Ron Paul’s issues…from his campaign site, in his own words

I’ll do these by the numbers.  So many have no real idea what he stands for, and one of my commenters wondered if knowing would change anything.  let me know if this changes your opinion of Ron Paul

1.  debt and taxes –  I think my issue here is that someone who wants free trade shouldn’t complain because other nations “buy a piece of the rock” so to speak.  I have read where he supports a consumption tax, but from my own reading, I have never seen him support that without constitutional strings attached.  He does want lower taxes…remember that for later.

2.  American Independence and sovereignty-  he is against U.S. troops being tried for war crimes by an International Criminal Court, he is against GATT NAFTA the WTO, and Cafta…so what free trade is he for?

in this one he also talks down the NAFTA superhighway which is planned along current I-69.  He also is trying to get funding to extend I-69 through Houston.  What the hey, if there is a NAFTA Superhighway he might as well be in on it.

this one is mystifying.  I don’t understand his stance on free trade at all?  Is he talking free international trade with no guidelines or restrictions? what about regulations determining the viability of the products being imported?  He is thin on this one.  He says this as a closing line:

“We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America”_Ron Paul (name added by author)

well, you have to give up something in any trade deal Ron.  What is allowed.  He is very vague on his webpage.

3. war and foreign policy.  No war without congressional declaration.  No foreign aid. no isolationism.  Open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy that pretty well sums it up.  What it doesn’t say is often times diplomacy hinges on foreign aid.  In other words, sometimes governments buy friends in the interest of the greater good.  I agree with the only declared wars line, but the rest of it is  simply from lollipops, gumdrops, and rainbow land.  do not isolate but do not intervene.  Do not give aid or intervene, but use diplomacy. open trade in a nation that heavily regulates its industry with nations that don’t? can you say burgeoning trade deficits, bunkie?  I’m sorry, other than declared wars, this whole block is irrational.  They really need to keep him on his meds.

4. life and liberty _this is the abortion one, folks.  He is against abortion.  No question.  He wants life to be considered to begin at conception.  He has authored legislation that will stop the federal government from intervening in state decisions to defend life…limiting Roe v. Wade.  He does not obfuscate like the pauliacs.  He comes right out and says what he wants , with utter clarity.  In a related issue there is also a lot of bold speak using clipped excerpts that show he supports stem cell research.  This is false.  He supports SOME stem cell research.  He does not and has never supported in any of his speeches embryonic stem cell research, the type scientists and medical experts believe to be the most valuable.  He is against federal funding for any of them.  Here’s a link before you go telling me how dumb I am.

5.  Border security and immigration reform –  he has six bullet points…the most important thing, paying for it isn’t mentioned.  They include (I’ll give a link to the full text at the bottom of this article)  Physically secure our borders and coastlines (and I assume ports), enforce visa rules, no amnesty, no welfare for illegal aliens, end birthright citizenship, pass true immigration reform.  ok  Can we say huge Federal Government Bureaucracy? I’m talking massive expenditures just to secure the perimeter. then we need enough law enforcement types to deport 10 to 20 million people,  We need screeners everywhere to ensure sick illegal immigrants don’t get treated at hospitals or receive government services,  we need to change the constitution for our constitutional conservative, (I believe thats a 2/3rds vote which is never going to happen on this issue), and then we need to establish what I can only assume is a draconian immigration policy, because he complains about there being to many.  This would make the iraq war funding look like someone broke into a piggy bank.

6. privacy and personal liberty – self explanatory.  He wants utmost privacy, and no federal ID card.  He seems to want to abolish SSN as well, or at least curtail there usage.  My problem here is quite simply since the constitution does not gaurantee privacy, why is this one of his issues?

7.  Property rights and eminent domain –  This is one that everybody likes i’m sure, but think of what our highway system would be like if when interstates were being built in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s  eminent domain were not part of law?  Here is the fifth amendment…read the last line carefully

Main Index > Cases and Codes > U.S. Constitution > Fifth Amendment

U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment

Fifth Amendment – Rights of Persons

Amendment Text | Annotations  

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

I’m sorry…thats twice on his own campaign blog where the strongest voice for freedom and the only true constitutional government supporter bucks the constitution.  I didn’t write any of this stuff.  He did, or his staff did with his consent.  I’m not for the NAFTA superhighway, but understand that eminent domain and regulations to protect wetlands etc are crucial to the viability of our nation and our planet.

