Home > War, Politics and the Election 2008 >Congressman Ron Paul
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Mon, Jul 30th, 2007 09:44:01 PM
Topic: Congressman Ron Paul

Ron Paul is a Republican running for President in 2008.

He has appeared on TV in the recent Republican debates and has begun to garner significant popular support for his decades long views and stand against Big Government, an unfair tax system and America's war-like incursions in Iraq and elsewhere.

RK has followed Congressman Paul for many years and, while we do not think he is the perfect candidate, he is miles above anyone else in respecting our Republic, its principals and plans of the Founding Fathers.

Here is a link to a video where Ron Paul expresses his viewpoint on these and other subjects.

We urge all readers to tune in and watch it.

We also urge all readers to inform themselves on the issues of the day -- especially those that receive little or no coverage in our national press.

Only by having an aware and educated public will America be able to right the completely insane and undemocratic policies and direction that are driving us to bankruptcy, war, environment destruction and, most importantly, the losses of Constitutionally defines Liberty now threatening to destroy America and the entire world as we know it.

This is serious business and Ron Paul is the only candidate to present solutions espousing the intent and direction our Constitution and Bill of Right declare.


Author: R Paul posted by jc
Mon, Jul 30th, 2007 09:44:01 PM

(ed. Clearly, Ron Paul is the only candidate whose ideas about government -- federal state and local -- are Constitutional and humane.

The capitulation of our sysytem of government to a "doctrine" -- unitary executive -- is lamentable, dangerous and a self-fulfilling prophesy to dictatorship.

Is that what we want? )

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - A weekly Column

The Fear Factor

While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.

Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.

The statement “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is clear, people seek out safety and security when they are in a state of fear, and it is the result of this psychological state that often leads to the surrender of liberty.

As Washington moves towards it summer legislative recess, indications of fear are apparent. Things seem similar to the days before the war in Iraq. Prior to the beginning of the war, several government officials began using phrases like “we don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and they spoke of drone airplanes being sent to our country to do us great harm.

It is hard to overstate the damage this approach does psychologically, especially to younger people. Of course, we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, let alone any capacity to put them to successful use.

To calm fears, Americans accepted the patriot act and the doctrine of pre-emptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports and even limited the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the twilight zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.

Paranoia can be treated, but the loss of liberty resulting from the social psychology to which we continue to subject ourselves is not easily reversed. People who would have previously battled against encroachments on civil liberties now explain the “necessity” of those “temporary security measures” Franklin is said to have railed against.

Americans must reflect on their irrational fears if we are to turn the tide against the steady erosion of our freedoms. Fear is the enemy. The logically confusing admonition to “fear only fear” does not help, instead we must battle against irrational fear and the fear-mongers who promote it.

It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant to real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.

Author: jc
Sat, Jul 14th, 2007 04:50:59 PM

(ed. The only candidate for president in 2008 with an unblemished record of opposition to all of the important issues of the day (war in Iraq and the income tax for starters) is the Congressman from Texas, Ron Paul.

His stance on the war, taxes, the growth of big government, health care, states rights, etc, etc reflects true conservative values and not those of the phony, conservative posing, neo-con cabal or the growing chants of one-world now globalists.

Paul is a viable candidate and unless he is bobby kennedy-ed or gerrymandered out of being able to debate with the supposed front runners(as is being planned by hillary, edwards, obama, biden, etc) he has a real chance of winning the election.

Read and learn about Paul and the other candidates as well. Only by doing so will any voter be able to make the important choice in choosing our next president.

One thing is sure, all the other candidates, with the exception of Senator Gavel, are, in the final analysis, not too much different than the present occupant of the White House, who let's remember has done more in 8 years to destroy our country, its Constitution, Bill of Rights, democratic freedoms and their pursuit than any other individual or group in history.)

Bring Our Troops Home Now
by Ron Paul

Before the U.S. House of Representatives on July 12, 2007

I rise in opposition to HR 2956 which, while a well-intended attempt to reduce our nation’s seemingly unlimited military commitment in Iraq, is in so many respects deeply flawed.

I have been one of the strongest opponents of military action against Iraq. I voted against the initial authorization in 2002 and I have voted against every supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. I even voted against the initial “Iraq regime change” legislation back in 1998. I believe our troops should be brought back to the United States without delay. Unfortunately, one of the reasons I oppose this legislation is that it masquerades as a troop withdrawal measure but in reality may well end up increasing US commitments in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the debate we should have had four years ago, before Congress voted to abrogate its Constitutional obligation to declare war and transfer that authority to the president. Some in this body were rather glib in declaring the constitution antiquated while voting to cede the ability to initiate hostilities to the President. Now we see the result of ignoring the Constitution, and we are bringing even more mayhem to the process with this legislation.

To those who believe this act would some how end the war, I simply point to the title for Section 3 of the bill, which states, “REQUIREMENT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ AND TRANSITION TO A LIMITED PRESENCE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ.” However the number of troops are limited, this legislation nevertheless will permit an ongoing American military presence in Iraq with our soldiers continuing to be engaged in hostilities.

I also wish to draw attention to Section 4(b)(1), which mandates the President to submit a “Strategy for Iraq” by the beginning of next year. This “strategy” is to include:

“A discussion of United States national security interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East region and the diplomatic, political, economic, and military components of a comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance such interests as the Armed Forces are redeployed from Iraq pursuant to section 3 of this Act.”

In other words, far from extricating ourselves from the debacle in Iraq, this bill would set in motion a policy that could lead to a wider regional commitment, both financially and militarily. Such a policy would be disastrous for both our overextended national security forces and beleaguered taxpayers. This could, in fact, amount to an authorization for a region-wide “surge.”

Congress’ job is to change the policy on Iraq, not to tell the military leaders how many troops they should have. I have attempted to do this with HR 2605, a bill to sunset after a six month period the authorization for military activity in Iraq. During this period a new plan for Iraq could be discussed and agreed. Plan first, authorization next, execution afterward. That is what we should be doing in Iraq.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, this legislation brings us no closer to ending the war in Iraq. It brings us no closer to bringing our troops home. It says nothing about withdrawal, only about redeployment. It says nothing about reducing US presence in the Middle East, and may actually lead to an expanded US presence in the region. We have no guarantee the new strategy demanded by this legislation would not actually expand our military activities to Iran and Syria and beyond. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and put forth an effective strategy to end the war in Iraq and to bring our troops home.

Author: posted by jc
Sun, Jun 17th, 2007 03:52:28 PM

Ron Paul Introduces Legislation to Abolish the Federal Reserve
by Steve O @ 9:15 am

Rep. Ronald Paul has been getting kudos left, right and center for his anti-war stance but lets not forget his overall libertarian stance on most issues.

On Friday, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 2755 To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes. The text of this bill is not yet available on-line but Rep. Paul introduced a similiar bill back in July of 2003 which never even made it into committee.

In the next round of debates I think Rep. Paul should have to explain indepth his reasoning for calling for the abolishment of the Federal Reserve. Inquiring minds would like to know

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service