October 25, 2007

Dare I say it? Ron Paul is an attractive candidate (not that way), part 2

Part 1 can be found here. Here's the Dr.'s position on American Independence and Sovereignty (my comments are in italics):

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. (I think this goes without saying that any TRUE conservative believes in what Paul states here. Taken a step further, do we want US Supreme Court judges taking precedent from INTERNATIONAL LAW and other FOREIGN LAW?? Talk about diminishing the value of the Constitution even further!!)

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. (Although this is quite a ways away, this is a legitimate concern. How can we have a North American Union when one of the three countries involved has a MUCH lower standard of living than the other two? It's certainly not like Europe where the living standards are pretty much analogous to one another.)

And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever. (It's pretty much gone NOW, even without what the Dr. mentions above. But point taken, especially the "forever" part.)

Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.


I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right. (All of this is dead-on. However, I think Dr, Paul WOULD regognize that NO right is absolute and that even the Second Amendment can have certain -- reasonable -- restrictions. This does NOT mean outright banning of guns. Like Washington DC has attempted. Like New Orleans ordered after Katrina.)

I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

  • H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
  • H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations. (Isn't this just common sense, after all?)
  • H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks. (More common sense. I'm beginning to think Ron Paul is the "common sense" GOP candidate.)
  • H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely. (I think ditching the UN is a questionable idea, but if they try to tax our guns and/or disarm us, then I'm all for it!)

In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it. (I actually disagree here. Again, the 2nd Amendment, like any amendment -- right, is open to reasonable restrictions.)

I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun. (The "ever" absolutist language is problematic, indeed. Not to mention GOVERNMENT psychiatrists ...)

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment. (Amen to that, Doc.)

Posted by Hube at October 25, 2007 05:15 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Dr. Paul's rejection of trade deals does not diminish his support for free trade. He thinks we should eliminate trade barriers and tariffs’ unilaterally since it is in the best economic interests of the people of the US.

Posted by: Alan Coffey at October 25, 2007 07:27 PM


Excellent write up on Dr. Paul. Thanks for bringing this information to your readers. Here is some recent legislation introduced in a similar freedom vein as his other bills.

H. R. 3835: To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3835

H.R. 3600: Voter Freedom Act of 2007

H.R. 3601: Cost of Government Awareness Act of 2007 (eliminate withholding)



Posted by: Tyler Nixon at October 25, 2007 10:47 PM