; the bill also included federal
subsidies for oil, coal and gas. The Saudi company said that they
should not be liable because they had been required to use an additive
and it was more expensive to use the other possible additive, ethanol,
in New England. Taxpayers for Common Sense said the measure was a
"gift horse" for the Saudi-owned company and would subsidize foreign
oil regimes in a bill meant to reduce dependence on foreign
oil.[152][153][154]

[edit] Health issues

[edit] Health care relief
Paul has called for passage of tax relief bills to reduce health care
costs for families:[155] He would support a tax credit for senior
citizens who need to pay for costly prescription drugs. He would also
allow them to import drugs from other countries at lower prices. He
has called for health savings accounts that allow for tax-free savings
to be used to pay for prescriptions.[156]

H.R. 3075 allows families to claim a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for
health insurance premiums.
H.R. 3076 provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits
consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to
undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative
outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed
receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly
malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive
this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and
without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial
lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians
and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals
who pay taxes can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially
no cost.
H.R. 3077 creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and
prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also
creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal
illnesses, cancer, or disabilities.
H.R. 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes
(or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious
illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for
primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child.
Paul voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act,
which would allow the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical
companies to get the best price for drugs provided in the Medicare
Part D prescription drug program.[157]

Paul rejects universal health care, believing that the more government
interferes in medicine, the higher prices rise and the less efficient
care becomes. He points to how many people today are upset with the
HMO system, but few people realize that HMOs came about because of a
federal mandate in 1973.[157] He also points to the 1974 ERISA law
that grants tax benefits to employers for providing insurance but not
individuals; he prefers a system which grants tax credits to
individuals.[158] He supports the U.S. converting to a free market
health care system, saying in an interview on New Hampshire NPR that
the present system is akin to a "corporatist-fascist" system which
keeps prices high. He says that in industries with freer markets
prices go down due to technological innovation, but because of the
corporatist system, this is prevented from happening in health care.
He opposes socialized health care promoted by Democrats as being
harmful because they lead to bigger and less efficient government.[159]

Paul has said that although he prefers tax credits to socialized
medicine, he would be willing to "prop up" the current systems of
Medicare and Medicaid with money saved by bringing troops home from
foreign bases in places such as those in South Korea.[160]

He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, including
Codex Alimentarius (some proposals he opposes would require a
prescription for vitamins).[161]

[edit] Medical marijuana and industrial hemp
Paul favors the use of marijuana as a medical option. He was cosponsor
of H.R. 2592, the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act.[162][163]
He opposes federal prohibition of this option in states such as
California under Proposition 215.

Paul has joined prominent liberal Democrats in urging that states be
allowed to permit farmers to grow industrial hemp.[151] He contends
that this would help North Dakota and other agriculture states, where
farmers have requested the ability to farm hemp for years.[151]

In 2005 he introduced H.R. 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of
2005, "to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial
hemp from the definition of marijuana, and for other purposes".[164]
This bill would have given the states the power to regulate farming of
hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of
industrial hemp farming in the United States.

On February 13, 2007 Paul introduced H.R. 1009, the "Industrial Hemp
Farming Act of 2007", with nine original cosponsors.[165] The
Economist wrote that his support for hemp farming could appeal to
farmers in Iowa.[165]

[edit] Ineffectiveness of drug prohibition
Paul wants to legalize the sale of narcotics, contending that
prohibition of drugs is ineffective. "Prohibition doesn't work.
Prohibition causes crime." He believes that drug abuse should be
treated as a medical problem, "We treat alcoholism now as a medical
problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as
a medical problem and not as a crime." The Constitution does not
enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate
drugs in general.

