UPDATE (2-19-07) — George F. Will calls Rep. Paul a “cheerful anachronism“.
In this post, I wrote:
I’ve made it quite clear that I won’t even consider voting for a candidate for President of the United States who has not served in the US Military. Again, if you want the power to send our young men and women to war, you had damned well have been willing to volunteer to be sent yourself.
That leaves me with only three candidates to consider supporting in their run up to the GOP Primary. Over the next week or so, I’ll take a closer look at McCain, Hagel, and Paul, and make a decision and announcement as to whom I’m supporting in a run for the Presidency.
This post takes a closer look at Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX).
_____________
Military Experience — US Air Force (1963-1968) — Rep. Paul was a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force.
What Else Has He Done? (career prior to becoming a full-time politician) — Unlike most of his colleagues who were attorneys (or at least attended law school), Rep. Paul is an M.D. In fact, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies.
Overview — Congressman Ron Paul is a Libertarian wearing GOP-clothing (he was the Libertarian Party nominee for president in the 1988 election).
Unlike anybody else running for President in 2008, he voted against the resolution authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq (not counting Obama who was not in Congress at the time of the vote). In other words, he’s always been opposed to the war, and has not flip-flopped with the polls. Which makes him a stronger anti-war advocate than any one of the Democratic prospects.
He’s for a limited government (in foreign policy and on economic issues), states deciding issues that the federal govn’t shouldn’t be (abortion, gay marriage); he’s for securing physical control of our borders while rejecting amnesty, he opposes judicial activism, and he thinks we should get the US out of the UN.
He consistently votes against almost all proposals for government spending, initiatives, or taxes. Rep. Paul is known for his willingness to take unpopular positions in order to defend what he regards as constitutional limited government.
- Foreign Policy — advocates a strict non-interventionist foreign policy.
- Economics — opposes nearly all government intervention in the market and supports the abolition of the income tax, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve.
- Abortion — Paul is pro-life. However, he believes that the United States Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. He believes that abortion is “not a constitutional issue” and should be a decision left to the legislatures of the states.
- Gay Marriage — believes that defining and recognizing marriages is not a federal or constitutional matter, but should be left as the States’ right.
- Immigration — believes in securing the borders, rejecting amnesty, and reclaiming our right as a sovereign nation to control immigration without apology. Also opposes “anchor-baby” entitlements.
Rep. Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one Congressman to comment, “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are.” Another Congresswoman added, “There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few.”
Rep. Paul’s probably not “conservative enough†to be considered an actual contender by the Republican base. I think upon closer examination of his views, he might appeal to more Democrats than Republicans.
Trivia — Ron Paul and I share the dame birthday (August 20).
Congressman Ron Paul is one of the Internet’s very first bloggers. Well, sort of. On December 20, 1996, Rep. Paul started writing and posting a weekly “Texas Straight Talk†column on his Congressional web site.
These straight talks are just that — Rep. Paul’s thoughts and opinions on a variety of topics. And he seldom minces words. After reading each column, you are left with a clear and unambiguous understanding of the Congressman’s opinion on the topic.
Looking through the index of weekly columns, it looks like the Congressman has been consistent and dedicated in writing his weekly column — I don’t think he’s missed posting since the first column debuted in 1996.
Which means that Rep. Paul has one of the longest continuous blogs in existence.
_________________
Now — let’s take a closer look at the issues. Lets start with a couple where Rep. Paul and I disagree:
On the role of the US in the Middle East:
It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe. America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement. Third-party outsiders cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else. Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations.
The problem here is that Iran and Syria (amongst others) are “self-determined†to wipe Israel off the map. And to them, peace can only be achieved once that happens.
On Foreign Policy:
The media, Congress, and the American public all seem to have accepted something that is patently untrue: namely, that foreign policy is the domain of the president and not Congress. This is absolutely not the case and directly contrary to what our founding fathers wanted.
The role of the president as Commander in Chief is to direct our armed forces in carrying out policies established by the American people through their representatives in Congress.
Its one thing to say that when you are in Congress and see the power of foreign policy as your domain. It’s quite another to believe the later if/when you become president.
Positions on which we agree:
Immigration
On Immigration and the 14th Amendment:
A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.
On the Cost of Illegal Immigration:
In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It’s the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.
No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.
We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.
I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War.
More Immigration Reform:
That’s why I’ve joined my colleagues in the House Immigration Reform caucus in demanding legislation this year that focuses on securing physical control of our borders while rejecting amnesty in any form.
The problems associated with illegal immigration will not be solved overnight, but we cannot begin to address them until we take the hard steps of securing the borders, rejecting amnesty, and reclaiming our right as a sovereign nation to control immigration without apology.
I could vote for Rep Paul based strictly on his anti-illegal immigration platform.
On Property Taxes:
Specifically, end the practice of annual assessments. Properties should be reassessed for tax purposes only when sold or ownership is otherwise transferred. The current system is terrifying for seniors forced to pay more and more each year, with no idea where they will find the money. And unlike other bills, property taxes must be paid or else one’s home can be taken away.
I just paid my property taxes for 2006. And the valuation increased substantially, and so did my taxes.
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
I couldn’t agree more. We need more John Roberts and less Ruth Bader-Ginsberg.
The Limited Role of the Federal Government:
Americans don’t need new federal programs, and they certainly don’t need more federal control over their schools. They don’t need a disastrous government-run medical system. What Americans do need is a federal government that provides national defense, secures our borders, and does very little else.
