Here are some more updates on Ron Paul, his philosophy, campaign and other newsworthy items:

Ron Paul on Abortion

Get the federal government out of abortion decision

Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.

Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception

Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?

A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.

Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction

I’m surprised that I don’t have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president’s signature. It’s a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws, let’s just use what we have & pass this type of legislation.

Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench

Q: Will you nominate only judges who are demonstrably faithful to the judicial role of following only the text of the Constitution, and who not only refuse to legislate from the bench, but are committed to reversing prior court decision where activist judges strayed from the judicial role and legislated from the bench?

A: YES

 

READ MORE UPDATES ON A VERY UNIQUE POLITICIAN, CANDIDATE & MAN

Ron Paul on Budget & Economy

Give up American empire; that reduces debt without sacrifice

Q: What sacrifices would you ask Americans to make to lower the country’s debt?

A: I think it’s absolutely unnecessary to sacrifice. It’s unnecessary. We can cut by looking at our foreign policy. We maintain an empire which we can’t afford. We have 700 bases overseas. We are in 130 countries. We cut there, and then we have a better defense of this country, and the people get that money and they get to spend it here at home. There’s no need to sacrifice.

We spend too much, tax too much, & print too much money

Q: Does our country’s financial situation creates a security risk?

A: It’s absolutely a threat to our national security because we’ve spent too much, we tax too much, we borrow too much, and we print too much. When a country spends way beyond its means, eventually it will destroy the currency, and we’re in the midst of a currency crisis. Our dollar is going down rapidly as we speak. It’s because we have lived beyond our means. We can’t afford the foreign policy that we have. We have to cut back. We have to live within our means. If we’re going to spend money, we ought to spend it at home, and that is why we have to change this foreign policy. We can’t afford it to do what we’re doing today because it will destroy our dollar.

Can’t legislate economic fairness; so make government small

You can’t legislate economic fairness, like so many want to do. Freedom means freedom. It means the government should be very small.

So, we need to decide what we’re gonna do. Are we going to live within the law, or are we going to pretend the government can take care of everything possible? We are now nine trillion dollars in debt, we have a dollar that’s crashing, and we keep financing this by taxing, borrowing, and then, what do we resort to? We resort to printing the money!

We should look to the Constitution. We should make sure that we get rid of our central bank, the Federal Reserve, and have only gold and silver as legal tender. This is the reason our government gets so big, because we give them license to steal, license to inflate, license to tax, and license to borrow, and politicians will always do it.

Prioritize spending based on Constitution–and lower it too

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. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future–and yours.

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply– making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to "we the people."

We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.

Government out of regulating economy & out of our bedrooms

The government should be out of regulating the economy. I think the monetary issue is important. I don’t believe government should be able to print money out of thin air to pay their bills because that causes a lot of problems. The government should be out of our bedrooms. I don’t think they should be regulating any personal behavior if it’s non-violent. That means we have to tolerate people who do things that sometimes are dumb and sometimes are irritating, but in a free society you tolerate that.

 

Ron Paul on Civil Rights

 

Against ID for immigrants; it leads to national ID card

Q: Four out of five Hispanics are either legal residents or American citizens. Many of them feel affected by the negative tone of the immigration debate. What would you do to curb this anti-Hispanic sentiment?

A: Well, one thing is, if we want to prevent more negative tone, we won’t be working on a tamper-proof ID. Because how can you have a tamper-proof ID for illegals or immigrants, without doing it to everybody else? That’s going to lead to a national ID card, which I absolutely oppose.

Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage

Q: On gay marriage. You’ve been quoted as saying, "Any association that’s voluntary should be permissible in a free society." And you’ve expressed your opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A: If you believe in federalism, it’s better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The [government] really shouldn’t be involved. The government got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they’re economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that’s already in the dictionary. We do know what marriage is about. We don’t need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an Amendment. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. There’s no need for the federal government to be involved in this.

No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda

Q: What do you intend to do to counteract the homosexual agenda?