Paul believes in personal responsibility, but also sees inequity in
the current application of drug enforcement laws. "When people commit
violence whether they're under the influence of drugs, prescription
drugs, illegal drugs or alcohol they should be punished severely. We
shouldn't be putting people in prison for life with no chance of
getting out… that never have committed a violent crime. At the same
time we hear of cases where murderers or rapists get out after five or
ten years or never even go to prison, it doesn't make any sense."[166]

When asked about his position on implementing the tenth amendment,
Paul explained, "Certain medical procedures and medical choices, I
would allow the states to determine that. The state law should prevail
not the Federal Government." Speaking specifically about Drug
Enforcement Agency raids on medical marijuana clinics Paul said,
"They're unconstitutional," and went on to advocate states' rights and
personal choice; "You're not being compassionate by taking medical
marijuana from someone who's suffering from cancer or AIDS… People
should have freedom of choice. We certainly should respect the law and
the law says that states should be able to determine this."

[edit] Veterans' hospital access
Paul believes that the Veterans Administration should not be building
more hospitals, and that VA hospitals should instead be phased out. He
believes that government should pay to treat veterans in private
hospitals, arguing they will get better care more cost-effectively.

[edit] Election law

[edit] Ballot access
As a former Libertarian Party candidate for President, Paul has been a
proponent of ballot access law reform, and has spoken out on numerous
election law reform issues.

In 2003, he introduced H. R. 1941, the Voter Freedom Act of 2003, that
would have created uniform ballot access laws for independent and
third political party candidates in Congressional elections. He
supported this bill in a speech before Congress in 2004.[167] In 2007
he reintroduced a similar version of the bill.

[edit] Voting Rights Act
In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the
renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove
barriers to voting participation for minorities.[168] Paul has
indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but
rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[169] He
felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and
unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much
different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. All of Texas'
representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it
specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for
federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for
localities to change the location of a polling place or other small
acts without first receiving permission from the federal
government.[170] The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon
request, and in a letter opposing the bill for this reason, 80 members
of Congress including Paul objected to the costly implications of
requiring bilingual ballots.[170] In one example cited in the letter,
the members detailed how Los Angeles spent $2.1 million for the 2004
election to provide ballots in seven different languages and more than
2,000 translators, although one of the requirements of gaining United
States citizenship is ability to read in English, and another
California district spent $30,000 on translating ballots per election
despite receiving only one request for Spanish documents in 16 years.
The legislators also noted that printing in foreign languages
increases the chances of ballot error, pointing out a specific example
of erroneous translated ballots that had been used in Flushing, New
York.[171]

[edit] Civil Rights Act of 1964
Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

It "not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty;
it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony
and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read
minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only
way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition
of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a
bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus,
bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial
quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of
a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial
balkanization, and fostered racial strife."[169]

[edit] State representation
Paul would like to restore State representation in Congress. During a
speech in New Hampshire in February 2007 Paul called for a repeal of
the seventeenth amendment,[172] which allows for direct election of
U.S. Senators. Instead Paul would have members of state legislatures
vote for U.S. Senators as they had done under Article One, Section 3.
Direct popular representation would be retained in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Paul believes that increased representation of State
interests at the federal level encourages greater sharing of power
between state and Federal government,[173] and that greater state
participation serves as a check against a powerful federal government.

[edit] Congressional appointment
In 2003, he spoke out against the enacted law that appoints (rather
than elects) members of Congress in the event of the death of several
members due to an act of terrorism.[174]

[edit] Campaign contributions
In 2002, he spoke before the Congress in opposition to campaign
finance reforms that place any restrictions on citizens and businesses
making campaign contributions to the candidate of their choice. He
based his argument on the First Amendment, Separation of Powers, and
Constitutional authority, and the belief that such efforts are also
counterproductive in reducing entrenched powers.[175]

[edit] Electoral college
In 2004, he spoke out against efforts to abolish the electoral
college, stating that such a reform would weaken the "voting power of
pro-liberty states" and that "Populated areas on both coasts would
have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of
less populated southern and western states."[176]

