More Active Posts
Front Page
Ron Paul 2.0
 |
 112 Comments |
TIME magazine asks: Is Ron Paul the new presidential candidate 2.0? According to social media outlets on the web, Mr. Paul is racking up.
The Web does reveal how involved U.S. Internet users are with a candidate’s Web 2.0 presence, and again Ron Paul comes out on top. If we look at the traffic flowing from websites like MySpace, Facebook and YouTube, the candidate with the most visits from those sites is Ron Paul, followed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But if Ron Paul tops all of the Web metrics for popularity, like searches and traffic from social networks, then how can he be so far down in the Gallup Poll?
Is it because the people who inhabit the world of Web 2.0 and Facebook don’t care to get out and rock the vote?
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
One more diversion
How do I “get out and rock the vote” with the Gallup poll? No primary yet.
One of the key questions to ask about the statistics stating “survey of 100 people says….” is; which people were surveyed? That goes for the Gallup Poll as well as internet traffic.
There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Any statement that says “statistics don’t lie” fits the second category of the above.
Two words: Howard Dean.
Had a tremendous on-line presence, but not enough real-world support. He fizzled after not winning most primaries.
I suspect there is still a disconnect between on-line political life, and the real word.
This would be a shame, since I have more respect for Ron Paul than for many others. Not much electability, unlike Romney, but seems to have more character and integrity.
I’d argue that despite our assumptions and wishes, we tech-savvy blog-posters are not the entire population. People with regular internet access are only a subset of the population, and people involved in “Web 2.0″ things like blogs, social networking sites, YouTube, etc. are a subset of Internet users. I don’t want to make too much of the “digital divide”, but I think we forget that side of things sometimes.
In some ways, the blogosphere (there’s another overhyped coined phrase to make this post sound as buzzwordy as possible) is its own subculture. We assume people outside our subculture are just like us, knowing all about Ron Paul, “all your base are belong to us”, forum trolls, and the other memes that make up this culture, but to those not in it, it’s a different world.
I would argue that although “Web 2.0 people” are in many ways cultural trend-setters for the mainstream, some things take longer than others to hit the mainstream. Will it be too late for Ron Paul? Who knows? Probably not the pollsters, who are trying to work with today’s guesses to predict tomorrow, when those guesses might not even describe today accurately.
Ron Paul is Jimmy Carter with a look of “suprise”.
I’d also argue that the word “meme” is itself an Internet-promoted meme that most people in the mainstream have never heard of.
Now my posts are both buzzwordy and postmodernly self-referential. How incredibly hip!
Ron Paul is like the hot but sketchy biker dude from across town. Good little voters find him exciting to date, but when it comes to marrying a candidate they’ll pick someone a little safer.
OK, here comes a question straight from my Web 1.5ishness: how is “meme” pronounced?
As a Ron Paul fan, I’ve been following headlines regarding his campaign. You’ve got it wrong, HSK, when you say this:
Look at Ron Pauls’s performance in all the state primaries. He wins many of them, and places very highly in most. That’s because his supporters are passionate and organized. Quite the opposite of what you’ve inferred, in any contest where feet-on-the-ground has mattered, Ron Paul has placed very well, and far above his traditional polling.
So that begs the question — why does he place so low in traditional polling? You seem to believe that Gallup polls are some kind of test of determined and active voters. But they’re not. They’re just phone calls to a very few random households. Some large percentage of random households do not follow or care about politics much at all, they just see the big names to whom the media gives a lot of air time. This large percentage has internalized the narrative that the media is creating about each candidate (Guiliani — tough on terrorism but socially liberal; Romney — handsome and suave newcomer but are we ready for a Mormon; McCain — tough old bulldog but a has-been at this point; etc.), and respond to the poll accordingly.
But are these random households the people who are going to show up for their state nominating convention? No, the people who will pay to attend a straw poll are. And, again, look at Paul’s performance in the straw polls.
Oops. I said “primaries” in line 3. I meant “straw polls”
Definition of ‘meme’
Idea within a post that does not quite constitute a ‘meme’ among bloggers, meme refers to an idea passed from one blog to another.
Will Ron Paul’s popularity on-line translate to the ‘real world’ primary? Way more than the political and media elite think it will.