A: If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values, but you can’t do it through legislation because force doesn’t work. But if homosexual groups want to enforce their way on us, there’s no right to do that, either. At the same time, you should eradicate all these hate laws. They indicate that some people would receive a different penalty on others.

No affirmative action for any group

All rights are individuals. We do not get our rights because we belong to a group. Whether it’s homosexuals, women, minorities, it leads us astray. You don’t get your rights belonging to your group. A group can’t force themselves on anybody else. So there should be no affirmative action for any group.

This violates the principle on the importance of the individual, and confuses us about the importance of individual rights, which is the purpose of the Constitution. Defend our individual rights.

No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough

Q: Will you support a federal marriage amendment, and what else will you do to protect the institution of marriage?

A: I think the best thing the president can do is set a good example, and I would start with having been married 50 years, and proud of it. I believe, also, that I do not see any need for another constitutional amendment. I think we have fallen into a trap that we have to redefine marriage. We’re on the defensive, defining marriage. Why don’t you just tell them to look it up in the dictionary, to find out what a marriage says? For federal legal purposes, the Defense of Marriage Act is proper. It takes care of all the problems. If you have to have rules and regulations, put it at the state level, like the Constitution says. But you know, marriage only came about and getting licenses only came about in recent history for health reasons. Marriage is a church function. It’s not a state function. I don’t think you need a license to get married.

First Amendment was written for controversial speech

Q: Many libertarians oppose laws against same-sex marriages, prostitution and illegal drugs. What is your view?

A: If you believe in liberty, you are a libertarian. The best libertarians we’ve ever had in this country were our Founding Fathers. They believed in civil liberties, economic liberties, and they believed in a non-intervention foreign policy.

But, the inference here about marriage, and prostitution, and drugs–they never addressed it. There’s no constitutional authority, to deal with those problems. But there’s no prohibitions for the states to do it.

If you’re willing to use the strong arm of government to regulate things that are negative that you don’t like and you find abhorrent, you set the stage for regulating your religion, your schools, and everything else.

The First Amendment wasn’t written to protect non-controversial speech. It was written to protect controversial speech, so we don’t lose our right to go to church and run our schools. This is key!

Use power of presidency to restore habeas corpus

Increasing presidential powers is rather disturbing to me. Don’t we remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both? That’s what’s happening in this country today. We have a national ID being implemented right now. We have warrantles searches. We’ve lost habeas corpus. We’ve had secret prisons & we have torture going on. That’s un-American, and we need to use the power of the presidency to get it back in order, in order to take care of us and protect this country & our liberties.

Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army

Q: Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end "Don’t ask, don’t tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military?

A: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution stating: "Marriage in the US shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Proponents support voting YES because:

The overwhelming majority of the American people support traditional marriage, marriage between a man and a woman. The people have a right to know whether their elected Representatives agree with them about protecting traditional marriage.

Every child deserves both a father and a mother. Studies demonstrate the utmost importance of the presence of a child’s biological parents in a child’s happiness, health and future achievements. If we chip away at the institution which binds these parents and the family together, the institution of marriage, you begin to chip away at the future success of that child.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It is unworthy of our great Nation. We have amended the Constitution only 27 times. Constitutional amendments have always been used to enhance and expand the rights of citizens, not to restrict them. Now we are being asked to amend the Constitution again, to single out a single group and to say to them for all time, you cannot even attempt to win the right to marry.

From what precisely would this amendment protect marriage? From divorce? From adultery? No. Evidently, the threat to marriage is the fact that there are millions of people in this country who very much believe in marriage, who very much want to marry but who are not permitted to marry. I believe firmly that in the not-too-distant future people will look back on these debates with the incredulity with which we now view the segregationist debates of years past.

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent.

To extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes, including:

• Assigning three judges to hear individuals’ petitions concerning improper requests by the FBI for library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, and other records
• Reporting every year the number of library records orders that are granted, modified, or denied
• Allows Internet service providers to disclose their subscribers information and the contents of their communications to a government entity, if they believe there is “immediate danger of death or serious physical injury”
• Requires that any court that allows a “roving wiretap” under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) must describe in great detail the intended target whose identity is not known
• Allows individuals and businesses to seek legal counsel if they have received a National Security Letter from the FBI requiring them to disclose financial information and records

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Marriage Protection Amendment - Declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Prohibits the Constitution or any State constitution from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon any union other than that of a man and a woman.