[edit] External links
Official sites
2008 Presidential Campaign Website
U.S. House of Representatives Office of Ron Paul
Local Meetup Groups
YouTube channel
MySpace
Facebook
Eventful
Speeches, statements and issues
RonPaul2008.com - Issues
Ron Paul Library, more than 900 articles and speeches by Ron Paul
Ron Paul Videos
LewRockwell.com archived commentaries by Ron Paul
Ron Paul in "America: Freedom to Fascism"
The Case For Gold: A Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban speech
Ron Paul at the first 2008 Republican presidential debate
Topic pages and databases
On the Issues issue positions
Project Vote Smart candidate profile including issue positions

[edit] References
^ Baker, Jackson. "The "Ron Paul Revolution"", Memphis Flyer,
2007-08-09. Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ Galles, Gary M. (2007-03-28). The Constitutionalist. Lew Rockwell.
Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ Snow, Nancy (2006). The Arrogance of American Power: What U.S.
Leaders Are Doing Wrong and Why It's Our Duty to Dissent. Rowman &
Littlefield, 32.
^ Gwynne, Sam C. (2001-10-01). Dr. No. Texas Monthly. Retrieved on
2007-10-23.
^ Peterson, Liz Austin. "Ron Paul remains longshot for GOP nom", USA
Today, 2007-08-02. Retrieved on 2007-11-09.
^ About Ron Paul. Ron Paul 2008 (2007). Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ Memmott, Mark. "Add Rep. Ron Paul - 'Dr. No' - to list of '08
hopefuls", USA Today, 2007-03-12. Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ Paul, Ron. "Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy", Texas
Straight Talk, House of Representatives, 2002-09-16.
^ Rockwell, Lew. "The Foreign Policy of Ron Paul", Lew Rockwell,
2007-05-21. Retrieved on 2007-11-06.
^ Paul, Ron. "Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?", Texas Straight Talk,
House of Representatives, 2003-09-01. Retrieved on 2007-05-24.
^ a b c d e f REP. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT - WMUR 4-27-07 - 2 OF 2.
YouTube. Retrieved on 2007-06-06.
^ Paul, Ron. War and Foreign Policy. Ron Paul 2008. Retrieved on
2007-10-06.
^ Paul, Ron (2002-09-04). Arguments Against a War in Iraq.
Congressional Record. House of Representatives. Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ Paul, Ron (2002-10-08). Statement Opposing the use of Military Force
against Iraq. Congressional Record. House of Representatives.
Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ a b Paul, Ron. "Paul offers President New Tool in the War on
Terrorism", House of Representatives, 2001-10-11. Retrieved on 2007-05-26.
^ "C-Span Archive of Resolution 114". Retrieved on 2007-05-23.
^ Paul, Ron. "Establish a sunset for the authorization for the use of
military force against Iraq resolution", Reason to Freedom. Retrieved
on 2007-06-14.
^ a b Caldwell, Christopher (2007-07-22). The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion,
Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr.
Ron Paul. New York Times. Retrieved on 2007-08-05.
^ Republican Liberty Caucus Index. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.
^ "Turn Left". Retrieved on 2007-05-26.
^ "Endorsements", Austin Chronicle. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ "Archive", Austin Chronicle. Retrieved on 2007-05-26.
^ "Reefer Madness: 'Let's Embarrass Ron Paul'", Austin Chronicle.
Retrieved on 2007-05-26.
^ Paul, Ron. "Statements on the Iraq War Resolutions", Congressional
Record, House of Representatives. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ Ron Paul – Gulf of Tonkin. C-SPAN (2006-01-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-08.
^ "House Roll Call", 2007-06-20.
^ Paul, Ron. American Independence and Sovereignty. Retrieved on
2007-10-08.
^ YouTube. Retrieved on 2007-06-20.
^ Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007. GovTrack (2007-08-01).
^ a b c Almanac of American Politics (2006). National Journal, 1617.
^ a b Paul, Ron. "CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade", Lew
Rockwell, 2005-06-07. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.
^ a b "Transcript", Lou Dobbs Tonight, 2007-04-23. Retrieved on
2007-10-08.
^ Paul, Ron. "Crazed Foreign Aid", Congressional Record, House of