Why? First of all, the internet. Ron Paul has been involved on the internet for a long time. Only since the last presidential election has the internet become so widely used that it propagates news to the populace faster than traditional news outlets. Social networking and video sharing sites encourage everyone to remain interested and involved in more people’s lives simultaneously. The internet has pushed traditional media to reform their model. Because of his popularity on the internet (and his willingness to talk to regular folk honestly about real issues), Ron Paul has now been a guest on many television shows, reaching the non-internet savvy folk.
Second: the appeal to traditional conservatism. A generation ago, Ron Paul wouldn’t have been called a libertarian; he would have been called a conservative. These conservatives have been alienated by the democratic-republican establishment. While many of them voted republican, their vote was only half-hearted. Now they have a candidate they can throw their whole weight behind, and they have. Even Ron Paul himself has been surprised how much grass-roots support he has received.
A third reason Ron Paul is a front-runner in this election is college students and young adults. This is the segment of the population that usually has abysmal turnout at the polls. Thus traditional election predictions tend to ignore the relatively minor effect of college students’ votes. Ron Paul is the first presidential candidate to arouse students from their slumber. As a student at a major public university, I can see the difference on campus. Adults age 18-24 are excited about Ron Paul. This segment of the population is more than enough to swing the vote.
Fourth, open primaries. Many states have open primary systems, where one does not have to be registered as a republican to vote in the republican primary. I’ve talked to many democrats who intend to vote in the republican primary.
In conclusion: Will Ron Paul win the presidency? I don’t know. I do know that he is not a second-tier candidate. I predict Ron Paul will place first or second in the Republican primary. Ron Paul is the only republican who has a chance to beat Barack Obama in the general election.
By ignoring Ron Paul, the mainstream media has only invigorated Ron Paul supporters all the more. They are on a mission. I like their tactic. Rather than saying, “Vote Ron Paul”, I see signs all over the place which read, “Who is Ron Paul–ronpaul2008.com”. I.e., don’t blindly follow a party or candidate; study the issues for yourself instead of just listening to what the politicians are telling the public.
#7:
I believe “meme” is pronounced “meem” with a long E sound. It almost rhymes with “gene”, from which I believe it is derived. For more info, check out the very “Web 2.0″ Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia[dot org]/wiki/Meme
http://en.wikipedia[dot org]/wiki/Internet_meme
Gallup polls are telephone based polls. Many internet users are savvy enough to avoid spam telephone calls.
Internet polls sometimes catch these people but miss people who don’t or can’t use the internet.
Gallup polls tend to predict elections with a fair amount of accuracy so they can’t be discounted.
Ron Paul can be overdramatic. This will hurt him in a widespread election but may gather certain segments of the population who strongly agree with his ideologies.
Hillary and Giuliani are still the frontrunners. Once the field narrows, this might change. The Hillary-haters who want to vote for a democrat might band together with Obama and the Republicans might gather together under a pro-life candidate once the field narrows. Giuliani and Hillary might be better off with more candidates than with less.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, donato, but comment #4 was funny. (You even spelled “surprise” like President Carter pronounced it!)
Ron Paul will not finish higher than fourth in any Republican primary and has no chance for the nomination. Why? Because Republican voters realize that he means it when he says he wants limited government and most of them are smart enough to realize that doing so would end the Republican Party.
Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance. His idea of limited government isn’t going to work. I brought this point up on another thread regarding the ‘Amber Alert’- this particular bill which Ron Paul voted against will ruin any chance he ever had for the Presidency.
As far as ‘Poll’s go, most people are smart enough not to engage in telephone polls.
FROM #14: I can’t believe I’m saying this, donato, but comment #4 was funny.
I don’t like Ron Pauls ideas of just running away conserning Iraq. I feel he would be a really weak and ineffective president. That being said, I still think Bush has grossly mismanaged absolutley everything he has touched. It’s like they are opposite ends of a bowl of recycled Happy Meal.
Why does Ron Paul do well on the Internet? Because Ron Paul supporters are experts at falsely manipulating Internet polls. Why does he do well at straw polls? Because (a) no one goes to straw polls, and (b) the same 500 people are going from poll to poll across the country. Unless they can figure out a way for those 500 to get 100,000 real votes each, he won’t see the new year. He certainly should be dropped from debates already. It’s time for the adults to speak.
|
||
||
||
|
(my virtual top hat, tipped sideways)
… which I will dine on if Ron Paul does any better than Howard Dean in actual primaries.