This is where most Democrats cringe when they think of a candidate like Ron Paul.
Most of my core political leanings are Libertarian in nature. Like Ron Paul, I don’t want the govn’t involved in every damned aspect of our lives.
On Marriage (gay or otherwise):
Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.
It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.†This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades.
Conservatives and Liberals will both cringe at this too, as they each believe it is the government’s responsibility to legislate their particular moral beliefs to the rest of us (the conservatives want to legislate religious morality, and the libs want to legislate social morality).
On Getting the US out of the UN:
Still, only the most ardent war hawks connected with the administration have begun to discuss complete withdrawal from the UN. I have advocated this for twenty years, and have introduced legislation to that effect.
The bizarre irony is while we may act unilaterally in Iraq, the very justification for our invasion is that we are enforcing UN resolutions!
The UN has no authority to make “laws†that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.
I’m glad to hear any politician vocally get behind pulling out of the UN.
On the Draft:
The political right favors sending young people to fight in aggressive wars like Iraq. The political left longs to send young people into harm’s way to save the world in places like Darfur. But both sides share the same belief that citizens should serve the needs of the state– a belief our founders clearly rejected in the Declaration of Independence.
Agreed. Our military should and must remain all-voluntary. Now, if we could just get the Left to quit hindering those who do wish to volunteer.
Summary:
The one major area where Ron Paul and I digress is our support for this war. However, I don’t believe that any candidate is going to win on a platform of continuing this war. So I’m forced to look at what else the candidate stands for on the issues most important to me.
Besides the war, illegal immigration is the greatest concern and most important issue. And on this issue Rep. Paul and I are in complete agreement: the end of anchor baby entitlements, a secured border, and no amnesty.
His views on judicial activism, the role of the federal govn’t as it relates to marriage and abortion, and the UN are firmly in line with what I believe and support.
Would I support Rep Ron Paul in his bid for the Presidency? Yes (but, as of this writing, am still undecided).
I enjoyed reading the results of your investigation.
I have been a Paul devotee for a few years now. Originally a Reagan Republican, I became disgusted when the Contract for America Republicans sold their souls (asuming they had them to start with.)
I can understand your difficulty with Paul
s foreign policy. All I can say is that each person has to come to terms with that. As for Iran. I believe as Paul believes that teh Iran threat is overblown. Amajinidad is not a “nut” he is playing to his base. His nukes (if he ever gets them) will be nothing but a guarentee against US or Israeli attacks. MAD still applies.
At any rate, if you go back and read Paul’s speeches from before the Iraq war you will see that he has thus far been proven largely correct.
Based on this alone, his analysis of teh Iran situation deserve at least careful consideration prior to being rejected.
Americans will finally have to draw a line in the sand, just like they did at the Alamo in 1836. None stepped across the line and died in the name of freedom and the right to follow their own destiny. Today we have been carefully brainwashed by what we do not know, because the truth has been suppressed by our own government and the open border zealots. Our own print media has been influenced by the monopoly of the power mongers who own the newspapers. Unless we turn our attention to the small town newspapers, the blogs or forums we would remain in complete solitude of the ugly truth. We have been invaded and just because it doesn’t show the emblem of a military regiment, none the less millions of foreign nationals have occupied our nation. The agenda is a simple one formulated by the wealthy elites, who cannot contain their desperate need for more profit. It’s a story as old as the world itself and the greatest scourge to control people like slaves.
The plan was secretly discussed in Banff, Canada in 2002, to slowly open the gates to millions of cheap foreign labor that would undermine the living wages of lower skilled on these shores. This was the hallucinating dream of the rich and powerful to begin the European Common Market like Union on our continent. They say if you put the evidence right in front of the publics face, they will never know the full impact until its too late. So it is with the (NAU) North American Union or as its additionally called, The Peace and Prosperity Agreement. The (PPS) is the grand plan of the Bush Administration, with signatures of Canada’s last Prime Minister Martin and a lame duck Presidente from Mexico. Unable to complete any practable changes in Mexico’s corrupt regime to alleviate
Gross poverty, he viewed America as the perfect patsy to relieve the festering powder keg of internal revolution. Why Canada’s co-conspirator joined this abomination agenda is unknown to me. But I’m sure the huge multi-national corporations had their fingers in this trillion dollar pie.
Outside of the American people’s flat refusal or voice of dissention, we must look to a few brave souls who have the backbone to speak out against any of the Shadows Government Global Domination. Enter Representative Tom Tancredo from Colorado, along with Representative Ron Paul (TX) and perhaps Steve King (IA). Forget their designation as Republicans or Democrats because both sides of our Congress are involved in the heinous plan to steal our flag, sovereignty and U.S. Constitution. The first stage was the 13 to 30 million illegal aliens squatting in America, followed by the unhindered movement of low maintained Mexican trucks traveling on our highways.
Bush must be held accountable for this Benedict Arnold treaty, for it will cause the downfall of this nations way of life. This is no longer a conspiracy theory because many state legislative bodies have approved bills that dissolve any mechanism that would try to overthrow our own system of government. We have enjoyed our freedoms and rights for 250 years, so we must fight any obnoxious plan to merge our three countries. We must look towards politicians who serve the American people and not the corporate monster that wants to enslave us.
Get the truth at: http://stopspp.com/stopspp/
http://www.judicialwatch.org
http://www.immigrationcounters.com/