Representatives, 2007-10-17. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.
^ Ron Paul On the Issues. On the Issues.
^ The surprising relevance of Ron Paul (2007-05-25). Retrieved on
2007-05-28.
^ Paul, Ron. "Immigration and the Welfare State", Lew Rockwell,
2005-08-09. Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ "Immigration-Reduction Report Card". Retrieved on 2007-08-19.
^ "Ron Paul on Amnesty". Retrieved on 2007-04-02.
^ Immigration Highlights - Republican Debate 6-05-2007 (2007-06-05).
Retrieved on 2007-10-08.
^ Paul, Ron. "Immigration and the Welfare State", 2005-08-09.
Retrieved on 2007-05-28.
^ "Ron Paul on Birth Right Citizenship".
^ Paul, Ron (2006-10-02). Rethinking Birthright Citizenship. Texas
Straight Talk. House of Representatives. Retrieved on 2007-05-20.
^ Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.
^ Key Vote (How all members voted): Authorization for Use of Military
Force. Project Vote Smart (2005-02-03). Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ a b c d e Ron Paul Audio. Mike Gallagher Radio Show (2007-07-19).
^ a b "Ron Paul on 9/11 and Eric Dondero", Reason, 2007-05-22.
Retrieved on 2007-10-08.
^ a b Paul, Ron. "The 9-11 Commission Charade".
^ Gill, Steve (2007-10-04). Ron Paul says 9/11 was ineptness and NOT
"an Inside Job". Steve Gill. Retrieved on 2007-10-08.
^ "Fox News Interview", Fox News Channel, 2007-08-05.
^ Wasson, Shawn. "LiveLeak Exclusive: Interview with Ron Paul".
^ a b "Interview with Ron Paul", Jon Gibson Show, 2007-09-14.
^ Gibson, Jon. "My Word", Fox News, 2007-10-05.
^ Ron Paul on Tax Reform. On the Issues. Retrieved on 2007-05-28.
^ The Comittee to Re-Elect Ron Paul. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ a b Paul, Ron (September 2007). Ending the IRS. Ron Paul 2008.
Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ End the Income Tax- Pass the Liberty Amendment. Retrieved on 2007-09-23.
^ Rep. Ron Paul Signs Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
Americans for Tax Freedom. Retrieved on 2007-06-17.
^ http://www.esopassociation.org/gov/gov_advocates.asp
^ NTU's Fiscal "Snapshot" of the 2008 Presidential Race. National
Taxpayers Union. Retrieved on 2007-06-10.
^ {{cite
web|url=http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/saying.html|title=What
people are saying about Ron Paul ...|publisher=Committee to Re-Elect
Ron Paul|accessdate=2007-03-04
^ Tax Talk 2007:Ron Paul
^ "Taxes, Spending, and Debt Are the Real Issues" by Ron Paul
^
http://www.antiwarpresident.com/ronpaul/Ron-Paul-less-government-abolish-IRS.html
^ Paul, Ron. "The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas",
Congressional Record, House of Representatives, 2005-07-20. Retrieved
on 2007-10-23.
^ Maymin, Phil (2007-06-21). The Book on Paul: Presidential candidate
Ron Paul is the anti-war conscience of the Republican Party. Fairfield
Weekly. Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ Interview with Ron Paul on PBS Newshour, 2007-10-12.
^ September 5 Presidential Debate on Fox News Channel.
^ The Inflation Tax
^ {{cite web|url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo|title=Ron Paul
in Debate at Reagan Library (May
'07)|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=2007-06-06
^ Goodwyn, Wade. "Paul Has Long Drawn Support from Unlikely Places",
The '08 Candidates' First Campaign, National Public Radio, 2007-10-07.
Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ Dougherty, Michael Brendan (2007-06-18). Lone Star: Maverick
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul finds that being right is
the one thing his party won't forgive. American Conservative.
Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ Murray Rothbard. America: From Freedom to Fascism.
^ "The Presidential Field: Ron Paul", Washington Post, 2007-11-06.
Retrieved on 2007-11-07.
^ Inflation: Alive and Well. Lew Rockwell. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ A Perennial Gift From Greenspan. Lew Rockwell. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ The Case For Gold: A Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission.
Mises.org. Retrieved on 2007-05-24.
^ Paper Money and Tyranny. House of Representatives. Retrieved on