Maybe he’s the greatest political visionary ever. But people are staying away in droves, and it’s kind of hard to explain that away.
To #13,
Giuliani the Republican frontrunner? He’s more of a warmonger than GWB. He won’t make it past Iowa and New Hampshire, if he even makes it that far. He’s way too offensive. Romney is more likely, since he’s a smooth speaker out of both sides of his mouth. And, he’s ‘personally against abortion’.
Live by the web, die by the web. There’s way too much information out there about how radical Ron Paul really is to allow for him to pick up anything but the disaffected fringe.
I suspect that Dean was a one-off phenomenon–the web explosion was just old enough and its younger demographics were just young enough to allow a sneak attack on the traditional system.
Nobody’s surprised now.
Theo does raise a really good point about telephone polling, though. With tons of folks switching to cellular only, with no directories to randomly choose from, and others using much more sophisticated call screening, I suspect that poll inaccuracy is going to be a much larger problem in the future.
I wonder what the regular marketing folks are doing about that.
Ron Paul is Ross Perot 2.0, and the same sort of people - in many cases exactly the same people are backing him as backed Perot.
The difference between Ron Paul and Ross Perot is Ron Paul is running as a Republican.
Post number 20
#23 has a point. Unfortunately, in a real pragmatic sense we have a two-party system. Positions on the issues don’t matter as much as party affiliation to a lot of people. Perception is everything. C’est la vie, or rather, c’est la politique!
Here are the most recent polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
I’m sure there’s a bit of overlap in the bast for Perot and Paul. However, Perot was very pro-abortion. Paul is very much against it. That makes a big difference, I’d think.
Also, maybe if Christians started voting their consciences instead of being pragmatic all the time we wouldn’t be stuck with the icky parties we have now. I intend to honor God with my vote and let Him do with it what He will.
In addition to his running as a Republican (which I think makes him a more viable candidate pragmatically for those who care about such things), I agree with Cathy in #27, which makes Paul an appealing candidate on principle. His medical experience adds even more weight to Paul’s statements when he says he stands for the rights of the most vulnerable.
Cathy - 27
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
This Bill passed, but Ron Paul voted NO, and you think he is pro-life?
Bill Number: S 403
Issue: Family and Children Issues
Date: 09/26/2006
Sponsor:Sponsor: Sen Ensign, John [NV]
Official Title of Legislation: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
S 403: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.
Evangelicals should all just write “Jesus Christ” on their ballot as a write-in candidate. When Jesus realizes that He won the election, he would return to govern the USA.
If you don’t have enough faith to write “Jesus Christ” on your ballot, then pick a mortal candidate. You’ll have to accept that he is flawed though.
Republicans pick from the following flaws:
1. Pro-abortion
2. Flip-flopper
3. Old
4. Out of touch with reality and a bit crazy
5. Uncommitted and lazy
Democrats pick from the following flaws:
1. Tainted by corruption
2. Inexperienced, idealistic
3. Living in two different worlds
#24, Romney isn’t my first pick, but to be fair, he has explained that comment, and his explanation doesn’t amount to flip-flopping or spin. The first thing he wants to happen is for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, which would return abortion legislation to the states. After that he would like to see a Constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. I think he could have been more clear about this, but I don’t think he is lying about his position.
The difference between Ron Paul and Ross Perot is Ron Paul is running as a Republican.
That pretty much sums up the essential difference. But the supporters are the same, with the same glassy-eyed zealotry and very small but very loud numbers.
Hmm…
#30 is correct. I looked it up. Here is Ron Paul’s reasoning on why he did it:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr063099.htm
Ron Paul is second only to Barack Obama in campaign contributions from military personnel.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say maybe, just maybe, our soldiers see the futility of our military occupation of Iraq and want to come home.
Source:
sahra.notlong.com
#30,
Congress didn’t need to make a new law forbidding driving a minor across state lines without parental consent.
Last I checked, kidnapping is already illegal.
NONAME - 24
Romeny doesn’t explain to anyones satisfaction as to what he believes about abortion. He wants the states to have the last word, and that is a COP OUT.
“My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation,” Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. “Instead, I would let states make their choices.”
