|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 2, 2007 13:11:42 GMT -6
Ron Paul Speaks to 1,000 in Iowa" June 30, 2007
DES MOINES, IOWA – Presidential candidate Ron Paul held a rally today celebrating life and liberty at the Hy-Vee Hall in Des Moines, Iowa. The event was held immediately after and next door to a Republican candidates forum sponsored by the Iowa Christian Alliance and Iowans for Tax Relief.
Dr. Paul was the only GOP candidate excluded from the forum, so his campaign organized an event of its own. Despite being planned in less than a week, Dr. Paul's event singlehandedly outdrew the other forum and its six participating candidates by several hundred attendees.
"Today, Ron Paul demonstrated how deeply his message of freedom and limited government is resonating across the nation," said campaign manager Lew Moore.
Dr. Paul, addressing a packed room, received thunderous applause many times and as well as several standing ovations. Observers believe that this event was the biggest rally for a Republican candidate in Iowa during this campaign cycle.
"Ron Paul has generated more grassroots excitement and support than any other candidate in the race," continued Moore. "The campaign is building on this momentum around the country as we drive toward the nomination."" Anybody being shunned this aggressively by the Republican Party elite (and the News Media elite) must be doing something right.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 16, 2007 13:25:22 GMT -6
Here's still another area that Ron Paul's "libertarianism" puts him in sync with Dennis Kucinich and other progressives. In this case, the agreement is on the legalization of growing hemp. Below is an excerpt from February 2007 from the New York Times discussing the issue. The Hemp Vote By MARK LEIBOVICH" It is high time for bipartisan cooperation.
Representative Ron Paul, the libertarian Texas Republican, is sponsoring HR 1009, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007, a bill that would remove restrictions on cultivating nonpsychoactive industrial hemp on United States farms. Mr. Paul joins nine Democratic co-sponsors, including Representative Dennis J. Kucinich....
Hemp is a variety of Cannabis sativa, a plant commonly grown for industrial use around the world, but not in the United States. A more potent variety is known to pot smokers worldwide as marijuana. “It is indefensible that the United States government prevents American farmers from growing this crop,” Mr. Paul said in a statement."
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Jul 20, 2007 14:12:01 GMT -6
...friends in the John Birch Society "A Genuine Radical for President." The headline inside: 8 "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul." The article closes with the author, Christopher Caldwell, attending a Ron Paul Meetup in Pasadena. The co-host, Connie Ruffley of United Republicans of California, admits she once was a member of the radical right John Birch Society and when she asks for a show of hands "quite a few" attendees reveal that they were or are members, too. She refers to Sen. Dianne Feinstein as "Fine-Swine" and attacks Israel, pleasing some while others "walked out." Asked about the John Birch Society Society by the author, Paul esponds, "Is that BAD? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003614862
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 20, 2007 16:09:58 GMT -6
The New American, an organization related to the John Birch Society, posts some very interesting articles.
I agree with much of what they say, but disagree with a lot of it as well.
The New American opposes the Iraq War, illegal immigration, H1B expansion, outsourcing & unrestricted free trade, a one-world government, the North American Union, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, Bush's pro-torture policies, excessive monetary expansion, and the Federal Reserve. I agree with them on all of these issues.
They also oppose Abortion, a point which I disagree with them on.
It's important to note, however, that they appeal to a somewhat broad spectrum of people. They don't all agree on every issue. In fact, there's considerable disagreement.
The New American magazine publishes some excellent articles in opposition to globalization-free trade, illegal immigration, the North American Union, and Bush's un-Constitutional activity.
It's hard to classify them as exclusively "far-right." With the exception of their espousal of some of the religious Right's views, and certain Libertarian views, they're overall theme is largely Populist. Their opposition to the Iraq War, free trade, and amnesty for illegal immigrants is completely contrary to the NeoCon and Corporate Right.
The New American's positions on Iraq, civil liberties, One-World government, and globalization are similar to those of Dennis Kucinich, as well as those of Senator Bernie Sanders.
I'd classify them as an economic populist, social conservative group. Their positions are closer to those of populist Democrats such as Jim Webb or Claire McCaskill, than they are to those of most Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 21, 2007 0:27:42 GMT -6
I am starting to have a little buyers remorse on Paul.
While I clearly agree with most of what he says on trade, immigration, globalization and foreign interventionism, I disagree with him on issues of taxes (the wealthy should pay more), gun control - needs to be some sane policy on making it more dificult for criminals and mentally ill from obtaining weapons, the racial undertones, and the radical religious right stuff downright scares me - it is seemingly contradictory and hypocritical to the theme of less government interference and strict constitutionality - such as medical decisions, seperation of church and state and the suppression of science. (This being the JBS positions not necessarily Paul's)
On balance I still will give Paul the nod provided Kucinich isn't an option, vs any of the other so called mainstream candidates, whose real differences an the issues are very minor if non existant.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Aug 6, 2007 19:14:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Aug 7, 2007 2:41:46 GMT -6
Below is a 2002 Congressional speech by Ron Paul on Internet CensorshipMay 21, 2002 "Mr. Speaker, as a parent, grandparent, and OB-GYN who has delivered over three thousand babies, I certainly share the desire to protect children from pornography and other inappropriate material available on the internet. However, as a United States Congressman, I cannot support measures which exceed the limitations on constitutional power contained in Article one, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide Congress with the authority to spend taxpayer funds to create new internet domains. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the federal government is singularly unqualified to act as the arbiter of what material is inappropriate for children. Instead, this is a decision that should be made by parents. Most of the problems pointed to by proponents of increased government control of the internet are the result of a lack of parental, not governmental, control of children’s computer habits. Expanding the government’s control over the internet may actually encourage parents to disregard their responsibility to monitor their child’s computer habits. After all, why should parents worry about what websites their children is viewing when the government has usurped this parental function? The market is already creating solutions to many of these problems through the development of filtering software that responsible parents can use to protect their children from inappropriate materials. The best way to address this problem is by allowing this market process to develop, not by creating new government regulations. In addition to creating new internet domains, Congress is also expanding federal wiretapping powers. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should also remember that the Constitution creates only three federal crimes, namely treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Expansion of federal police power for crimes outside these well-defined areas thus violates the Constitution. In addition, expansion of federal wiretapping powers raises serious civil liberties concerns, as such powers easily can be abused by federal officials. I therefore hope my colleagues will respect the constitutional limitations on federal power. Instead of usurping powers not granted the federal government, Congress should allow state and local law enforcement, schools, local communities, and most of all responsible parents to devise the best measures to protect children."
|
|