Ok, that’s all of it…now here is the link in case you think I’m lying.

now you know what Ron Paul is about on the issues he found to be important enough to post on his campaign webpage…go read it, and let me know how you feel about him.  I’ll even delete your comment without posting it if you ask.   My curiousity is killing me.

18 Responses to Ron Paul’s issues…from his campaign site, in his own words

  1. Braden says:

    Ah criminy, we’re on the same page here it seems. I just wrote a post revealing some of the unusual things that Dr. Paul has voted against in his congressional career. You may enjoy reading them.

  2. hi braden…very much so…on my way…thanks for coming by

  3. Senor Ronaldo Pualica says:

    That is Dr. Paul to you, you swine.

    How dare you expose hypocrisy? The constitution guarantees everyone the Right to Hypocrisy.

    I..uhmm….He.. sacrifices for the good of…uhmm…well…ah….the country and what do you little people do? You ridicule me…er uh….him.

    It is not fair…just not fair, I tell you.

    And I should know.

  4. hi doc….i feel it is my constitutional duty to expose hypocrisy before i am exposed for it.

    great comment…thanks for coming by

  5. […] Nile Virus Link to Article stem cell Ron Paul’s issues…from his campaign site, in his own words » […]

  6. Harold Snodgrass says:

    Oh, don’t the words just drip off of your tongue like you had…Uhmm, I don’t know,maybe intelligence?

    We have a god-give right to be stupid and I will not be denied.

  7. hi harold…I am mortified by your accusation, and am fully prepared to remove my frontal lobe with a swiss army knife i got free from marlboro to ensure you don’t make the same mistake in the future.

    good to see you

  8. stanky says:

    I believe I can clarify much of this for you.

    1. First of all, this phrase jumped out at me…’constitutional strings attached’. I’ll concentrate on this since there really was no point made about taxes.

    What you have to remember is, this country is a Constitutional Representitive Republic, …’and to the Republic, for which it stands’… and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The SCOTUS determined in Marbury vs Madison that any law that does not square itself with the Constitution is in fact, null and void. The Constitution holds more legal ‘weight’ than any law or regulation passed by the Legislative branch.

    2. “he is against U.S. troops being tried for war crimes by an International Criminal Court, he is against GATT NAFTA the WTO, and Cafta…so what free trade is he for?”

    The United States of America is a sovereign nation and we are guaranteed a ‘free state’ by the Constitution, allowing ANY other Court to try a citizen of the United States is a violation of American sovereignty. You, as an American citizen are not bound by ANY international law on American soil.

    GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA are NOT free trade. They are government managed trade. It’s a false assumption to believe that the fed should be involved in international trade to begin with. There is no Constitutional basis for the fed to be involved at all. The fed has nothing to trade, manufacturers and producers do.

    When the fed gets involved in international trade, you get things like the NAFTA and the coming superhighway, not to mention the SPP, and all are violations of the Constitution because they violate American sovereignty. You cannot ‘integrate’ America with other nations without violating American sovereignty and the Constitution.

    3. war and foreign policy – Again, we must go and reference the supreme law of the land of the United States of America. Can anyone show me where it says that the fed can raid the treasure of the American people and give it to foreign nations? You cannot, because it does not say that the fed can do that. Any foreign aid should come as a voluntary gesture from the American people. Remember, the 10th Amendment states that any power not specifically grated to the fed by the Constitution, is reserved to the states or to the people. Are you beginning to see how many of your rights have been usurped by the fed?

    4. Abortion – Ron Paul is personally against abortion. He does not believe that as President, he would have any piower to exercize in this issue, and he’s right. Again, go to the Constitution, there is no Constitutional basis for the fed to be involved in this issue. It is a matter for each individual state to regulate as they wish. You have to understand, that the states are sovereign entities, each one its own little nation, if you will. The feds role, according to the Constitution is to protect YOUR Constitutional rights and you have no constitutional right to abortion. However, since this is not outlined in the Constitution, the fed has no say in how ANY state would regulate this issue on their own, so if a state decided it would legalize abortion, then it would be free to do so, without federal intervention. And likewise if any state decided it wanted to ban abortion.