2007-03-04.
^ Paul, Ron (2007-06-15). H.R. 2755: Federal Reserve Board Abolition
Act. U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved on 2007-11-06.
^ Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduces bill to abolish Federal Reserve.
UnderReported.com. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ Interview with Ron Paul after New Hampshire presidential debate on
June 5, 2007. Available on YouTube: [1]
^ "Interview with Ron Paul", Fox Business Network, 2007-10-16.
^ The End of Dollar Hegemony. House of Representatives. Retrieved on
2007-03-04.
^ [Postcongressional video content. fednet.net. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ Ron Paul on Neil Cavuto Show 26 June 2007, accessed on 19 August 2007
^ Ron Paul (2005-10-27). The GSE Crisis. Lew Rockwell. Retrieved on
2007-05-28.
^ Paul, Ron. Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley!. Retrieved on 2007-08-23.
^ Daily Show with John Stewart. Retrieved on 2007-06-05.
^ Copeland, Libby (2006-07-09). Congressman Paul's Legislative
Strategy? He'd Rather Say Not. Washington Post. Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ "110th Congress, 1st session, House Vote 45", Washington Post.
Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ "Does Tony Blair Deserve a Congressional Medal?", House of
Representatives. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr042099.htm
^ http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Principles_+_Values.htm
^ http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm
^ http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm
^ a b c http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4379
^ Ron Paul on Education. Retrieved on 2007-06-13.
^ [2]
^ [3]
^ "Grading Congress on high-tech cred", News.com. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ Bill HR 5252 Amendment 987 (June 2006).
^ Ron Paul on Technology @ontheissues.org
^ Paul on H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act
^ One on one with Ron Paul - part 1. Ron Paul Videos On Demand. "(5:42)"
^ Q&A session at Google time 14:40-16:00
^ Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution Texas Straight Talk
^ Security and Liberty Texas Straight Talk
^ Freedom Under Siege: Chapter One. Retrieved on 2007-03-05.
^ Sullivan, Andrew (2007-05-11). Taking Ron Paul Seriously. Daily
Dish. Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ a b "Disaffected conservatives set a litmus test for '08", Boston
Globe, 2007-06-12. Retrieved on 2007-06-16.
^ Paul, Ron. "Torture, War, and Presidential Powers", Lew Rockwell.
Retrieved on 2007-04-11.
^ Paul, Ron (2005-12-26). Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act.
Retrieved on 2007-06-08.
^ http://www.counterpunch.org/paul0520.html
^ http://www.aclu.org/natsec/warpowers/14424leg20020403.html
^ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00424:
^ Property rights and eminent domain
^ [4] thomas.loc.gov
^ [5]
^ Ron Paul (2007-04-16). Government and Racism. House of
Representatives. Retrieved on 2007-05-20.
^ http://www.free-market.net/towards-liberty/new-census.html
^ Caldwell, Christopher. Profile of Ron Paul, The New York Times
^ Fox News Sean Hannity Abuses Rep. Ron Paul (2007-05-15). Retrieved
on 2007-08-19.
^ Federalizing Social Policy. Lew Rockwell. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776
^ FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 144
^ H.R. 4379. Library of Congress. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ The Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Lew Rockwell. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate The Ron
Paul Library
^ http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=13311&can_id=296
^ 118: Exclusive Interview: Ron Paul On God/Government; Abortion;
Homosexuality; And Much More 12:35
^ Ron Paul At Tavis Smiley's All-American Forum On PBS 9-27-07 9:32
^ Schor, Elana (2007-03-21). 2008 and counting: Watching Clinton,
Obama `squirm' on troop funding. Retrieved on 2007-06-13.
^ a b c Paul, Ron (2003-09-30). Are Vouchers the Solution for Our
Failing Public Schools?. Retrieved on 2007-06-13.
^ Paul, Ron (1997-07-20). Parents must have control of education.
