Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

5. Williams says, “Ron Paul will not rule out a third-party run.”

So what? This has nothing to do with Ron Paul’s positions as a constitution-protector and nothing to do with his current candidacy as a Republican. Williams does not develop this thought at all but just throws it out there and presumably hopes that it will stick on the wall for people to draw their own (sinister) conclusions.

6. Williams says, “The Ron Paul campaign is built on a foundation of social liberals, chronic anti-war misfits, modern day peaceniks seeking legalized drugs, atheists, and Democrats and Independents with libertarian leanings. Nowhere in there is ‘conservatives…’ who oppose Paul as much as they oppose Obama. If Ron Paul were a constitutionalist, he would attract the conservative vote.”

Williams demonstrates the epitome of prejudice and incredibility on a political level. The tone of his statement rings of personal offense. Williams’ mis- and over-characterization of Ron Paul’s “foundation” should warn any person (who cares about logical argument) reading his article to be cautious about his premises and conclusions.
Williams uses only key-word titles as “proof” of his arguments against Ron Paul; terms like, “liberal,” “misfits,” “peaceniks,” “atheists,” “conservatives.” Perhaps Williams should have included a glossary of terms in his article, because these words have very little relationship in understanding and applying the Supreme Law of the Land.

America would be in better shape if we had more statesmen discussing the issues in light of constitutional argument and not through political labels used to dumb-down the thought process of choosing a candidate. Williams’ argument using this description amounts to a fifteen second commercial of a candidate explaining why you should “vote for me: I’m a conservative republican!”

And by induction of Williams’ random comments, the word “conservative” only includes those who would use the federal government to force “morality” on the people even though the U.S. Constitution leaves the matters of morality, health, property, contracts, marriage, etc., to the States. Williams’ attack on Ron Paul in this regard is as much an attack on the United States Constitution.

7. William says, “Ron Paul is at odds with conservatives on numerous key issues.

1. Paul supports same-sex marriage
2. Paul opposes the death penalty for violent criminals
3. Paul opposes mandatory sentencing for three-time losers
4. Paul supports legalizing illicit drugs
5. Paul opposes firm enforcement of immigration laws
6. Paul opposes free trade
7. Paul opposes a strong U.S. Military and National Defense
8. Paul opposes foreign diplomacy and prefers isolationism
9. Paul opposes stricter limits on criminal campaign finance
10. Paul opposes the Patriot Act, but also insists on letting terrorist live amongst us
11. Paul supported the arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq that resulted in deadly terror attacks hours later.”

Williams presupposes an “opposition” between Ron Paul and “conservatives”, even though he does not define the terms he uses repeatedly to try to prove Ron Paul is not “conservative.” And should Williams decide to define the term “conservative,” it would do America well to compare the term “conservative” with the original textualism and intention of the constitution.

When the President swears the oath of office, it is to protect the constitution, not someone’s subjective understanding of “conservative” or “liberal.” Are we not past the years when these terms are used as a basis for any understanding deeper than a Hallmark card?

Williams’ analogy of what Paul “supports” and “opposes” reminds me of the arguments made against the ratification of the United States Constitution. The argument went like this, “since the constitution specifically named items outside the jurisdiction of Congress to regulate (i.e. Bill of Rights), then all items not included in that list are subject to federal control.” That is, since item A through E was specifically excluded from their jurisdiction, the remaining items F through Z are included by implication. The Federalist Paper writers, of course, smashed that argument.
Williams’ illogical argument is similar against Ron Paul: since Paul will not use the federal government to create and enforce laws regarding marriage, drugs, and other domestic issues, he therefore supports gay-marriage, high crimes, stoned druggies, etc. If one is a supporter of the constitution, this should excite us—putting power back where it belongs, allowing the democratic process to reflect the will of the people in a more localized, controlled manner.
In reality, Ron Paul’s position mirrors what the Federalist Paper writers said concerning the powers to regulate the general welfare of the people: the States will retain “a very extensive portion of active sovereignty…[whose powers] are numerous and indefinite”; and the “powers delegated…to the federal government are few and defined” (James Madison, Federalist Paper 45). Apparently, to Williams, this is not acceptable.

Additionally, Williams mischaracterizes Ron Paul’s positions. Williams references no credible sources and gives the reader nothing to hang his hat on. He expects people to rely on his word alone. I would hope that people reading Williams’ article would do their own homework and find that his descriptions are inaccurate and distorting at best.
7. Williams says, “As a result, he cannot muster the conservative vote in November 2012, without which, he cannot defeat Barack Obama.”

