See above link The political positions of Ron Paul have been called conservative,[1] Constitutionalist,[2] and libertarian.[3] Paul's nickname "Dr. No"[156] reflects both his medical degree and his contrarian insistence on "never vot[ing] for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."[157][158] Paul adheres to the economic philosophy of the Austrian School of economics, which among other things, holds that government control over the money supply causes economic inefficiency and monetary instability. Paul has authored several books on the subject. He has pictures of classical liberal economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises hanging on his office wall.[159] Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention[160] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.[7][8] He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in response to the September 11, 2001, terror attacks,[161] but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists. He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.[160][162] Civil liberties concerns have led him to oppose the Patriot Act, a national ID card, federal government use of torture, domestic surveillance, and presidential autonomy; he supports free trade, rejecting membership in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens,[29] and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty; he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes.[163] He has pledged never to raise taxes,[157][48] and states he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget. He has stated that abolishing the individual income tax, which collects about 42 percent of government revenue, would be possible without any additional source of federal income by cutting spending to the 2000 level. He has also stated that we could quickly pay off our foreign debt and return our nation to solvency, if we further reduced spending to the 1992 level.[164][165] Paul would like to substantially reduce the government's role in individual lives and in the functions of foreign and domestic states; he says Republicans have lost their commitment to limited government and have become the party of big government.[166] Paul supports elimination of most federal government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service,[164] the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, and the Interstate Commerce Commission,[167] calling them unnecessary bureaucracies. He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, are superior to fiat money, but says he does not advocate going back to the gold standard.[168] Rather he wishes to legalize gold and silver as legal tender, to facilitiate competition in currencies. He advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve central bank for a few reasons, arguing that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply,[169] and that the Federal Reserve allows government to grow unchecked by inflating the money supply when funds are needed to accomodate government spending. Paul supports states' rights, gun ownership, habeas corpus for political detainees,[72] jury nullification rights,[170] and a Constitutional amendment allowing voluntary and unofficial school prayer;[171] he also favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security,[172] expanding the free market in health care, recognizing private property rights for pollution prevention,[173] and increasing ballot access.[174] Paul opposes the draft, the federal War on Drugs, socialized health care, the welfare state,[175] foreign aid, judicial activism, federal death penalties,[176] and federal regulation of marriage, of education,[177] and ban on internet gambling.[178] He supports revising enforcement of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which he calls "decent", to focus on disruptive behavior and include members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues.[118][119] He has voted against federal funding of joint adoption by unmarried couples, including same-sex adoption. Paul calls himself "an unshakable foe of abortion",[179][180] and believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level."[176][181] [edit] Nonintervention Paul upholds a foreign policy of nonintervention[4] in the tradition of Washington and Jefferson. This policy avoids entangling alliances with other nations, in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to defense. He believes that war must be fought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as planned: "The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq."[5] While Paul has been incorrectly labled an "isolationist", he advocates "conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations".[6] [edit] Iraq Paul objected to and voted against the Resolution authorizing war in Iraq,[7][8] and continues to oppose U.S. presence in Iraq, he also votes against providing the troops with the supplies and equipment they need, charging the government with using the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties. He believes a just declaration of war after the World Trade Center terror attacks would have been against the actual terrorists, al Qaeda, rather than against Iraq, which had no connection to the attacks.[9] When America seeks war, Paul believes Congress must fully approve it with a complete declaration of war, which would allow all resources to be dedicated to victory. However, the original authorization to invade Iraq (Public Law 107-243), passed in late 2002, authorized the president to use military force against Iraq to achieve only the following two specific objectives: “(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."[10] Accordingly, Paul introduced legislation to add a sunset clause to the original authorization.[11] During the 2003 invasion, he found himself "annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian. The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”[12] Paul's consistent opposition to the war expanded his conservative and libertarian Republican support base[13] to include liberal Democrats. For example, the Austin, Texas, Chronicle, an alternative liberal[14] newspaper, shifted its description of Paul from "erratic"[15] to strong and principled.[16][17] [edit] Iran Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle."[18] He claims the current circumstances with Iran mirror those under which the Iraq War began, and has urged Congress not to authorize war with Iran.[19] In the House, only Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution, which asks the U.N. to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating its genocide convention and charter.[20] [edit] International organizations Paul opposes political organizations that he believes override U.S. sovereignty, such as the International Criminal Court, the United Nations, North American Union (NAU) the World Trade Organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. He supports withdrawing funds from and ending participation in such organizations.[21] [edit] Other interventions In a National Public Radio interview, Paul advocated a "moral statement" rather than direct intervention in humanitarian missions such as in Darfur or Rwanda.[22] Accordingly, he was the only "no" vote on House Resolution 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007.[23]
