|
Post by xtra on May 23, 2007 20:10:13 GMT -6
Ron Paul 2008 Supporting Silver and Gold as Money Silver Stock Report by Jason Hommel, May 19, 2007
We have a rare chance to increase liberty and freedom and support the use of gold and silver as money by supporting, and electing, Ron Paul as President in 2008.
It is so encouraging to see that Ron Paul has been voted by the public as first or second in the Republican debates so far, and appears to have a realistic chance of winning the Republican nomination!
Ron Paul has a long track record as a Congressman of voting against any piece of legislation that is not constitutional, which means he votes no on nearly everything. Yet Ron Paul has introduced many pieces of legislation designed to help us return to our constitutional roots.
I've met Ron Paul at two liberty shows near San Francisco, run by Bert Blumert, coin dealer, and publisher of lewrockwell.com.
At the first show, I asked Ron a hard question: On the issues of immigration restriction, patents, and tariffs, the constitution allows these to be regulated, but libertarian ideas suggest these are all limits on freedom. So, when there is a conflict between the Constitution, and libertarian ideals, how do you vote? (At the time, I was wrestling with this question myself, and I was looking for leadership on these issues.)
Ron Paul admitted it was a very hard question. But, in essence, Ron Paul said that when we get the money situation fixed, by abolishing the IRS, and returning to gold and silver as money, then the other issues could be addressed.
Ron Paul is for limiting immigration, and wondered whether most people understand the concept of tariffs, but in essence, Ron Paul believes in the free market, and free trade.
Personally, I have come to believe that to maximize freedom and prosperity, any nation should allow immigration, but not patents and not tariffs.
In thinking about my own question over the last year, I realized that the constitution does not conflict with liberty. Although the constitution allows the government to restrict immigration, issue patents, and levy tariffs; a constitutional government, especially a freedom-oriented one, need not exercise those powers.
But Ron Paul is right. It is far more important to return to using gold and silver as money, than any other issue.
And, of course, this ought to be especially important to us, who own gold and silver.
In the debates, they seem to have pinned Ron Paul down on his anti-intervention, anti-war views. And that's just great, too!
But more importantly, I've discovered how important it is to support another man's ministry, even if I don't agree 100% on every issue. I'm just so happy that a man of Ron Paul's character and integrity is even an option for us all this time.
One of the points Ron Paul made at the last show was that fundraising is particularly difficult for a candidate who is so dedicated to freedom. The reason is that those who would benefit by Ron Paul’s stance on a particular issue, already know how Ron Paul will vote, and so they feel no need to contribute. And the enemies of freedom also know that they cannot bribe him with a contribution, so there's no money from that block either. Most of Ron Paul's contributions come from people like you and me.
I have long known about this difficulty a candidate dedicated to freedom would have--being incorruptible, and thus, finding it difficult to raise money. This is one reason why I work so hard to help you, my readers, make money--your prosperity is freedom's best defense. Please consider making a donation to freedom, by donating to Ron Paul.
And if you can't contribute money, there are other ways to support his campaign, such as organizing local meetings, or posting messages on the internet.
But perhaps the most important way to help is through prayer. Some feel that Ron Paul is risking his life even to run for Congress, given the extent of the evil he is battling. But we cannot pray unless our actions match our beliefs. It does no good to pray for a good corn harvest if we have planted wheat! So let us support Ron Paul, and pray for his protection, and victory.
But, even if Ron Paul does not win, more people will hear the positive message of freedom, and it appears as if people are listening, and that they like what they hear!
Invest in freedom. Invest in Ron Paul.
So please donate to Ron Paul at ronpaul2008.com. Contributions are limited to $2300 per individual contribution.
Sincerely,
Jason Hommel
P.S. My wife and I have each already contributed the maximum allowable by law, $4600 combined. And Ron Paul has not paid for this message.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 23, 2007 23:00:20 GMT -6
I agree with most of Ron Paul's positions, though I don't share some of his reasoning.
To me, Paul's strong points are his record of voting against "free" trade agreements 100% of the time. Paul has also sponsored one of the WTO withdrawal bills, and has voted "yes" on every bill proposing WTO withdrawal. I also agree with his votes for reducing illegal immigration, and against any bill to increase or amnestisize illegal immigrants.
I also agree with him on his votes against the Iraq war, as well as voting "yes" on allowing the government to negotiate drug prices for the Medicare Prescription Drug bill.
I think Paul is a fiscal conservative who views the our deficit and national debt as major problems, another area in which I agree. In line with this, I agree with his opposition to further increase in money and credit by the Federal Reserve. And I wholeheartedly agree with him about returning to a gold standard.