This statement is based upon Williams’ own definition of “conservative,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Undoubtedly, these terms “conservative” and “liberal,” which describe people in a one-dimensional image, are not accurate to describe the true multi-dimensional makeup of America. Williams ignores the nationally-known cases where people see Ron Paul as the only true conservative. The pigeon-holing simply will not work in 2012. America needs more substance. Williams’ conclusion lacks any analysis based upon any facts.

8. Williams says, “Most of Paul’s ‘social conservative’ congressional votes are actually Tenth Amendment votes, which sidestep the actual issue at hand and redirect the discussion to states right. While conservatives are strong on Tenth Amendment states right, they are also strong on founding principles and values grounded in the moral laws of nature, at the foundation of our Constitutional Representative Republic. Paul is actually a liberal leaning populist candidate, rather than a Jeffersonian libertarian.”

I seriously question Williams’ understanding of or appreciation for the U.S. Constitution at this point. Williams tries to make Paul appear antithetical to the “founding principles and values grounded in the moral laws of nature…of our Constitutional Representative Republic”; however, it was that very generation that left matters of morality, police power, and domestic regulation to the States—the same matters Ron Paul says are the States to govern.

Williams also attempts to separate Paul’s political ideology from Thomas Jefferson’s. He does so in the attempt to disenfranchise those who would support Paul for his support of States’ rights. Yet, Williams does nothing to support his statement.

To Williams, it is not enough that the President of the United States would leave these matters to the States to regulate, as the constitution requires; he would rather use the President to enforce laws of morality even though that exercise of unconstitutional power goes against the “principles and values [which founded] our Constitutional Representative Republic.” Williams is more concerned about enforcing (federal) laws he likes as a “social conservative” than getting the country on the right track of constitutional governance.

Williams’ logic and conclusions are irreconcilable.

9. Williams says, “He has little in common with American conservatives and that presents a serious problem for him when conservative voters are looking to reverse course in America. Paul has been MIA on far too many constitutional issues to call himself a constitutionalist with a straight face.”

How Williams can make such a broad statement as to claim to know the characteristics of the “common American conservative” demonstrates a less-than-statesman approach. Williams displays the “he is not on our team” fallacy. Furthermore, Williams fails to acknowledge the Americans who would not place themselves into the two small pigeon holes used to control political outcomes.

10. Williams says, “Beyond lower taxes and less government, he has literally nothing in common with conservatives and even his smaller government leanings can’t work in a socially and morally bankrupt society.”

Within this statement Williams demonstrates Neo-Con ideology, wittingly or not. Williams says that Paul’s “smaller government leanings can’t work in a socially and morally bankrupt society.” This should warn every reader of a dangerous political philosophy.

Williams says that since “America is socially and morally bankrupt,” the federal government must be big and strong enough to police the United States because without it, America would decay into anarchy and chaos.
Williams’ suggested constitutional model was rejected in 1787 at the constitutional convention and follows the argument advanced by advocates of a monarchy: that is, people of large populations are incapable of adequately governing themselves and require an executive to rule over every aspect of their lives.

It is for this reason that Ron Paul is doing so well throughout the country. Americans want a President who is willing to put power back into the hands of the people. It is called self-government.

11. Williams says, “Then we have the issue of white supremacists and anti-Semites in his past. Remember, Obama must run unopposed… and the U.S. press will tear Paul from limb to limb long before next November.”

Again, William acts as a “drive-by” media and throws out a loaded statement with no evidence or credible references to support his statement.

12. Williams’ says, “Voters who grasp the reality that the nation is on the brink of total collapse and the world is on the verge of WWIII, are looking for who can defeat Obama and who might have the backbone to protect the nation from eminent danger on several fronts. I’m not sure such a candidate exists in the 2012 election, but I am certain that Ron Paul isn’t it. Facts don’t have any friends, but so far, Paul fans don’t seem too impressed by facts. Paul is unqualified for the job he seeks on this single issue alone! His anti-Semitism and poor-pitiful misunderstood jihadists, blame America first and often rhetoric should be enough to end his campaign… but do the facts matter anymore?”
Williams recognizes that the United States is in serious trouble, but he ironically fails to recognize that much of our troubles derive from a corrupted monetary system and the only candidate calling this fact out is Ron Paul. If there is a premier problem, it is in the area of economics and finance—a fruit of a bitter root most politicians are not willing to address.

Above all, Ron Paul is a proven statesman in this area and has identified the root of the counterfeiters and the evils within economic and financial institutions of the United States and World banks. Paul knows what it will take to rid us of these wrongs and to put America back on the path of social and financial-economic prosperity. It will take Ron Paul as President and governors in the States who recognize these matters to restore America to where it should and must be for a successful future.

If Williams does not recognize the seriousness of our monetary problems and Ron Paul’s obvious and fitting statesmanship and accuracy in this area, then it is no wonder he does not like Ron Paul.

