Message from Ron Paul

Has this been a hectic and encouraging time! First we got almost 17% in the Texas straw poll, an event set-up to represent the establishment, with very restrictive voting rules. That 17% of the Republican hierarchy would support our views, after a full day of pro-war propaganda, is good news. Then we won the more open Maryland Republican straw poll with 28%. In both cases, as usual, hard-working, well-organized volunteers made all the difference.

The Fox debate was a lot of fun as well. It's true that a few of the network people are not exactly with us on foreign or domestic policy (though one famous guy whispered to me that he is a libertarian), but the audience—with lots of students from the University of New Hampshire—was definitely fair and balanced, as their enthusiastic reaction showed.

My opponents called for more war, more torture, more secret prisons, more eavesdropping, more presidential power. Some seemed to identify the government and the people as if they were one entity. But you and I know that once the government moves beyond its very limited constitutional mandate, it is an opponent of the people, a rip-off operation that takes our money and our freedom and our social peace, and gives us a mess of statist pottage in return.

The government failed miserably on 911 to protect us, despite spending trillions. So the answer was supposed to be the giant, socialist Department of Homeland Security, protecting you and me from taking our toothpaste on the airplane. I was ridiculed for saying that the airlines, which know best how to protect their property, should have been allowed to arm their pilots. But then, you and I really believe in the Second Amendment. It is not just a political slogan for us.

When I discussed the blowback that came from us intervening on the Arabian peninsula, Chris Wallace asked me if I wanted to follow the marching orders of al-Qaeda. I responded that I wanted to follow the marching orders of the Constitution, and not wage undeclared, aggressive wars that cause us only trouble. This is a mystifying to some, of course, but not to more and more Americans.

There was much talk of taxes, and a pledge not to raise rates. But as usual, I was not allowed to discuss my lifelong pledge to abolish the income tax. Just holding the line, when the government takes such vast sums through an illegitimate guilty-until-proven-innocent system, is hardly enough. We need to slash taxes and spending if we are to have a future of prosperity for ourselves and our families.

After the debate, many young people gathered around the stage to discuss our ideas and ask questions about them (and to have me sign their badges). My colleagues got no such response, and after a few moments, "security" ordered me off the stage. Can't have any such demonstration of interest in liberty.

But the young are with us, and so are Americans of every stripe. Even party officials. When one of my opponent said it was OK to lose elections through supporting the Iraq war, that set party people's teeth on edge, and rightly so. The Republican party is shrinking. We need new people. It's either our ideas or President Hillary, and more and more people recognize it.

But the media, and everyone else, will be looking at fundraising totals at the end of this month. They'll judge us by how we do. And we need help to wage what we hope will be a full-scale, 50-state campaign. Please help me head into the next quarter fully armed to do battle for freedom, peace and prosperity. Make your most generous contribution https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/. This Revolution is on the move, but it very much needs your support.

I don’t care what you think, to be honest, about whose dime it was, but you seem to think Muslims are genetically incapable of doing anything but killing each other.

Don't try putting words in my mouth there mister. I simply stated that it's not our business if they want to kill each other and that IF we just HAD to go and 'save' someone, my preference would be to defend the Christians being slaughtered in Africa! Ron Paul is NOT advocating turning our foreign policy over to ANYONE. He's voted to authorized the use of force to capture or kill Bin Laden and those actually responsible for 9/11. You can speculate all you want about what country may or may not have been supplying money to Al Queida, however, we too have supported acts seen as terrorism in other parts of the world but you'll have to admit that you don't think that gives some other country some right to come here and change our form of government or the way we do things. WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S POLICEMEN OR PEACEKEEPERS and what other countries do within their own borders and what form of government they have is NOT OUR AFFAIR. We stood down the Soviet Empire without going to war with them and they actually have the weapons and the means to deliver them to wipe us off the map! OH!! WAIT!!! There's the difference!! We don't attack China and the like because they CAN effectively fight back without having to resort to guerrilla tactics!! And Americans wonder why the rest of the world (even our 'friends') are starting to see us as bullies as opposed to the example of how things SHOULD be done!

Lets take these one by one.. I'll type slowly so you can understand. (OH, and BTW, this is not Empire building, albeit, there is even a clause that one could justify that with; I'll explain at the end.)