 

Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge Protection Act: Amends the Federal judicial code to deny jurisdiction to any Federal court, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance or its validity under the Constitution.

Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.

Desecration of Flag resolution: Vote to pass the joint resolution to put forward a Constitutional amendment to state that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Note: A two-thirds majority vote of those present and voting (284 in this case) is required to pass a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.

Vote on an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.

Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.

HR 6, the Higher Education Amendments Act of 1997, would prohibit any post-secondary institution that participates in any program under the Higher Education Act from discriminating or granting any preferential treatment in admission based on race, sex, ethnicity, color or national origin.  

 

 

Ron Paul on Corporations

 

Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation.

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation [and as part of that process, fully disclosing executive compensation].

 

Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks.

Vote to pass a bill that would repeal an export tax break for U.S. manufacturers ruled an illegal trade subsidy by the World Trade Organization, while providing for about $140 billion in new corporate tax cuts. Revenue raising offsets would decrease the cost of the bill to $34.4 billion over 11 years. It would consist of a buyout for tobacco farmers that could not go over $9.6 billion. It also would allow the IRS to hire private collection agencies to get back money from taxpayers, and require individuals who claim a tax deduction for a charitable donation of a vehicle to obtain an independent appraisal of the car.

 

Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it easier for courts to change debtors from Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which allows most debts to be dismissed, to Chapter 13, which requires a repayment plan.

 

Ron Paul on Crime

 

Changed opinion to anti-death penalty due to many mistakes

Q: Is the death penalty is carried out justly?

A: Over the years, I’ve held pretty rigid all my beliefs, but I’ve changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you’re rich, you get away with it; if you’re poor & you’re from the inner city, you’re more likely to be prosecuted & convicted. Today, with DNA evidence, there have been too many mistakes. So I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.

Opposes "hate crimes" legislation

Q: I was arrested, jailed, and was charged under Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law. I faced up to 47 years in prison plus a $90,000 fine for attempting to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ at a homosexual pride event with those who are trapped in bondage to that lifestyle. If elected, can we count on you to veto any so-called "hate crimes" legislation?

A: YES

 

Not appropriate to prosecute all illegal adult pornography

Q: The Bush Justice Department is reticent to prosecute any but the worst hardcore pornographers–and most often, only the smaller companies that produce such filth. Meanwhile, hardcore pornographers have found their way into major hotel chains. Would your administration prosecute all illegal adult pornography, including so-called white-collar pornographers?

A YES

Opposes the death penalty

He opposes the death penalty and abortion, and is strongly opposed to a military draft. He has voted against amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage and also against an amendment to prohibit flag-burning.

Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.

Vote on an amendment that would reduce the funding for violent offender imprisonment by and truth-in-sentencing programs by $61 million. The measure would increase funding for Boys and Girls Clubs and drug courts by the same amount.

Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime.

Vote to pass a bill to appropriate $1.5 billion to all of the states that want to improve their juvenile justice operations. Among other provisions this bill includes funding for development, implementation, and administration of graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders, funds for building, expanding, or renovating juvenile corrections facilities, hiring juvenile judges, probation officers, and additional prosecutors for juvenile cases.

 

Ron Paul on Drugs

 

Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly

Q: If you are elected president in 2008, what positive and significant legacy, if any, will you leave for Black Americans?

A: I would like to believe that if we had a freer society, it would take care of Blacks and whites and everybody equally because we’re all individuals. To me, that is so important. But if we had equal justice under the law, I think it would be a big improvement. If we had probably a repeal of most of the federal laws on drugs and the unfairness on how Blacks are treated with these drugs laws, it would be a tremendous improvement. And also, I think that if you’re going to have prosperity, it serves everybody. And if this is done by emphasizing property rights and freedom of the individuals, making sure that the powerful special interests don’t control Washington, that the military industrial complex doesn’t suck away all the wealth of the country, and then we would have prosperity.

Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs

Q: What policy would you support to guarantee young Black and Latino men a fairer equal justice system?

A: A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges. Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs. For instance, Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change. We don’t have to have more courts and more prisons. We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn’t working. We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 1970s, and it is wasted money. Prohibition didn’t work. Prohibition on drugs doesn’t work. So we need to come to our senses. And, absolutely, it’s a disease. We don’t treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease, and we should orient ourselves to this. That is one way you could have equal justice under the law.

$500B on War on Drugs since 1970s has been a total failure

On the issue of drugs, we have spent nearly five hundred billion dollars on the War on Drugs, since the 1970s. Total failure. Some day, we have to admit it. Today, we have the federal government going into states that have legal medical marijuana, arresting people–undermining state laws–arresting people who use marijuana when they’re dying with cancer and AIDS, and it’s done with, as a compassionate conservative. And it doesn’t work.

What it does, it removes the ability to states to do their things, and also introduces the idea that it’s the federal government that will get to decide whether we get to take vitamins, and alternative medical care, or whatever. Most of our history, believe it or not, had no drug laws. Prohibition has been an absolute failure for alcohol. Drug addiction is a medical problem. It’s not a problem of the law.

Legalize industrial hemp

Paul believes in the legalization of industrial hemp. Paul supported HR 3037 to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana. This bill would have given the states the power to regulate farming of hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the United States. He favors the legalization of marijuana.

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.

Amendment to set up a task force on counter-terrorism and drug interdiction and allow military personnel to help patrol U.S. borders.

Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests.

Drug Demand Reduction Act: Vote on an amendment to require that anyone hired by the Federal Government is subject to random, unannounced drug testing.

War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights .

Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:

As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.

• WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
• WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
• WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
• WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:

1. While recognizing the harm that drug abuse causes society, we also recognize that government drug policy has been ineffective and has led to frightening abuses of the Bill of Rights which could affect the personal freedom of any American. We, therefore, support alternatives to the War on Drugs.
2. Per the tenth amendment to the US Constitution, matters such as drugs should be handled at the state or personal level.
3. All laws which give license to violate the Bill of Rights should be repealed.

Legalize medical marijuana.

Paul sponsored the States’ Rights to Medical Marijuana Act:

Title: To provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States. Summary: Transfers marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to schedule II of such Act. Declares that, in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed or recommended by a physician for medical use under applicable State law, no provision of the Controlled Substances Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict:

• the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use;
• an individual from obtaining and using marijuana from a physician’s prescription or recommendation of marijuana for medical use; or
• a pharmacy from obtaining and holding marijuana for the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use under applicable State law.
• Prohibits any provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from prohibiting or restricting a State entity from producing or distributing marijuana for the purpose of its distribution for prescription or recommendation by a physician in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed by a physician for medical use. 

on Huckabee Holiday Ad: "When Fascism Comes…It Will Be Wrapped in the Flag, Carrying a Cross"

Mike Huckabee is bringing his Christmas cheer, and his Baptist minister roots, to Iowans this election season. His recent ad, "What Really Matters," features the former governor offering citizens a Merry Christmas.

This isn’t your ordinary Happy Holidays event. Huckabee let’s loose the Christian spirit, saying "what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ." The ad also features a bookshelf in the background that appears to some like a "floating cross." The ad is a not-too-subtle play to Iowa value voters, who cringe at what they view as an increasingly secularized holiday.

Asked about the ad today, Ron Paul decried Huckabee’s religious iconography with his own veiled reference on Fox and Friends:

"It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said. He says, ‘when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.’ Now I don’t know whether that’s a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross, like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly. So, I don’t think I would ever use anything like that."

Mike Huckabee’s campaign today denied that the bookshelf/cross was an intentional reference. Iowa Director Eric Woolson responded: It’s the window frame in the background… Once you’ve got it in your head that it’s a cross, it’s a cross.