Retrieved on 2007-09-13.
^ Paul, Ron. "The Therapeutic Nanny State", Lew Rockwell, 2004-09-21.
Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR02587:@@@S
^ http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929
^ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp106:FLD010:@1(hr263):
^
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=1999_record&page=H6635&position=all
^ "Ron Paul on Civil Rights" OnTheIssues.org
^ a b Paul, Ron (2004-09-30). Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay
Marriage is Federalized. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.
^ Paul, Ron (2004-10-01). The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad
Idea. Retrieved on 2007-06-06.
^ "Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny" by Ron Paul, accessed on
19 August 2007
^ "Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction" by Ron Paul, accessed on 19
August 2007
^ Paul, Ron (2004-03-02). Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction.
Retrieved on 2007-06-06.
^ a b c "Candidates@Google: Ron Paul", Google, 2007-07-13. Retrieved
on 2007-10-23.
^ a b Transcript of June 5 "CNN/WMUR/New Hampshire Union Leader"
Republican presidential debate. CNN (2007-06-05). Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ Dennis Miller interview. Dennis Miller Radio. Retrieved on 2007-06-03.
^ EPA Regulations Threaten Texas. Ron Paul Library. Retrieved on
2007-06-11.
^ House Votes Overwhelmingly Against Financing Nuclear Energy in
China. Friends of the Earth. Retrieved on 2007-06-03.
^ "Gasoline, Taxes, and Middle East Policy", Lew Rockwell. Retrieved
on 2007-06-12.
^ a b c d "Reefer Madness: 'Let's Embarrass Ron Paul'", Austin
Chronicle, 2007-05-25.
^ Ron Paul on Energy and Oil. On the Issues. Retrieved on 2007-05-30.
^ Saudis lobby to limit liability on additive. the Boston Globe.
Retrieved on 2007-05-30.
^ US: Regional, industry conflicts stall energy bill. World Socialist.
Retrieved on 2007-05-30.
^ http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
^ Paul, Ron. Free Trade in Pharmaceuticals. Lew Rockwell. Retrieved on
2007-06-08.
^ a b "Paul for President?", Reason. Retrieved on 2007-11-04.
^ "Diagnosing Our Health Care Woes", Lew Rockwell. Retrieved on
2007-06-08.
^ Republican Representative Ron Paul of Texas. New Hampshire National
Public Radio (2007-06-05). Retrieved on 2007-06-08.
^ Brendel, Patrick. "Incumbent Ron Paul, Shane Sklar vie for U.S.
District 14 seat", Victoria Advocate, 2006-10-15.
^ "Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom", House of Representatives.
Retrieved on 2007-06-08.
^ Ron Paul's position on Medical Marijuana, accessed on 19 August 2007
^ "Medical Marijuana Takes Center Stage On The Hill" at Cannabis News,
accessed on 19 August 2007
^ H. R. 3037. Library of Congress. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ a b "On a high", the Economist, 2007-06-21.
^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3SYWDkWyXA
^ Paul, Ron. "End the Two-Party Monopoly!", Congressional Record,
House of Representatives, 2004-07-15. Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
^ Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights
Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act. Congress.org. Retrieved on
2007-06-08.
^ a b Ron Paul (2004-07-03). The Trouble With Forced Integration. Lew
Rockwell. Retrieved on 2007-07-11.
^ a b Charles Babington (2006-06-22). GOP Rebellion Stops Voting
Rights Act. Washington Post. Retrieved on 2007-07-11.
^ King letter (2006-02-03). Retrieved on 2007-07-11.
^ "Libertarian candidate in '88, Paul eyes GOP nomination", Union
Leader. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ Public letter by Congressman Ron Paul on the World Trade
Organization. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ "Let's Keep All Representatives Elected", House of Representatives.
Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ "So-Called "Campaign Finance Reform" is Unconstitutional", House of
Representatives. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
^ "Hands Off the Electoral College", House of Representatives.
Retrieved on 2007-03-04.

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/