This statement is about as clear as you can be, unless of course, Romney got back to his desk, rethought the whole thing, received two dozen phone calls, 100 emails, and then plays the ‘teeter totter’ game which he plays so often.
NONAME, this is a statement which Romney made, he certainly wouldn’t be trying overturn Roe vs. Wade after making this one.
Hang on to that limb, A, because it’s about to break off!
Nice catch, Victoria! Yes, this is Fred Thompson’s position as well.
As for Ron Paul, as a libertarian, he operates on the assumption that people are basically good and will do the right thing, given the freedom through smaller government to do so. What a lovely thought!
I have learned that even if a huge majority of us mind our own business and do the right thing, there will always be that percentage, however small, who gum up the works by wrong behavior, and a larger percentage of people who need help because of the aforementioned group, and on and on. Because no man is an island (apologies to Mr. Donne).
I wish Ron Paul well but he has no-management management style that won’t work in wartime. Like #17, I can’t see him presiding over the next few years of this war with any kind of determination or boldness.
Moonpie,
You are wrong in assuming that Ron Paul thinks people are basically good and will do the right thing if given the freedom to do so. He’s debated too many congressman in Washington to believe that!
Ron Paul is a deplorable man who has signed on to many deplorable conspiracy theories.
1) 1988 was accusing Bush Sr. of dealing Drugs
2) accuses Bush Jr, and the Commander in Chief, of trying to impose martial law through devious means with no proof, just idiocy…….goes on anti-semite radio shows like Alex “the joos did 9/11″ Jones on a regular basis, gives by presence support to the 9/11 Truth movement.
3) wants to disband the CIA and FBI, with no plan for how the country would get intelligence to defend itself.
does one logical fallacy after another and is the anti-liberty, operationally anarchist candidate.
is Pro-Choice, even though he claims to be pro-life. Just ask NARAL, they rate him at 75% on their side of the debate….anti-death penalty and all and all a kook.
The internet is full of gullible youth, which today the ‘youth’ extends into the 30’s….and crazy people searching for “answers”
A-
I was just going to comment on the military campaign contributions shift. They like Obama and Paul. It will be interesting to see if their votes follow their financial support.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More specifically, the drop-off for Republican support within the Army is striking. Before the war, 71% of Army campaign contributions went to the GOP. This year, that number is down to 51%. So, the GOP’s advantage went from more than 2-to-1 before the war, to near-parity now.
Just as surprising is which candidates are benefiting from this shift.
[Barack] Obama, who has never served in the military, has brought in more contributions from uniformed service members — about $27,000 — than any other presidential hopeful, Democrat or Republican. “I feel that he’s the most progressive candidate and he stands for change,” Griggs said. “I believe he is that breath of fresh air that we need to get this country back on course.”
Among GOP candidates, Ron Paul, the only Republican who opposes the war, has brought in the biggest haul from the military since the start of the 2008 election cycle in January — at least $19,250. Republican John McCain, a Vietnam War prisoner who backs the administration’s policy in Iraq, has raised $18,600. Paul, who was a flight surgeon in the Air Force, got nearly twice as much from servicemen and women in the campaign’s first six months as GOP fundraising front-runner Mitt Romney and four times more than better-known candidate Rudy Giuliani.
Moonpie
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.
Bill HR 2586 ; vote number 2001-356 on Sep 25, 2001
Moonpie, I don’t know how ANYONE can fatham not protecting our borders against terrorism, and then add to that drugs. Maybe Ron Paul was taking a snooze on 9-11 and forgot to tune into what the US faced that horrific day. I bet Osama, is jumping up and down over the thought of Ron Paul sitting in the Oval Office.
Moonpie
Ron Paul 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.
Bill HR 2586 ; vote number 2001-356 on Sep 25, 2001
Moonpie, I don’t know how ANYONE can fatham not protecting our borders against terrorism, and then add to that drugs. Maybe Ron Paul was taking a snooze on 9-11 and forgot to tune into what the US faced that horrific day. I bet Osama, is jumping up and down over the thought of Ron Paul sitting in the Oval Office.
Ron Paul is second only to Barack Obama in campaign contributions from military personnel.
actually this is a LIE and comes from either bad reporting or purposefully bad reporting.