That's enough wiki- read the rest for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Ron_Paul [edit] Economy [edit] Lower taxes and smaller government Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. He supports the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve.[45] Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!'".[46] He has said that he would completely eliminate the income tax, and would accomplish this by shrinking the size and scope of government to its constitutional limits. As Congressman, Paul has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the 16th Amendment.[47] Paul has signed a pledge not to raise taxes or create new taxes, given by Americans for Tax Freedom.[48] Paul has also been an advocate of Employee-owned corporations (ESOP).[49] In 1999, he co-sponsored a bill titled The Employee Ownership Act of 1999 which would have created a new type of employee owned and controlled corporation (EOCC). This new type of corporation would have been exempt from most federal taxes. John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, an organization that promotes lower tax rates, has said, "Ron Paul has always proven himself to be a leader in the fight for taxpayer rights and fiscal responsibility... No one can match his record on behalf of taxpayers." Paul has been called a "Taxpayer's Friend" by Berthoud's organization every year since he returned to Congress in 1996, scoring an average percentage of 100%, tying for the highest score (averaged from 1992 to 2005) among all 2008 Presidential candidates who have served in Congress, along with Tom Tancredo.[50] National Federation of Independent Business president Jack Farris has said, "Congressman Ron Paul is a true friend of small business.... He is committed to a pro-small-business agenda of affordable health insurance, lower taxes, tort reform, and the elimination of burdensome mandates."[51] Paul has stated: "I agree on getting rid of the IRS, but I want to replace it with nothing, not another tax. But let's not forget the inflation tax."[52][53] He has advocated that the reduction of government will make an income tax unnecessary.[54] In other statements he has suggested that a national sales tax may be one possibility if all taxes can not be eliminated. Paul's opposition to the Federal Reserve is supported by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which holds that instead of containing inflation, the Federal Reserve, in theory and in practice, is responsible for causing inflation. In addition to eroding the value of individual savings, this creation of inflation leads to booms and busts in the economy. Thus Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He has stated in numerous speeches that most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the central bank because it funds many government activities. He says that to compensate for eliminating the "hidden tax"[55]of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.[56][57] His warnings of impending economic crisis and a loss of confidence in the dollar in 2005 and 2006 were at the time derided by many economists, however events in 2007 seem to vindicate his positions.[citation needed] [edit] Minimize federal interference Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market process.[58] He also endorses defederalization of the health care system. Paul was one of only three members of Congress that voted against the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In a speech on the House floor, Ron Paul stated that the act "imposes costly new regulations on the financial services industry... [that]... are damaging American capital markets by providing an incentive for small US firms and foreign firms to deregister from US stock exchanges".[59] In an interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Paul said he favors ending the United States Post Office legal monopoly on first class mail delivery by legalizing private competition.[60] [edit] Opposition to inflation and the Federal Reserve Paul sees inflation as a destructive tax on Americans, and sees the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1914 and its ability to "print money out of thin air" as responsible for eroding the value of money. In 1982, Ron Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U.S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has voiced concern over the dominance of the debt-based monetary system and called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through a gradual re-introduction of hard currency including both gold and silver.[12] A commodity standard binds currency issue to the value of that commodity rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the commodity. Ron Paul condemns the role of the Federal Reserve in creating inflation.[61][62] The Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in their monetary role by Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and 6, and Section Ten, Clause 1, "The Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal tender." The Commission also recommended that the federal government "... restore a definition for the term 'dollar.' We suggest defining a 'dollar' as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine."[63] Paul has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions.[64] In 2002 he proposed legislation abolishing the Federal Reserve Board, enabling “America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold.”[65] He opposes dependency on paper fiat money, but also says that there "were some shortcomings of the gold standard of the 19th century... because it was a fixed price and caused confusion." He adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."[66] Rather than tying the U.S. dollar to gold, he supports authorizing gold and silver as legal tender and removing the sales tax on these, so that parallel currencies can be compete on a level playing ground with the Federal Reserve fiat dollar. He believes this would eventually result in eliminating the ability of the Federal Reserve to "tax" Americans through inflation (reduce the purchasing power of the currency they are holding),[67] which he sees as a form of theft. Paul suggests that current efforts to sustain dollar hegemony, especially since collapse of the Bretton Woods system following the United States' suspension of the dollar's conversion to gold in 1971, exacerbate a rationale for war. Consequently, when petroleum producing nations like Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela elect to trade in Petroeuro instead of Petrodollar, it devalues an already overly inflated dollar, further eroding its supremacy as a global currency. According to Paul, along with vested American interests in oil and plans to "remake the Middle East", this scenario has proven a contributing factor for the war against Iraq and diplomatic tensions with Iran.[68][69]
i wouldnt claim that they are majority positions, but to call them 'extreme minority' would be inaccurate, especially among conservatives, imo. in fact, i would say that most conservatives favor states rights over federal. maybe to a lesser extent getting out of the un and going back to the gold standard, but i would argue that most conservatives are unhappy w/ the un and our habit of printing money that is based on nothing. i just think if you are trying to paint paul as some wacko-extremist these 3 examples are not really valid and the blog on a whole doesnt really do anything to discredit the guy. especially when they cite anonymous posters on david duke message boards as an indictment of the congressman. that is stuff bill o'reilly does.
