Thread: Ron Pauls Website: On Immigration

Originally Posted by GoodOleDays

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Ron Paul is a radical liberal Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. Paul has close associations like Lew Rockwell whose girlfriend Cindy Sheehan is a member Code Pink (now former girlfriend). These frauds are disguised as conservatives. When you look in to Ron Paul's past, you see what the people who promote him are actually supporting. It is not the Constitution, but many of Ron Paul's sheep have been led to believe it is.resemblance.[/size]

Ron Paul has 30 years defending the consitution with a PERFECT Record. How did you deduce / come up with this statement?

and there is a Voting record to prove it

Originally Posted by GoodOleDays

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Off topic a bit here. Look what you get with a Ron Paul presidency....

For instance, if you live in the left wing state of California, and if Ron Paul gets his way, you will have the power as a state to vote for what ever you want to legalize. Take the issue of live birth abortions. Killing the baby will be perfectly legal EVERYWHERE IN THE STATE. If a person decides while in labor they want the baby killed as she/he is being born and getting ready to take her first breath, it will be legal to have her heart stopped and her brains pulled out of her skull as her head begins to come through the birth canal.

The Federal government does not allow murder. Guess killing babies as they are being born does not fall under the Federal government as far as Ron Paul is concerned. Ron Paul took part in thousands of deliveries, and there is no doubt he knows a baby being born is a living HUMAN LIFE just as valuable as a one year old baby! So why does Ron Paul believe it should be left up to the state to decide whether the baby lives or dies?
[/size]

you do realize abortion under the democrats has been going on for a long period of time already ... TO INCLUDE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS

Did Ron Paul make this happen

did he vote for any of it

Did Ron Paul Spirit all of the left wing Wacko's to do this by Magic

where is the though process that came up with this .. How did you concoct this? What was the reason process you used in this amazing statement?

are you aware of the Eugenics program under way under the Communist / Progressive / Marxist Regime running our country... where is your statement attacking them other than what you wrote

How in the heck did you come up with its all Ron Pauls fault?

Panic, Mayday, Run for the Hills .. Oh My Lord it's Ron Paul

Somehow its not the Good Ole Boys Running the State and Federal Governments fault

Ron Paul ... oh my lord ... Screach; Scream; Panic ....

you are the same as those currently in DC.. Rule by Mini Disaster Panic mode for no darn reason

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE I BEG YOU TO SHOW ME WHERE RON PAUL ADVOCATED OR VOTED for Abortion / Partial Birth Abortion

H.R 4759 REPEAL NAFTA!

03/11/2010 - 16:41

HR4759 - Full Text at Open Congress.org http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4759/show

111th CONGRESS, 2d Session

H. R. 4759

To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 4, 2010

Mr. TAYLOR (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. BACA, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. KAGEN, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KISSELL, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MASSA, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. PAUL, Mr. SCHAUER, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. STARK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE NAFTA.

(a) Withdrawal of Approval- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the approval of the NAFTA by the Congress provided for in section 101(a) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act shall cease to be effective beginning on the date that is six months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Notification of Withdrawal- On the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall provide to the Governments of Canada and Mexico written notice of withdrawal of the United States from the NAFTA in accordance with Article 2205 of the NAFTA.

(c) NAFTA Defined- In this section, the term `NAFTA' means the North American Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States, Canada, and Mexico on December 17, 1992.

http://www.dailypaul.com/128522/hr-4759-repeal-nafta

CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


Rep. Ron Paul, MD

The Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, will be the source of intense political debate in Washington this summer. The House of Representatives will vote on CAFTA ratification in June, while the Senate likely will vote in July.

I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don't need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.

It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you firsthand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union. Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year.

The tax bill in question is just the tip of the iceberg. The quasi-judicial regime created under CAFTA will have the same power to coerce our cowardly legislature into changing American laws in the future. Labor and environmental rules are inherently associated with trade laws, and we can be sure that CAFTA will provide yet another avenue for globalists to impose the Kyoto Accord and similar agreements on the American people. CAFTA also imposes the International Labor Organization's manifesto, which could have been written by Karl Marx, on American business. I encourage every conservative and libertarian who supports CAFTA to read the ILO declaration and consider whether they still believe the treaty will make America more free.

CAFTA means more government! Like the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO, it represents another stone in the foundation of a global government system. Most Americans already understand they are governed by largely unaccountable forces in Washington, yet now they face having their domestic laws influenced by bureaucrats in Brussels, Zurich, or Mexico City.

CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body. It is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty, and we don't need it to benefit from international trade.

June 7, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html

The NAFTA Superhighway

by Ron Paul


Rep. Ron Paul

By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,â€

Get Out of the WTO


by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Last week I had an opportunity to present the case against US membership in the World Trade Organization at a seminar in Washington. Later this summer Congress will have a similar opportunity to raise objections about the WTO when several colleagues and I bring a resolution to the House floor seeking the wholesale withdrawal of the US from the organization.

The World Trade Organization by its own admission is not just about trade. According to the WTO website, liberalizing trade actually takes a back seat to its more activist ambitions, such as “developmentâ€

Ron Paul explains the CFR-NAFTA Question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbyRHjR ... re=related

Jun 3, 2011

Ron Paul explains that CFR and NAFTA is real and the plan is to make US -Canada - Mexico one entity. Only Ron Paul has guts enough to speak out against it. Notice Mccains twisted face and squirming while he tell about it.
I hope people have woke up to all these things and vote Ron Paul 2012.

Ron Paul - A National ID Card "Dictatorships have these, not a Free Republic"

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhwMw6SW ... re=related

Jun 3, 2011

Congressman Ron Paul explains on Fox News why he is opposed to a national ID card.

Time to Renounce the United Nations?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Our anticipated war in Iraq has been condemned by many around the world for the worst of all reasons: namely, that America is acting without United Nations approval. The obvious implication is that an invasion of Iraq is illegitimate without such approval, but magically becomes legitimate when UN bureaucrats grant their blessing. Most Americans rightfully resent this arrogant attitude toward our national sovereignty and don't care what the UN thinks about our war plans. Perhaps our heritage as a nation of people who do not take kindly to being told what to do is intact. 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 administration deserves some credit for asserting that we will go to war unilaterally if necessary, without UN authorization. But it sends a mixed message by doing everything it can to obtain such authorization. Efforts to build a “coalitionâ€

Ron Paul: Defend the Constitution, Not the U.N. Security Council!

By RonPaul.com on May 25, 2011
190 Responses

Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bpj6uwk ... r_embedded


Date: 05/25/2011

This is a rush transcript. Can you help us out and proofread the transcript while you watch the video? Go to our writeboard (password: constitution). Then click the “Edit this pageâ€