Military Donations
Paul’s contributions, which he requires unlike other candidates to put down occupation, comes from a whopping 23 military personell.
Moonpie
Ron Paul 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.
Bill HR 2586 ; vote number 2001-356 on Sep 25, 2001
Moonpie, I don’t know how ANYONE can fatham not protecting our borders against terrorism, and then add to that drugs. Maybe Ron Paul was taking a snooze on 9-11 and forgot to tune into what the US faced that horrific day. I bet Osama, is jumping up and down over the thought of Paul sitting in the Oval Office.
Loud zealotry doesn’t work well at gaining public support in the USA. Ron Paul’s zealots won’t convert the masses.
Look at the anti-war movement. It has struggled to receive attention because it has attacted too many zealots. Everyone with an axe to grind rushed to take up the anti-war banner. Conspiracy theorists, anarchists, wiccans, and others tried to join forces. In the end the message came out too forceful and too angry and not at all peaceful. It also came wrapped in hate and dipped in anti-americanism.
Ron Paul attracts zealots. He needs everyday Americans to succeed in being elected. He need regular 9 to 5 Americans who feel that he is one of them.
This is how Bush won. He made himself regular. He was a straight-shooter. He didn’t use fancy talk.
Who in the current election is using this strategy? I would argue that Obama is the most likely to succeed with this strategy. But only if Hillary can be depicted as corrupt politics as usual. People liked Bill. Hillary is seen as a replacement for Bill.
Moonpie
Ron Paul 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.
Bill HR 2586 ; vote number 2001-356 on Sep 25, 2001
Moonpie, I don’t know how ANYONE can fatham not protecting our borders against terrorism, and then add to that drugs. Maybe Ron Paul was taking a snooze on 9-11 and forgot to tune into what the US faced that horrific day. I bet Osama, is jumping up and down over the thought of Paul sitting in the Oval Office.
NONAME, this is a statement which Romney made, he certainly wouldn’t be trying overturn Roe vs. Wade after making this one.
Victoria (and moonpie), you are mistaken. Overturning Roe v. Wade would do precisely what Romney indicates and only what Romney indicates. Before Roe v. Wade, abortion laws were left up to the states, and such laws varied widely. Once Roe v. Wade is overturned, that will again be the state of affairs. So why wouldn’t he be making the statement — describing what overturning Roe will accomplish — and then not want Roe to be overturned?
Sorry about this posting 3 times -
the most fundamental and First of all Civil Rights is National Security, Ron Paul is effectively against it and wants to neuter the govt from defending itself. Is ignorant of radical islam and basic history…why anyone on this site outside of trolls and libs would support the guy is beyond me.
#7 & #12
“Meme” is pronounced
“me”…”me”
Victory
The let-the-states-decide position on abortion will result in the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and is hardly a cop out. The states can’t decide with Roe in place.
over 60% of donations went to the GOP presidential candidates.
now, donations that came from donors that did not designate an employer for example:
Romney = 2,740,696.85
McCain = 2,207,402.39
as for the kook in the race: $100
so RP only got $100 from people who did not declare their occupation, comparing to Romney and McCain for example…needless to say.
so RP the kook, got a whopping $19,000 from donors who claim their occupation is military, and that was divided up by a whopping 23 people. some support.
As for Bush and Obama appealing as regular guys to regular folks, perhaps we should dust off a helpful concept from an unlikely source: Wheel of Fortune host Pat Sajak (hope I’m spelling the name correctly), who has a little website on which he posts political opinions from time to time.
Sajak posited a while back something he called his PUB theory. I can’t remember what P U and B stand for, but the theory amounts to this: in virtually every presidential elections, Americans vote in the guy they would most enjoy having a beer with down at the pub. Think about it:
Bush II v. Kerry (OK, I guess Bush doesn’t drink, but still: beer with Kerry?)
Bush II v. Gore (ditto)
Clinton v. Bush I (who wouldn’t enjoy one story after another from a well-lubricated Clinton?)
Bush v. Tank-Riding Guy from MA. No contest.
Reagan v. Mondale. Be serious.
Reagan v. Carter. Same again.
It breaks down a bit in 1976, but IMO it works pretty well as explanation for 1960-1972, and probably lots of earlier years as well. Adlai Stevenson? Gimme a break. Beer with Harry Truman? Why not?