Except that quote is misused by the fringe. Here's the full passage from Wilson's The New Freedom... So, the quote you cite for Wilson has him discussing the trusts and big business conglomerations, not the Federal Reserve. And part of that quote is nowhere in this passage. Where is it? The latter part of the "quote" is indeed in The New Freedom, but those ellipses cover 5 pages and a chapter break. Even then, he's not talking about the Federal Reserve but private monopolies and the influence of money on government... And of course, Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act. (Not that it really matters, but it does bug me when quotes are misused or misattributed to historical figures.)
I should have also noted that if you Google the quote provided by weslinder, you get all kinds of far right conspiracy-type sites with names like... liberty tree gold news gold tent unexplained mysteries American Free Press antinewworldorder ...and they all seem to attribute Wilson's quote as if he's talking about the Federal Reserve with some even prefacing it with Wilson saying he regretting ruining his country by signing the bill. The sites also include more than a few references to the Rothschilds.
I would think those three issues - exit the UN return to a gold or silver standard and state supremacy above all federal authority to be all garner single digit support among Americans. Obviously if you reduce the field to only Republicans, you significantly increase the percentage. My guess is the UN would garner the most support by far, since the UN is a constantly apparent irritant. My guess is just under 10% of Americans would support the UN issue, with 2-3% for the other two. I would qualify that as fringe support.
Actually Wilson is right on target, he is speaking to the nation's system of credit and it is concentrated in the hands of the few. (for us today the Fed) The Fed ensures this, the Fed doesn't make its profits off the government debt, it makes it off the private and business lending. (EDIT- I'm speaking of the entire system, member banks and the regional Fed banks also) By law the Fed is not allowed to profit off govt. debt. The problem with the Fed is they create the debt for the government and they profit off of expanding credit in the private and business sector. For every dollar in reserve for lending purposes they are profiting 40-50% depending on how many times they are able to leverage the reserves. Once a dollar is loaned it is booked as a reserve and loaned again. That is the creating money aspect where the Fed owners make their profits. To simplify we call it inflation. It is actually a loss of purchase power through debt expansion. The Fed governors are not elected they are appointed and they don't apppoint people who oppose fractional reserve banking.
Paul only favors exit from the UN the other two positions can be found if you search his positions. I linked wikipedia but I am sure he has positions on his websites you could check for accuracy. Swinging him over to the fringe extremist wacko characterization can only be done by misquotes, misinformation and misunderstanding. I already admit he is off from the views of most voters. But I don't think he is a wacko. To paint him as one is sad to me, just go to his website and read his weekly position papers. His views if not right are at the least logical and presented with reason and explanation.
You do understand that Wilson wrote The New Freedom after he signed the Federal Reserve Act and saw the power he had given to the banks, right? Wilson's signing of the Federal Reserve Act was well out of character, though ideologically, he might have been our most liberal/progressive President. (He even argued for a change to a Parliamentary system.) He campaigned on a platform of continuing Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting, but did little of it when he got into office. Although he was one of our most "effective" and perhaps visionary Presidents, Wilson was mostly a pawn of the Rockefellers, du Ponts, et al., that financed his election.
These are the issues that jo mamma brought up in relation with Paul. I am only responding. I will let the two of you fight about what Paul believes.
It's clear what Wilson is talking about... the greatest recent examples would be Enron... Haliburton... Countrywide and that other sub-prime lender company. He's not talking about the Fed... see my next post.
I do understand that The New Freedom was a compilation of his campaign speeches before he was elected. I understand it was published before Wilson was sworn in. I understand the Federal Reserve Act was signed on December 23, 1913, months after Wilson became president. I do understand that Wilson actively promoted the Federal Reserve Act. Here's a NYTimes article published on February 17, 1913 (remember, inauguration was in March back then) talking about how Governor Wilson has just published this book called The New Freedom... http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E0DE2D7163FE633A25754C1A9649C946296D6CF Here's another article from the NYTimes vault that has Wilson explaining why the Federal Reserve system is a good, Progressive step for farmers... http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F03E0DB113CE733A25756C1A9669D946796D6CF ... and that's from 1916. Doesn't sound like he has a lot of regrets. Here's another showing Wilson signed a 1917 amendment to the Federal Reserve Act that increases the balances... http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A02EED8123BE03ABC4B51DFB066838C609EDE I could go on. And regarding your statement that You do understand that Teddy was running in that election as the head of the Bull Moose Party and that Wilson's other opponent was Taft. You do understand that Wilson's New Freedom was meant to oppose Teddy's New Nationalism. And your last sentence shows your abysmal knowledge of history. First, read Wilson's own words in the excerpts form my previous post. Second, he advocated and signed the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act. He signed child labor and 8 hour work day laws and a bunch of other similar stuff. He was not a pawn of the Rockefellers and Du Ponts.
actually i brought them up in response to the blog which was posted attacking paul. if he is actually against those things than perhaps the blogger should have done a better job researching his article instead of throwing out baseless accusations of racism and digging up quotes from random posters on david dukes website.
i always thought states rights was a central principle of the conservative movement? not bush of course, who went to the supreme court when the florida state court wanted to continue counting ballots, but he isnt a real conservative anyway. for what its worth, here is a youtube debate poll where 57% of respondents answered yes to the question... Should states have the power to veto federal policies? http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/states_rights.HTM?survey if you can find anything to back up your claims of 2-3% support for states rights over federal i would love to see it. and i really dont think a desire to restrain our out of control printing of money by actually backing it up with something real is that radical or wacko an idea.
I don't think it’s been a legitimate issue since the Civil War. There are plenty of people who believe in less federal government, but I know of very few who think the States should have absolute ability to override the federal. The debate as I have understood it has been for the federal government to back away. I don't know of many people who argue, for instance, that states should be able to legalize slavery despite federal laws against it. And I hope that you can understand that I have no faith in the scientific accuracy of a poll on 'youdebate.com'. The only statistics I could find on any of those three shows that 13% of Americans want the US to leave the UN, so I was pretty close to being correct on that (I said 9% IIRC?). The other two, I can't find legitimate figures on, but I believe that my numbers are not wildly inaccurate.
I know he was not talking about the Fed, that was my point. But it applies to the Fed. He was talking about the credit system, banks controlled by industrialists. The Fed just proves his point. If you're feeling brave read this one book- The Creature from Jekyll Island http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986212
i never advocated an 'absolute ability' and i dont think paul does either. sorry if there was a misunderstanding there. i think we are talking about the the same philosophy here when we talk about "states rights". it is less about giving 'absolute ability' to states and more about removing the 'absolute' authority of the federal government on issues that should be left to individual states, be it gay marriage in mass, medical mar1juana in cali or election laws in florida circa nov. 2000 (in that case, the fed staying out of state affairs).
No. I'm sorry, but you are just flat wrong on this one. He wasn't talking about the Fed and his words do not describe the Fed, no matter how hard you squint. This quote by Wilson had been pieced together and misused for a bunch of years by the right wing whackos you claim Paul has no affiliation with, but you are proving my point over this trivial bit of history by buying into their interpretation of Wilson's words that is absolutely, unequivocally wrong.
Did you read my post? It is plain and obvious he wasn't talking about the Fed. What he said applies to the Fed. The Fed as we know it wasn't even around when he made his remarks. There have been over 100 changes to the powers of the Fed since the law was passed and signed by Wilson. The quote by Wilson is misused if it is used to justify those who believe he regretted signing the legislation, we don't clearly know how he felt about that on his death bed. But whether he was playing politics or being honest ( ) the whole line of thought he is quoted in context as understanding that the system of credit in a nation can destroy the nation especially if a small group controls the credit. Credit is manipulated by central banks. If you do not think the Fed acts as a Central Bank please read that book. Take a 2nd look at the Federal Reserve. I think the US has had 5 central banks and only the Fed has survived. The others were stopped. Central banking has been the ploy of choice in Europe since the 17th century to tax and control national economies.