Williams needs to know that Ron Paul only started what will continue until remedy is made in the matters of corrupted economics and finance, unjust foreign entanglement, and unconstitutional governance. Talk all you want about “social conservatism” and “military strength,” the United States will not be able to adequately solve and resolve any of major problems on any level without an economy to fund it.

Upon Williams’ conclusion, he makes a reference to “facts,” yet he barely refers to one fact in his entire article, which is based upon presumptions, presuppositions, mischaracterizations, and generalizations—without even a hyperlink to direct the reader to learn more about what Ron Paul would do as President.

I ask Williams the same question he asks, “do the facts matter anymore?,” with an additional question, “does the United States Constitution matter anymore?”

Timothy Baldwin is an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana (and Florida) and focuses on constitutional issues. Baldwin graduated from the University of West Florida in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English and Political Science. In 2004, Baldwin graduated from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, AL with a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree. From there, Baldwin became an Assistant State Attorney in Florida. For 2 1/2 years, Baldwin prosecuted criminal actions and tried nearly 60 jury trials. In 2006, Baldwin started his private law practice and has maintained it since.

Baldwin is a published author, public speaker and student of political philosophy. Baldwin is the author of Freedom For A Change, Romans 13-The True Meaning of Submission, and Political Discussions for People of States–all of which are available for purchase through Liberty Defense League. Baldwin has also authored hundreds of political science articles relative to liberty in the United States of America. Baldwin has been the guest of scores of radio shows and public events and continues to exposit principles which the people in America will need to determine its direction for the future.

Web site: LibertyDefenseLeague
E-Mail:tim@libertydefenseleague.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin179.htm

Veterans, Active Duty Soldiers To March On White House For Ron Paul <--- Link

Media ignores Paul’s service record and fact he has most donations from military

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
January 9, 2012


In a forthcoming event dubbed “Ron Paul Is The Choice Of The Troops”, thousands of veterans and active duty military personnel are expected to march on the White House in support of the Texas Congressman’s presidential bid.

The event, to be held on President’s Day, February 20th, is being organized by activist group Veterans for Ron Paul 2012, co-founded by Adam Kokesh, Iraq war veteran turned activist and talk show host.

In a press release, Kokesh announced that the march will progress from the Washington Monument to the White House, where those taking part will salute a “folded American flag [...] for as many seconds as troops have died under the Presidency of Barrack Obama.”

“The purpose of this event is to make it clear to the American people that Ron Paul is the choice of the troops and the candidate who will have the greatest support from those he would lead as commander-in-chief.” writes Kokesh.

“This is already evidence by the fact that Ron Paul has received more campaign contributions from active duty service members than all other presidential candidates combined, INCLUDING Barrack Obama.”

This statistic was once again confirmed last week with figures showing Paul has collected $95,567 from individuals who listed their occupation as one of the branches of the US military or US Department of Defense.

Donor	Obama	Romney	Gingrich	Paul	Santorum
National Guard	$1,262	$0	$0	$4,068	$0
US Air Force	$9,785	$4,400	$4,400	$23,736	$0
US Army	$15,600	$3,500	$250	$24,503	$250
US Coast Guard	$6,002	$0	$0	$3,716	$0
US Dept of Defense	$27,613	$2,150	$0	$9,527	$0
US Marine Corps	$1,700	$250	$0	$7,662	$0
US Military	$200	$0	$0	$2,083	$0
US Navy	$10,454	$3,000	$250	$20,272	$500
TOTAL	$72,616	$13,300	$4,900	$95,567	$750

The latest analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics updates previous figures to cover the period between January to September 2011, and will be further updated to include the fourth quarter after the candidates file their year-end reports on Jan. 31.

The mainstream media often glosses over or completely ignores these facts. Indeed, following Sunday’s debate in New Hampshire, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell touted John Huntsman’s military “credentials” after Huntsman noted that he had two sons actively serving in the Navy.

O’Donnell incorrectly stated that no other GOP candidate had served, completely ignoring the fact that Ron Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the United States Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968.

When Ed Shultz attempted to correct O’Donnell by pointing out Paul had served his country, O’Donnell cut him off and ignored him.



Adam Kokesh notes that the organizers of next month’s march for Ron Paul will require proof of service from current or former military personnel who want to participate in the march. Family members will be invited to march behind the formation of service members, while supporters are encouraged to line the route to the White House.

For more information about the event, please contact Veterans for Ron Paul 2012 at VFRP2012@gmail.com or see the facebook event here.

Kokesh delivered a rousing speech in support of Ron Paul, close to the site of Saturday’s GOP debate in New Hampshire. Watch the entire speech below:



http://www.infowars.com/veterans-act...-for-ron-paul/

Media Circus Prevents Ron Paul from Talking with Voters in New Hampshire <--- Link

Video at the Links
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 9, 2012

On Monday, the corporate media prevented candidate Ron Paul from talking with New Hampshire voters. Moe Joe’s Diner in Manchester was packed and a crowd of reporters and media people made it impossible for Paul to interact with voters.

CNN made it sound like Paul was ignoring voters, but as the video below reveals the media made it impossible for the congressman to talk to people.

It is not clear if this is a new tactic to prevent Ron Paul from interacting with voters in the key primary state, or if it is simply the result of a corporate media circus sideshow that is determined to make Paul out to be a lunatic with a following of fanatical supporters.


http://www.infowars.com/media-circus...new-hampshire/

Press Blames Ron Paul For Media Swarm They Created


Video at the Links

Establishment attempts to ostracize Independents from voting for Paul

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, January 9, 2012

The level of smear attacks against Ron Paul are getting so transparently agenda-driven that the press is now blaming Paul for spectacles they directly create, such as today’s media swarm in a New Hampshire eatery that forced Paul to abandon a planned meet and greet with voters.

Video at the Links

Planning to talk to supporters at Moe Joe’s restaurant this morning, the event turned into a “media scrum” with Paul barely being able to move as he was chased around the restaurant by swarms of photographers.

“Ron Paul: We have you surrounded. We are the media,” a strange man dressed as a wizard with an upside down black boot on his head blurted out through a megaphone.

“Paul decided to grant only one interview at the event, to Fox News’s Brett Baeir. Halfway inside his SUV, Paul took questions for about five minutes from the cable news anchor while reporters strained to hear his answers, then shut the door,” reports the Hill.

The Hill’s Josh Lederman managed to find someone upset at the incident and twist the whole spectacle so as to blame Ron Paul himself, quoting a woman whose 90-year-old mother had wanted to meet Paul.“She really wanted to meet him. She was really waiting to meet him,” said her daughter. “I think he lost some votes.”

“If I met him, looked him in the eye and liked him he would have gotten my vote tomorrow and instead I’m turned off,” Heller told CNN.

Heller, who voted for Obama in 2008, is now being quoted by innumerable mainstream news outlets in a bid to ostracize Independent voters from supporting Ron Paul.

The Guardian posted a You Tube interview with her, in which Heller is reluctant to admit that one of Ron Paul’s staffers actually promised her a private meeting, a fact that contradicts the attempt to portray Paul’s campaign as aloof and ignorant towards voters.

Respondents to The Hill story were vehement in their criticism of the media for creating the controversy out of nothing and then portraying Paul as the culprit.

“How did he lose votes because of this? The media swarmed him in a highly disrespectful manor and he takes the blame?” asked one.

“Why attempt to blame Doctor Paul for a media swarm? That makes no sense to me,” commented another.It’s just the latest in a series of bizarre smears against Paul, another of which is the media’s attempt to float the hoax that Paul’s health is on the wane despite the fact that he is known for being addicted to physical health and a regular bike-rider.

http://www.infowars.com/press-blames...-they-created/

New Hampshire Press Endorses Ron Paul For President

Three State newspapers choose Paul over Romney

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
January 5, 2012


Ahead of the New Hampshire primary next week, three of the State’s newspapers have endorsed Ron Paul for president.

The Littleton Courier, Berlin Reporter, and Coos County Democrat all announced today their support for Paul, citing Paul’s consistentcy and legitimacy on major issues.

“Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been in the lead for months,” wrote the editors, “but voters still seem desperate for an alternative — there’s always another candidate pulling stronger or almost as strong numbers in the polls. Voters have lost faith in Obama, but they are not sold on Romney to replace him.”

Congressman Ron Paul, however, “has never voted to raise a tax and voted against all of the bailouts that have riled up Tea Partiers and Occupy Wall Streeters alike,” they continued. “His prediction that the United States can no longer afford the economic cost of our overseas commitments makes many Republicans uncomfortable, possibly by the very truth of the assertion. For decades he has been that rare sort of politician who speaks what he believes to be the truth and doesn’t flutter in the wind of public opinion. That could not be said of Obama or Romney.”

“Powerful leaders like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan change the political landscape,” the editors concluded. “This is what Ron Paul would do for our country and why we support him.”

Two debates are scheduled to take place in New Hampshire prior to the primary next Tuesday. Ron Paul will be in attendance at both events.

The first, an ABC/WMUR sponsored debate to be held at the Dana Center at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, is scheduled for this Saturday at 9:00 p.m. Eastern.

The second debate is an NBC News/Facebook and Union Leader sponsired event, to be held at Chubb Theatre at the Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord. The debate will air on the NBC network as a special edition of “Meet the Press” and will stream live on Facebook.

http://www.infowars.com/new-hampshir...for-president/