Article 1, Section 8, Subsections 3 (To regulate commerce with foreign nations.)- No where in the Constitution is it outlined how commerce is regulated, it simply gives Congress the authorization to regulate commerce, so the question becomes, at what end is the commerce regulated. In the case of our presence in the ME, one of the main reasons is primarily because we receive over 50% of the life blood of our country from there. The only way to regulate commerce of this strategic element is to either produce 100% domestically (which is a nice ideal but it is not the reality of today's situation) or ensure a presence to make sure that governments who are halfway friendly, continues to be the trading partners. If, for instance, we didn't, for example, support Saddam in his war with Iran, then imagine how the ME would look today. Oil would be used as a weapon against us and the rest of the world. Similarly, our intervention when Saddam invaded Kuwait had a similar affect. Regulation of commerce is no where limited in the Constitution to domestic regulation only.

Subsection 10 (define and punish offenses against the law of nations)- This is the clause that Paul seems to completely ignore. The Constitution authorizes congress to determine (define) if a breach of a 'law of nations' is in our interest to punish. For example, Saddam broke the law of nations (as in a UN agreement) in failure to disclose and cease production of banned weapons. We determined it was in our national interest, that this breach fell under the authorization for us to step in and punish, directly authorized by Subsection 10.

Subsection 13 (To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces)- This one is pretty cut and dry, Congress is authorized to regulate 'land and naval forces. There is no limit anywhere in the Constitution as to where those forces can be used.

Article 2, Section 2, Subsection 2 (Treaties with other nations) Article 6, Subsection 2 (all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land)- This is one of the key points, and I believe it is highly vital as the Constitution gives two bodies, (Congressional and Executive) the responsibility to honor those treaties and even states that treaties are the 'supreme law of the land'.. So, what is a treaty. By definition, a treaty is an agreement with another nation, not a law within your own nation. An example of a current treaty would be our treaty with Israel to help provide defense (current treaty is the one of March, 1979). It is our Constitutional duty to honor this treaty, as others.

In all of these cases, the responsibility for deciding if any of these treaties, punishments against the laws of nations, regulations of the military and commerce, etc, lie with the Representatives of the people, (Congress) which is the intent of the Constitution, provide the voice of the people determination in these matters. If you disagree with a certain treaty (for example) then the people should elect Representatives who will create new treaties.

Oh, but I saved the best for last.. I love how the left claims we are Empire building (which we aren't) and Paul states it is against the Constitution to invade other nations, however, the Constitution has another thing to say about that.
Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 11 gives Congress, in addition to the authorization to declare war that Paul quotes so often, the ability to order captures of vessels on water or land. Since one cannot 'capture' something they already own, the authorization in Subsection 11 pretty much grants Congress the authorization to capture land as it deems necessary.

Again, all of this goes to the meat of Congress' role in the Constitution, to represent the will and needs of the people. The people make their voice in these issues through the election of Congressional Representatives.

This brings me to another odd point about Paul supporters. All of the things they complain about as being wrong, from spending, to the initial authorization and regulation of military and commercial power, etc, all originate with the Congress, not the President. Taking Paul out of the Congress basically removes a lawmaker who is your voice and putting him in a position of Commander in Chief of the military. You will lose a Congressional voice (as if Paul had a snowball's chance in hell of winning)

You intentionally misquoted Ron Paul.

Ron Paul did bring international law to bear on his understanding of what the United States is about, but he clearly subscribes first and foremost to the Biblical texts, and subsequently to our Constitution.

One must consider whether the principles established and upheld by our Constitution extend only to our borders, or exist beyond them. A reading of the preamble makes clear we are not dealing with limited principles. The laws upon which we run this country are not by our own choosing, but derived from a larger Being, and so they are manifest both nationally and internationally.

What sets us apart from other nations is the recognition that the individual may practice, within reason, whatever faith he chooses while engaging in business without undue interference from federal authorities. Liberal Democrats seem intent to see these basic freedoms eroded, particularly where they 1.) not only defend the practice of abortion but promote it beyond reason, and 2.) usurp the right of parents to teach their children at home.

As for the religious fanatics who seek our demise, the point is lost on them that peoples can believe and practice diversely yet still be united. They will not rest until their peculiar faith has been put into play across the globe. That means we must be ever vigilant in defending our freedoms. I can assure you Dr. Paul, President Bush, a good many Republicans, and even a good many Democrats, understand this.

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.