    5. Border security and immigration – There would be no additional ‘huge Federal Government Bureaucracy’. The laws and structures to accomplish this are already in place. It would only require additional and adequate funding. The funding would automatically be there when we stopped paying for all the massive military intervention we are committing all around the world.

    6. privacy and personal liberty – The Constitution absolutely DOES guarantee you privace and security against an intrusive government. The 4th Amendment states that you have a right to be secure in your home, your papers and effects (phone calls, your vehicle, your internet usage are all examples of your effects) against unreasonable searches and seizures. It even goes further to explain ‘unreasonable’ as without a warrant.

    7. Property rights and eminent domain – The argument here is exactly what constitutes ‘public use’. If a property is seized by the state, WITH just compensation, for projects like a highway, a hospital, etc., Ron Paul has no problem with it, because it’s outlined in the Constitution. What’s happening lately, and the SCOTUS recently ruled that it was OK for a state to seize property of an American citizen and basically turn it over to a developer to build a strip mall, simply because the strip mall will return more in property taxes to the state than the individuals undeveloped property would. This is not what was intended in the Constitution.

    Sorry this was so long winded, but you covered a lot of ground here.

  9. stanky says:

    Also, there is no constitutional basis for federal funding of stem cell research. You have to understand, the fed HAS NO MONEY. The money they spend is all, 100% American taxpayers money. Now, if individual American citizens decided they wanted to donate towards stem cell research of any kind, that would be a personal choice, but they should not be forced to do so against their will by the fed.

    Another reason Ron Paul is against federal funding is…why should American citizens pay for large corporate medical entities to do research on anything? They have more than ample profits to invest in their own research and if this research pans out for them they will be the ones reaping the profits from it. If these entities wish to invest portions of their own profits towards this or any other research, that’s fine. But why should they, or anyone else expect the American taxpayer to fund research that will profit entities that are already reaping huge profits?

  10. thanks for coming by and clarifying the stances he has taken Stanky. I asked you to do this because I am not an expert, and felt your input would be good in that this was an effort to educate, not malign or misinform.

    only a few things I still have a disagreement with your assessment of, and it’s probably simply because he has not come out and said what you have said. Namely the 5th and 14th amendment issues, and the 50 small ocuntries idea i find absolutely frightful. I can see 50 little fiefdoms, and people running hither and yon to find a state they can live in.

    I appreciate the time you took on this, thanks again

  11. somebody says:

    Well, it really wouldn’t be 50 different countries. We’d all still be protected by the Constitution.

  12. hi somebody…I agree, but the states ran amok back in the mid 1800’s over states right, and the constitution was incapable of dealing with it. It led to a bloody civil war, that if repeated today would spell the demise of this nation.

  13. Ian says:

    Ron Paul doesn’t seem to appreciate the FairTax movement. HR 25 / S 1025 could disable the Income Tax, and result in a significant restoration of power to the people – from whence it originates. The income tax system is taking America down for the benefit of the super-rich, the politicians, and the lobbyists. Consider this point of view:

    “Where is the outrage over sky-high taxes, regulatory costs?”

    by Steve Higgins
    7/15/07 – New Haven (CT) Register (Fair Use excerpts)

    “Reports last week from two nonprofit groups should serve as a wake-up call to Americans to start agitating for tax reform . . .

    “On Monday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute reported that the cost to consumers of complying with federal regulations exceeded $1 trillion in 2006 . . . almost 10 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. It’s nearly half the amount of government spending.

    “Even more worrisome, the cost of complying with these multitudinous regulations exceeds the amount of individual income tax paid in 2006, about $998 billion, as well as corporate incomes taxes of $277 billion.

    “According to the Washington, DC-based advocacy group [ Americans for Tax Reform ], the average American had to work through July 11 this year just to pay all federal, state and local taxes, as well as regulatory costs including workers’ compensation and unemployment benefits.

    “Congress should take one of two paths: Either cut tax rates and government spending drastically, or adopt the FairTax, an innovative proposal that would involve abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and its income tax and replacing it with a simple national sales tax.”