Paul is also a fervent civil libertarian, and has oppose Bush's illegal spying and attempts to achieve dictatorial and unconstitutional executive powers. Paul also voted against the Patriot Act.
Paul has some positions that I do not agree with. But on the whole, especially on economic and "populist-related" issues, I agree with Paul more than any other candidate currently running for President.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on May 24, 2007 4:28:26 GMT -6
Same here, on balance I agree with Paul more than disagree.
Some areas of concern are his stand on taxation. While being true to his libertarian roots he never met a tax he didn't want to cut, it is in conflict with his stand on fiscal responsibility. The fairest taxation should by nature be progressive, as the wealthy benefit more from the privileges and protection of government than the rest of us. And there should never be tax cuts during a time of war - the wealthy need to sacrifice too, just as the middle and working class have had to during this time. The reality is that with the record budget deficits there should not be tax cuts as well. The Laffer curve that neo cons and some libertarians live by is completely bogus.
His stand on evolution is bothersome to me but not a deal killer - the part that troubles me is its potential to further erode the separation of church and state, as well as downplay, manipulate and outright ignore science like the current administration does.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 25, 2007 16:16:44 GMT -6
Ron Paul has gone and done it again. He's voted the right way once more. He voted against the Iraq war funding bill. He was 1 of only 2 Republicans to do so. To borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan, I'd say to Ron Paul: "There you go again," representing the interests of the American people, instead of Corporate America and big money interests. Doesn't Paul understand the "1-dollar, 1-vote" concept?
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on May 25, 2007 19:22:51 GMT -6
Lets hope he never finds out about 1 dollar 1 vote ( or really more like $100k 1 vote)
Comrade Buchanan called Paul the heir apparent of Goldwater conservatism on McLaughlin (Correction - Elanor Clift said this, Buchanan agreed)
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 26, 2007 14:28:15 GMT -6
Comrade Buchanan called Paul the heir apparent of Goldwater conservatism on McLaughlin (Correction - Elanor Clift said this, Buchanan agreed) We'd certainly be better off with a "Goldwater conservative" than another NeoCon-Artist "conservative." Granted, many Democrats are turned off by anti-big government rhetoric. But when big government is actively intervening on behalf of Big Business and Corporate America, and against American workers (as it is today), anti-government rhetoric becomes a lot more palatable and reasonable. We'd certainly be better off if many of the pro-Corporate, pro-big business-favoring laws and agencies were eliminated. And this is where Ron Paul becomes especially appealing. He doesn't believe the government should be aiding and abetting big business and Corporate America. And he believes that the insane "liquidity" growth, which has aided & abetted Corporate America, has caused an (undesirable) upward re-distribution of wealth. Lets hope he never finds out about 1 dollar 1 vote (or really more like $100k 1 vote) It's interesting to hear people claim that "Paul doesn't have a chance." This is especially interesting, given that we're supposed to have a democracy. If Paul is doing better than the other candidates in polls, it should be an indicator of how many will vote for him. The person getting the most votes is supposed to be the winner, not the person who gets the most money in campaign contributions, or the person who gets the biggest applause from a small audience of Right-Wing whack-jobs. (i.e., those in the audience during the Republican debates.) Paul is also getting a lot of notice on Democratic Underground. I've posted on at least 10 separate threads at DU on Ron Paul. He definitely has supporters among Democrats, even among some of the more activist ones (though certainly not a majority). Media plutocrats need to stop propagandizing about candidates' chances, or lack thereof, based on $$ of campaign contributions. If a general election were held today, I think Ron Paul would do quite well. He might even win. Media Corporatocrats have not had enough time yet to destroy Paul. And again, the winner is supposed to be the one who gets the most votes, not the most adulation from the press, and not the most $$.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 26, 2007 15:49:21 GMT -6
(This is a cross-post. It has already been posted under "Bush Declares Dictatorial Powers".)____________________________ Below is an excerpt from a Ron Paul speech titled Neo-CONNED!, which is an expose of the NeoCon movement--its philosophy, policies, and principals. " More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10.They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.
11.They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12.They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13.Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14.9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15.They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16.They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17.They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party...." Paul also detaches himself somewhat from the pseudo-Christian Right in this part of his speech: " It’s of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed their support...." Paul also criticizes the pro-Corporate, pro-big money legislation favored by our NeoCon-Artist administration (though I think he's off-base with his inclusion of "big labor.")" Lip service is given to the free market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money...." Paul also takes a shot at the NeoCon's quasi-supply-side mythology: " The supply-siders’ policy of low-marginal tax rates has been incorporated into neoconism, as well as their support for easy money and generous monetary inflation. Neoconservatives are disinterested in the gold standard and even ignore the supply-siders’ argument for a phony gold standard...." Paul calls out to all political persuasions in the following passage: " We’re at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across the country. I’m not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop! Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We’re all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and controlled by special-interest money...." The following passages mirror Paul's underlying beliefs in government fiscal responsibility: " One thing is certain, no matter how morally justified the programs and policies seem, the ability to finance all the guns and butter being promised is limited, and those limits are becoming more apparent every day.
Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity....
Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money...." I certainly don't agree with all of Paul's positions, but he's right on target about the NeoCons. And I'm very impressed with Paul if he actually made this speech in front of Congress in July 2003, as is claimed. If he did, it's a wonder he wasn't hauled away in handcuffs and shackles. (Maybe he was.)
The full article can be found at: Neo-CONNED!
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 27, 2007 20:43:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 1, 2007 2:15:33 GMT -6
www.presidential-candidates.net/ron_paul.htm" Biography Ronald E. PAUL, a Representative from Texas; born in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pa., August 20, 1935; graduated from Dormont High School, Dormont, Pa., 1953; B.A., Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, Pa., 1957; M.D., Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., 1961; internship and residency training, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich., 1961 and 1962; obstetrics and gynecology training, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1965-1968; medical doctor; United States Air Force, 1963-1965; United States Air National Guard, 1965-1968; delegate, Texas state Republican convention, 1974; unsuccessful candidate for election to the Ninety-fourth Congress in 1974; elected as a Republican to the Ninety-fourth Congress, by special election to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of United States Representative Robert R. Casey (April 3, 1976-January 3, 1977); unsuccessful candidate for reelection to the Ninety-fifth Congress in 1976; elected to the Ninety-sixth and to the two succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1979-January 3, 1985); was not a candidate for reelection to the House of Representatives in 1984, but was an unsuccessful candidate for nomination to the United States Senate; publisher; unsuccessful Libertarian Party candidate for election for President of the United States in 1988; elected as a Republican to the One Hundred Fifth and to the five succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1997-present). Positions on Issues Debt and Taxes Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy – that means all of us. Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending. American Independence and Sovereignty So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs. NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme. And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever. War and Foreign Policy The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again. Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution. Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. Border Security and Immigration Reform The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan: 1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. 2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas. 3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws. 4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. 5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. 6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods. Privacy and Personal Liberty The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters. We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data – a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005. To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it. Property Rights and Eminent Domain We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches. Our country’s founders would roll over in their graves if they saw the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment used to justify booting people out of their homes for the profit of private developers and tax-hungry local governments. The Supreme Court’s Kelo decision said government power could be used to condemn private homes and churches to benefit a huge pharmaceutical corporation and a large property developer. Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada."
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jun 1, 2007 7:00:49 GMT -6
Hmm, he will be about 78 at the end of the term in 2013. I believe he's older than McCain, who is too old for the job. Don't you agree, UC? We don't want another president with Alzheimer's.
Government invasion of personal privacy is minor for most people today compared to the data collected by private companies from your grocery purchases. If you buy with anything but green cash, they know how many people and pets you feed, what and how much you drink, how often you have safe sex, etc. The real threat from invasion of privacy is the data the Rove Administration is no doubt collecting on all Congress and their staffs. How else could Rove get McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Specter, et al, to roll over at crunch time?
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 3, 2007 8:18:51 GMT -6
Hmm, he will be about 78 at the end of the term in 2013. I believe he's older than McCain, who is too old for the job. Don't you agree, UC? We don't want another president with Alzheimer's. GB I see your point. And ideally, I'd rather not have a President as old as Ron Paul would be. However, only a minority of people ever get Alzheimer's dementia. And speaking of dementia and mental capacity (or lack thereof), it's hard to do any worse than Bush. I still think Paul's strong points outweigh his negatives. I would like to see someone like Edwards come out and say something, anything, that sounds anti-free trade. So far, I've heard nothing. To me it sounds like all the Democratic candidates, other than Dennis Kucinich, are ambivalent on globalization & unrestricted free trade. And all of them seem to favor amnesty & open borders. I'm still waiting to hear someone who has better positions on issues than Ron Paul. It doesn't seem likely that there will be one.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Sept 21, 2007 10:41:00 GMT -6
Hmm..I see you have grown in your support of RP since I last checked in here...hehe maybe my sig did it?
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Sept 21, 2007 14:21:33 GMT -6
Interesting, I was just thinking that interest in Paul was starting to wane.
I have shifted over to Kucinich myself. The only thing I disagree with Kucinich is immigration. I have issues with Paul on guns and taxes.
Altough Paul hands down would be my preference over anyone else besides Kucinich.
|
|