Posted on 04/30/2007 9:14:44 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
We published an analysis on “Dollar Myths” in which we criticized spending habits in Washington:
"Interestingly, nobody seemed to focus on the fact that there is an unconventional solution to foreigners holding too much of our debt: live within your means and do not issue debt. Such an old fashioned concept would indeed strengthen the dollar. Unfortunately, none of the presidential candidates at either side of the aisle seem to have heard of this notion."
We missed that there is indeed a presidential candidate who believes in the old fashioned view to “live within your means.” Our apologies go to Congressman Ron Paul, who threw his hat in the ring on March 12, 2007, announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. Ron Paul is the one member of Congress who is a true fiscal conservative. As a member of the House Committee of Financial Services, he does not hesitate to speak out against inflationary policies. On his campaign website, Ron Paul 2008, he writes:
“Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation… If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.
(Excerpt) Read more at fxstreet.com ...
bin Laden alive - 3,702 coalition KIA - tens of thousands permanently maimed - $ billions that don’t go to your kids education or roads or other infrastructure . . .
some “Mission Accomplished !” fool you must STILL be !
Ya’ kinda already bein’ led down dat yellow brick road of the already defeated by bin Laden , n’est ce pas ?
Maybe even more fiscal conservative, constitutionalists like Ron Paul are what we need to turn around from this proud and permanent state of paper money-printing “victory” we find ourselves in !
You claim it is a fact - but then when asked to adduce said facts you produce exactly one concrete reference to statements by the USAG.
And that reference is a newsarticle that shows the USAG wants ISPs to keep extensive records so, when an ISP is duly served with a legal warrant or subpoena, they will not be able to avoid compliance by saying: "oops, I deleted the data specified in the warrant! sorry!"
If the folks at Enron can be required by law to keep five years worth of transaction records on file so that investigations of fraud, accompanied by duly approved judicial subpoenas, can be carried out - well then, ISPs can be required to maintain records as well.
it's about supporting their beloved political party over any Constitutional Principles
There is a ton of hifalutin' talk about Constitutional Principles on this thread and very little actual knowledge of the Constitution.
The Constitution does not say anything about an establishment of religion being as above the law; it just prohibits Congress from making laws respecting them.
I agree, minus the "Maybe." :)
You continually post grammatically indecipherable material that makes it difficult to understand what you are trying to say.
it just prohibits Congress from making laws respecting them
Again, I think that you do not understand the legal meaning of the word "establishment" as it applies to religion.
You use it in a sense the Founders, Blackstone and classic jurists have never used it.
I think you are incorrect.
That's productive.
Again, when the Constitution says that Congress shall not make laws "respecting an establishment of religion" it means that Congress should not make laws that contemplate, consider or treat (i.e. "respect" in a legal sense) a specific religion as if it were an official state institution (i.e. an "establishment of religion" in the legal sense).
The faith-based inititatives do not single out any religion for treatment or consideration in a way that approaches that religion as if it had official status.
What they do is remove an existing bias against all religious institutions: the law does not even favor religion in general - secular non-profits are as entitled to funding as non-secular ones - let alone any specific religion.
Just saw Ron Paul on MS-NBC.
Is he dishonest or just a nut?
He actually claims that our fighting abroad against Islamist terrorists is the result of “neo-conservatives,” who have infested the Republicans from the extreme left of the Democrat party.
Get real, Paul. We don’t live in a world of 1700’s technology, anymore.
Ron Paul is right.
The enemy is right next to us. Iraq and Afhganistan and Indonesia, etc. are virtually a stone’s throw away.
I guess some Americans didn’t learn the lesson of Hitler’s rise.
What a shame.
So why our the defense resources dealing with virtual enemies when literal enemies at the borders get free passage?
The President seems to have some funky hole in his head regarding Mexico. It seems to be narrowing, though.
But he is right. Think about it. We had an act of war done upon us in what was supposed to be a friendly nation. That nation has yet to turn over the bombers of the Cole. Yemen has more ties to Bin Ladden than Iraq did and other nations were a bigger threat. Bush was itching for Iraq before 9/11. Once he got us there I honestly think he was clueless as to what to do. What did he do? He turned what should have been strictly a military mission based solely on the interest of the United States into a U.N. police action and nation building project. In 2000 second debate Boston BUSH LIED concerning nation building.
Bush turned the war in Iraq over to the state department. The results are soldiers having their hands tied with liberals R.O.E. and used being used as police and the peace corp. If Bush wanted to rebuild Iraq he should have hired Jimmy Carter to build them new buildings and left the troops out of it. Bush has set the next Radical Cleric installed Dictator to be far stronger and much greater threat than Saddam. Bush Iraq policy stinks.
Our military is stretched to the max and long over extended. It's needs a major overhaul and Bush can't stop pushing his stinking sell us out to Mexico and family friend China trade deals long enough to do the job.
H.J.RES.23 : Proposing an amendment the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/7/2007)
Cosponsors (2)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 3/1/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
. H.J.RES.46 : Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 6/13/2007) Cosponsors (6)
Committees: House Judiciary Latest Major Action: 6/25/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Constitutional amendments can only become law by being ratified by a quorum of state legislatures - Congress' role is supplementary.
And he didn't even suggest amendments that have any chance of garnering more thanh a few token votes.
Moreover, these are paragraph-long proposals that took zero time or expertise to craft.
I'm talking about drafting actual laws that the Congress can enact, that have a credible chance at passage and which engage the complexity of the existing federal code.
Your examples underscore Ron Paul's incompetence as a legislator.
Did whomever you support make ANY effort to help us?
Rudy McRomney cannot beat the Hildabeast/Obama ticket.
Ron Paul can.
Today, I worked with a Constitution party member and a ACLU red diaper doper baby on an event to support Ron Paul.
Polar opposites in the political spectrum.
I am Pro-Victory in WW4 btw.
This IS the Revolution you have been waiting for.
Fine, want to eliminate those, here is another one.
H.R.2415 : To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 5/21/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Ways and Means; House Natural Resources; House Financial Services
I have the perfect candidate, with the perfect voting record.
BTW, would we have had pearl harbour if we did not cut off japanese oil supplies?
Perfect.
Your candidate says that 9/11 is America's fault and you say Pearl Harbor was America's fault. Your true colors are now exposed.
I hope you and your Communist ACLU friend and your crank Constitution Party buddy enjoy being half of Ron Paul's electoral base.
Parenthetically, I find it amusing that Ron Paul introduced an offshore drilling bill months after he started considering the Presidency.
I guess it took him 20 years to get off his soapbox and do a single day's work.
I never said anything of the sort. I asked you if you thought the Japs would have attacked Pearl Harbour, if we had not cut off their oil supplies.
I am a Military Historian, this is not even considered controversial.
Do you ever look at the big board?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.