The let-the-states-decide position on abortion will result in the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and is hardly a cop out.
For clarity, I’d put it the opposite way: Overturning Roe v. Wade (not repealing, which is what legislatures do — but oddly fitting here, I admit) will result in letting the states decide. Some states have pro-life laws at the ready when that day comes. Others will continue to allow abortion until we have an amendment.
For 2008, who would you have a beer with?
Among the major Dems, I think Obama is in front.
GOP: Guliani or Thompson, maybe? I’m trying to picture Ron Paul sitting on the next stool while we swap war stories, and it just ain’t happenin’.
Ron Paul is Pro-Choice, in the Real World
lots of good info there, for those of us in the real world instead of utopia, info like this.
NARAL congress ratings:
Ron Paul:
2006: 65%
2005: 75%
2004: 65%
GOP: Guliani or Thompson, maybe? I’m trying to picture Ron Paul sitting on the next stool while we swap war stories, and it just ain’t happenin’.
better analogy, if you were the Mullah’s in Iran and our nations’ and Liberties enemies who would you rather have as President of the US.
Ron Paul, kook and conspiracy theorist, who is an isolationist and says Iran is no threat to the US and is completely ignorant of islam and the facts of the world like Hizzbollah being a puppet of Iran’s…
or say Duncan Hunter, Rudy, Fred Thompson?
I’d say they’d party of we elected a pacifist, delusional kook like Paul and crap in their pants if we elected the others.
Such a pleasant way with words.
Victoria (30): Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
This Bill passed, but Ron Paul voted NO, and you think he is pro-life?
Frank: At (34), Zanzibar provided the url where you can read Rep. Paul’s own words on why he voted against that bill. I don’t suppose, by any chance, you actually took five minutes to read it?
For your convenience, here it is again: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr063099.htm
This is the 21st Century, Victoria. We’ve got the internet and everything. You really ought to do the brain work and take a “look under the hood” of some of these bills, rather than simply judging them by their titles, and automatically assuming that somebody who votes this way or that must be pro-this or anti-that.
All of which is to say, yes. Ron paul did vote against HR 1218, and yes, he is pro-life. Because, in addition to being pro-life, Ron paul also supports the constitutional principle of states’ rights and limited national government.
If you read his statement, that will be very clear to you.
Now if you still disagree with his voting against this bill because of his constitutional principles, that’s fine. That is your prerogative. But at least have the intellectual honesty to try and understand the man’s postion, rather than bearing false witness against him by simply asserting he does not support the right to life.
Speaking of “dooking one’s drawers,” NONAME 60, I love seeing the GOP hacks and “party faithful” doing just that at the sight of RP’s grassroots prairie fire!
He’s gone from “Ron WHO?” in January to a force to be reckoned with today, and it’s all because of his supporters. (And he’s the first to acknowledge it, too.)
Various towns and other political jurisdictions across the country are calling his campaign to complain and warn them about all the …
RON PAUL R 3VOL UTION
… and …
WHO IS RON PAUL?
… and …
Google RON PAUL
… signs being put up everywhere.
Only thing is, it ain’t the campaign that’s doing it … it’s WE THE PEOPLE! Out of our own pockets! Out of our own time! Out of our own passion!
And that is the ONE thing the GOP machine is scared to death of.
So you might want to go and check your shorts, NONAME 60 …
RP isn’t going to the Oval Office. Don’t take it so hard Frank, maybe Ron Paul can keep his Senate seat…..LOL
FROM #28: I intend to honor God with my vote and let Him do with it what He will.
So you’re voting for God? Are you sure he’s on the ballot?
And here we have Ron Paul showing what a great man he is by voting against the AMBER ALERT bill, but it passed just the same. What a guy!
___________________________________________________________________________________
Offical Title of Legislation: Enhance AMBER Alert bill
S 151: An Act to prevent child abduction and the sexual exploitation of children, and for other purposes.
Project Vote Smart’s Synopsis:
Vote to adopt the conference report that would combat child crimes, including, but not limited to, enhance the AMBER alert program, provide additional protection for children against sex crimes, and promote stricter sentencing for child pornography and other child sex crime offenders.
Highlights:
- Establishes a coordinator for the AMBER alert network to distribute bulletins on missing children through various mediums.