    Full article here:


    The U.S. income tax system and the U.S. economy are inter-related, and are in DIRE trouble. If we, the citizens of these United States, do not act aggressively to spread the FairTax plan with family, friends and associates – our “nest eggs” stand to be devastated through a coming economic meltdown (see Kotlikoff interview, below).

    Politicians are putting demogoguery and pandering above responsible governing – and they’re able to do it because Americans do NOT understand – at the “get go” – politicians’ / bankers’ hunger for ever-increasing shares of the working person’s bi-weekly paycheck; Americans do NOT understand the totality of taxes they pay. The FairTax shines the “light of day” on this, putting citizens back in charge to forcefully demand spending reductons.

    YOU AND I MUST ACT to mobilize public opinion, and get the FairTax enacted, because the signs point to a probable devaluation of the dollar (for reissuance of an “Amero” ? – under a U.S.-sovereignty-busting North American Union? )

    [ NOTE: Does this help clarify your understanding of what’s going on globally? a) Bush’s persistence on rewarding illegal immigration? b) the North American Highway now under construction in Texas (to stream cheap labor into the covertly-planned North American Union marketplace designed to compete with 21st-century China market? c) the gradual increase in value of the Chinese yuan by China corresponding to China’s economic growth? (This will result in the dumping of dollar-denominated debt as its manufacturing economy grows stronger – which guarantees devaluing and ushering-in of the Amero.) ]

    Keep in mind, this NAU strategy – supported by the “super-rich” (member-owners of the Fed) – together with their politician buddies who want NOTHING to do with FairTax – runs contrary to simply making the U.S. a “tax free zone” for business under the FairTax. Politicians and bankers lose power when the U.S. is returned to a “savings-driven economy” from a “debt/interest-driven” economy).


    Read the summary, “Laurence J. Kotlikoff (*) on Long-Term Fiscal Problems in the U.S.,” and download the podcast here:

    (*) Prof. Laurence Kotlikoff (expert economist, and advocate, of the FairTax plan)


    Powerful “elites,” members of political and monied-interest “clubs” reaching into the halls of power in Washington, depend on keeping you and me uninformed of their plans. It is up to YOU and ME to ACT – and not live in a state of denial – based on what we now know is clearly happening to our financial futures.

    After you consult the Kotlikoff interview (above):

    • (If you’re a member of your State FairTax organization) Contact your state or local FairTax Director to learn what you can do. Find yours here:

    • (If you’re just learning about the FairTax bill) Join here:

  14. hi Ian…i read a piece by Ron Paul as I researched this article that indeed did show his support for just this issue. I’m also for a consumption tax. I believe the constitutional issues that Ron Paul has with this is to remove the income tax law from the constitution. I’m still checking that

    thanls for coming by

  15. TanGeng says:

    Hi there. Just something to think about.

    Did the state really run rampant with their states rights? Or instead was it the other way around? Did the federal government overstep and illicit a reaction from the states that resulted in the bloody civil war?

    The civil war was forewarned by the founders who foresaw regional interests as extremely dangerous to the unity of the country. They worked to defang the federal government of power that might foment such regional interests, but it still happened.

    And the key issue was protective tariffs.

  16. hi TanGeng…interesting thought, but weren’t tariffs within the purview of the federal government? Also, weren’t the tariffs set high in an effort to force the south away from the strictly agrarian society that relied on slavery?

    States rights was the battle cry then, and I would hate to see it become that again. Before anyone says that could never happen…thats what everyone said about george bush being reelected.

    thanks for your viewpoint.

  17. stanky says:

    It’s my pleasure, there is nothing I like to read more than my own words. = )

    But seriously, I’m no expert either, this is just my interpretation of his stances and as always I could be wrong on any or all.

    I find it absolutely stunning and shocking though that someone would hold a view against states rights, and actually have valid and logical arguments to support that view. You certainly do make me think.

  18. hey stanky

    i’ll post on it soon. It’s a fearsome proposition to me. Of course so is an all powerful federal government, but somewhere in between has to be achievable.

    thanks for your ocmments

Leave a Reply to criminyjicket Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: