FeedsRon Paul and Civil Liberties
I just can't figure out what I should think about Ron Paul. I know I'm not a registered Republican, so it's kind of moot at this point, but if he won the nomination, I know that I would have to seriously consider him. He's said some pretty intelligent things about foreign policy and civil liberties, but he's also called for eliminating most of the social, health, and human care programs run by the federal government, including the Department of Education. Granted, most federal programs have had issues, but eliminating them would only make things worse.
In any event, I learned today that on the 15th Dr. Paul, as his supporters are so fond of calling him, introduced an amazing bill: American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007. The bill does just about everything I could ever hope Congress would do regarding civil liberties:
- Eliminate military commissions, except when needed to preserve evidence or avoid anarchy
- Prevent the president from labeling foreigners enemy combatants without proof or citizens at all
- Provide the writ of habeas corpus to all enemy combatants
- Prevent any court from admitting evidence obtained by torture
- Prevent federal agencies from gathering surveillance in contradiction of FISA
- Allow Congress to bring a court case to challenge the constitutionality of a signing statement
- Prevent the government from performing extraordinary rendition, while allowing for rendition in certain cases
- Exempt journalists from the Espionage Act of 1917, unless immediate harm is likely to result
- Prevent the federal government from using secret evidence to designate and individual or organization a terrorist
It is truly heartening to see spelled out so completely and plainly everything I have seen go wrong with our government's attitude toward civil liberties.
On the other hand, am I being myopic and seeing only this large, looming issue of civil liberties and foreign affairs? Is it possible or wise to embrace Paul for his extremely astute statements in one area, while ignoring his incredibly wrongheaded views elsewhere?
Stumble It!We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options,
try reading the
wikipedia article or the
official style guide.
Comments
Comments from site editors have a darker background than comments from everybody else.I think you're missing his anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption, and anti-universal health care stances. He probably also prefers cake over pie.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Yeah... I didn't want to make it a littany of reasons to hate Ron Paul, but there you go.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Anti-abortion. Well, delivering 4,000 babies and seeing a unborn put into a bucket crying and dieing in the corner of a room tends to make you that way. Also, it's pretty contradicting to have a double homicide if you kill a pregnant women, an unborn has inheritance rights, and if a doctor does something wrong with an unborn he can get sued. Leave it up to the states, he says. Even if you are pro-choice, there are much major issues in this country going on that need to be fixed.
Anti-gay marriage? Voting against the definition of marriage and saying "leave it up to the states" is far from. A man who wants smaller government and doesn't think marriage should be a federal matter, or a state matter in his opinion, but a religious matter. But again, leave it up to the states.
You are referring to what? The D.C. bill? This is false because he voted against an amendment, the Largent of Oklahoma Amendment to HR2587 of the 106th Congress, which was "to prohibit any [federal] funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage." He also went on to vote against the entire funding bill.
Anti-universal health care? Um, yes? Have you ever been to a VA hospital? Canada? Gotta wait 9 months to see if you have cancer? The reason healthcare sucks now is because we have managed healthcare. Before the 1970s healthcare was much better, then the government, HMOs, etc etc. got involved and instead of doctor-patient relationships we have doctor-insurance/government-relationships. National Healthcare is the most overrated policy I've heard, and the fact that these insurance companies are lobbying for it as they have been for the past years tells me something.
So please, get the record straight before you go "anti-Paul".
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Aw, cute, a Ron Paul supporter! You must be so happy to finally have friends online.
Throwing out a few normative statements backed up by... well... nothing.. isn't setting the record straight, it's making your opinion heard. Glad to hear it! Wait, no, I'm not.
You see, I'm a progressive. As a progressive, I believe in the power and ability of people to organize themselves for the improvement of society, through government and other institutions (as eloquently put by BlueOregon). You're trying to convince me to be a libertarian. Get the fuck off my lawn and go try and convert somebody else. Or, better yet, don't.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Aborted fetuses do not cry. As someone who works in a funeral home, I can assure you that ALL stillborn fetuses are put in buckets - it sounds horrible, but it is how it has to be done. It's not contradicting to hold all of those views. Carrying a baby to term is a medical decision, carrying a number of risks to the mother. If a woman with her doctor decides to not undertake that task, it should be her right to terminate the fetus. However, if someone else does something to that fetus, the mother is clearly harmed and legal structures should be in place to prevent that. Finally, as a recent study has shown, outlawing abortion does not affect the rate of abortion, but does make abortion safer.
I just can't agree with anyone who thinks marriage is a religious matter. Marriage is a civil union that many people solemnize through a religious ceremony. Rationalizing the stance by saying it's not a federal matter is like saying the feds should have stayed out of civil rights issues in the 60s. Just because states want something, doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it.
As you can see here Dr. Paul voted "aye" to the Largent of Oklahoma Amendment. He did vote against the funding bill itself, but that's kind of irrelevant.
Anecdotal arguments against universal health care are completely empty. The simple fact is, the United States pays far more per capita on health care than any other industrialized nation and has nothing to show for it. Our health outcomes are at best on par with the rest of the West and in many areas worse. Our life expectancy is significantly lower than other industrialized nations. How are those countries able to provide the same or better outcomes for less? Universal healthcare.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Witigonen: Not just for haters anymore.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
I absolutely agree, James. I don't agree with any number of his positions on issues such as social stances and the size of government. But when it comes to civil liberties he's just about perfect. His foreign policy stances are good too. But he's like a demi-god on civil liberties.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
I admit I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's positions. These include abortion, immigration, and church-state separation. I'm also uncomfortable with some of the things he has to say about the Federal Reserve.
Having said that, I agree with him 100% on foreign policy and, more importantly, all of the domestic issues mentioned in the American Freedom Agenda Act. In my opinion, these are the most dangerous issues we face today.
No candidate is perfect. But on the issues I consider the most important, Ron Paul is the candidate for me.
P.S. As a retired Air Force Master Sergeant, I admire the fact that Ron Paul takes his oath to the Constitution as seriously as I take mine.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
You're really willing to overlook his strong, visceral negatives and go with him based purely on that Agenda? What about the efforts of people like Chris Dodd to "restore the Constitution" as he says, especially considering his leadership on FISA? And, what about my personal choice, John Edwards?
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
As a progressive, I believe in the power and ability of people to organize themselves for the improvement of society, through government and other institutions
but he's also called for eliminating most of the social, health, and human care programs run by the federal government, including the Department of Education.
Well, how do you guys think the report card looks after 40+ years of government taking over health care, welfare, schools, and social work? They've spent us $9 trillion in debt and rising fast, both parties, and no one can seriously claim that education has improved in this country in the past two generations, or that health care costs aren't absolutely out of control, or that the gap between rich and poorer is widening. Ready to take a look at a new approach? We're both spending ourselves into poverty and failing to solve the problems we're spending so much money on.
Read some of Dr. Paul's writings on domestic social spending here at [ronpaullibrary.com]. You will find that the same hands-off approach you favor in Iraq translates well back here.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Yes.. that debt... Sure looks like it's the progressive movement's fault.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Wow! Frank Zappa commented on your blog! AND he's a Ron Paul supporter!
AMAZING!@@!!
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Like a demi-god on civil liberties? Huh?
To me there is no greater civil liberty than to control your reproductive future - the right to choose to procreate or not to procreate.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Well said, Kari. Well said.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
I strongly disagree that that would be the greatest civil liberty. There are any number of other civil liberties without which that one would really only secure a woman's choice of whether or not to bring another person into living without much liberty.
Would the choice to not have a baby who would also not enjoy any right against arbitrary imprisonment REALLY be the "greatest"?
Furthermore, and I've been down this road many times before and thus know that it won't be discussed without red herrings and strawmen galore, granting half the population a significantly larger choice over whether to procreate or not is no more just than granting the part of the population with white skin more rights than those without. And yes, I am familiar with Roe v. Wade. It is NOT predicated upon sovereignty over one's body. That is a supporting argument thrown in by Chief Justice Blackmun, but it's far from his pivotal argument in favor of granting the right of abortion.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.