- Allows the police more technology communication to prevent child sexual predators, and enforcers stricter punishments regarding sex crimes involving children.
- Imposes mandatory sentences for adult sex crime offenders; including a national website with a roster of registered sex offenders.
Ron Paul’s vote - N = NO
TX 14 Representative
Ronald E. ‘Ron’ Paul Republican N
Victoria and No-Name:
A few things.
First, abolishing the CIA and FBI would do nothing to threaten our national security. In fact, it would make us safer, because you’d have only one set of people doing a single job, namely the Federal military forces handling intelligence-gathering and national security (what a concept!). And, too, it would take us back to a more constitutional place in our government. Show me just one place in the Constitution where the Chief Executive or the Legislature has the right to establish a Federal police force (AKA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation). You can’t, because it’s not there. Now, if you want 3/4 of the several states to ratify an amendment and cede that power to the Federal government, then let them send that proposed amendment to the states, but barring that, the FBI (just like so many other things that the Federal government does) is unconsitutional and illegal.
Second, the Amber Alert is the very same story. Why do people think it is a good thing for the Federal government to usurp the rights and powers of the several states? Does NO ONE remember the TENTH Amendment to the US Constitution? Anything that the Federal government does (any branch of it) must be SPECIFICALLY spelled out in the Constitution, or else it is a power that is reserved to the states or the people. There are only two ways, then, that the Federal government can get the authority to do something like regulate interstate crimes: either it is spelled out in the original Constitution, or the Constitution is lawfully amended in order to give it such rights. I know of an interstate COMMERCE clause, but i know nothing of an interstate CRIME clause. There again, it doesn’t exist.
Third, just because it may seem like there would be a good outcome or a benefit overall (e.g., the National Amber Alert, military action against a rogue nation somewhere in the world, or even benevolent peace-keeping missions in different areas throughout the world), but as good as they may be, they are still unconstitutional apart from explicit constitutional warrant (again, cf., Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution). If it is such a good thing, then all of the states can do it aggregately, or they can all get together and cede such authority to the Federal government, but unless that happens, it is still not within the purview of the Federal government (notwithstanding the many examples of violations of this principle that abound because people ignore that it exists altogether).
The simple fact is, it may not be politically correct (in the political sense) to say so, but Ron Paul is the only guy who seems to understand this, and his standing against such Federal usurpations on states’ and individuals’ rights is the only real constitutional option. All other people (however well-intentioned they may be) are simply playing the political game of whatever is most popular must be right. And if that’s the case, why even *HAVE* a Constitution?
So now Frank, we can all look at this piece which you asked us to read in post number 62. Ron Paul makes the assumption that parents aren’t watching their children, and if they were, they should be monitored more vigilantly.
I might point out to you Frank, that the little girl who was taken from her ‘front yard’ with her little friend standing next to her was very close to the front door of her home in Stanton, California.
The girl in Petaluma California was taken from her very own bedroom, while her friends looked on in disbelief. Her mother was in the room down the hall.
The young beautiful blond girl in Utah was taken from her very own bedroom while her sister peeked in horror.
Many children are taken from their own homes, front yards, walking home from or walking to school.
Frank I could go on and on, and list the kids who have been taken and there was adequate supervision. Monsters who take children know that kids ride bikes, skate in front of their homes with parents just inside the door. They don’t give one hoot, they take the kids anyway. A big man/men is no match for a child in distress and utter fear.
Ron Paul says NO to almost everything in Congress, he’s known as Mr. No, the problem is its NO, NO, NO, and in the case of the Amber Alert bill, it’s a case of NO EXCUSE for NO -
CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
This can be found in the next to the last paragraph -
What a COCKY remark for a Congressman to make, when he knows full well that the AMBER ALERT will save minutes, hours, days of time. But NO, the Congressman from Texas is a NO GUY all the way, he doesn’t have a YES in his heart for kids - No one needs a NO GUY!
Victoria, at the very end of the last thread on Ron Paul (specifically Posts 108 and 109), Frank found some information on the web that likely explained why Ron Paul voted against AMBER Alert.
I’ve taken the libery of reproducing the two posts below:
*****************************************************************
Ron Paul, circa 1988: Post 108
I did some Googling last night, and found out a few things re. Ron Paul’s “vote against the Amber Alert.”
In a nutshell, it’s as you guys have said. Paul voted against a bill that included a federal Amber Alert program, but also inlcuded many other expensive, unconstitutional aspects. (DISCLAIMER: he following is based on a quick skimming, rather than a detailed perusal, of the material.)
One was something called the “RAVE Act,” where a property (whether home, nightclub or vacant commercial) owner could be fined and forfeit his property if “drug activity” was occurring there ? whether or not he had knowledge of said drug activity.
One aspect of the RAVE Act was that, if “glow sticks” were observed to be in use at a party, dance or “rave,” that alone would give police probable cause to raid the party, since the use of “glow sticks” is allegedly a common practice at drug parties and dances.
This RAVE Act has evidently been floated several times in the past, but has fallen flat on its own (de)merits. So some law-writing genius attached it to the Amber Alert! You know the drill: “IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!” Nobody in their right mind would vote against the Amber Alert, and so the RAVE Act would get passed, as well.
This kind of law-writing is downright scurrilous.
More on the RAVE Act:
Gee, Victoria (if you’re still around) … I think I know at least one reason Ron Paul “voted against the Amber Alert.” So let me ask you: Do you think legitimate property and business owners should be penalized for the illegal acts of their customers or guests?
—-
Ron Paul, circa 1988: Post 109
Victoria,
You have your federal Amber Alert program, and for no extra charge, the American people got “a sloppily crafted and ill-advised piece of legislation that will result primarily in unintended, yet serious consequences, including the prosecution of innocent people.”
Are you perfectly willing to trade the prosecution of innocent people for getting the Amber Alert?
Darn. Got cut off. Anyway, here’s the rest of Frank’s post from that thread.
Do you post much? The reason I ask is that you are now posting someone elses post again as though we didn’t see it the first time.
When you do things like this, you are most likely to be IGNORED.
Hey, sorry. How was I supposed to know whether you had seen the above posts or not?
Victoria (69): So now Frank, we can all look at this piece which you asked us to read in post number 62. Ron Paul makes the assumption that parents aren’t watching their children, and if they were, they should be monitored more vigilantly.
I might point out to you Frank, that the little girl who was taken from her ‘front yard’ … (etc.)
The girl in Petaluma California was taken from her very own bedroom … (etc.)
The young beautiful blond girl in Utah was taken from her very own bedroom … (etc.)
Many children are taken from their own homes, front yards … (etc.)
Frank: Umm, Victoria?
The topic under discussion is HR 1218, known as the “CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT,” and which you referred to as the “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act,” a.k.a. S 403
You referred to the Senate’s bill, I referred to the House Bill, but as near as I can tell, they both refer to the same thing: “A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of [states’] laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.”
IOW, dear Victoria, this isn’t about the Amber Alert Bill. Can we all please get on the same page of music?
At (30) you raised the bill “prohibit[ing] taking minors across State lines in circumvention of [states’] laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.”
Now you’re back on the Amber Alert Bill?
Somebody is either confused or obsessed …
Jim Bob,
Thanks for the assist, but when Victoria says, “When you do things like this, you are most likely to be IGNORED,” she really means it! (Read our interaction — if one could CALL it that! — in the Ron Paul 1988 thread, and you’ll see what I mean!)
Rotsa Ruck,
Flank
First, abolishing the CIA and FBI would do nothing to threaten our national security. In fact, it would make us safer, because you’d have only one set of people doing a single job, namely the Federal military forces handling intelligence-gathering and national security (what a concept!).
They’d do so by having different branches of the military that handled each aspect here, and were funded, had their own buildings, uniforms, etc. How is that different than having the present structure, and especially how is that any more constitutional?
A little discernment and skepticism can go a long ways, particularly with politicians.
Noted. Thanks for the tip.
Ron Paul doesn’t care if young girls are taken across state lines for abortions without the knowledge of their parents, and he certainly didn’t care about the AMBER ALERT - - - you must be REALLY PROUD!
I can hear the music playing just now, La, la, la, lalala - STAND BY YOUR MAN…..
“When you do things like this, you are most likely to be IGNORED,” she cautioned.
“Promise?” Jim Bob asked hopefully.
Victoria’s understanding here is hopelessly simplistic.
Why no link to the article???
I hope worldmag blog isn’t practicing some preferential treatment of other candidates by not providing the link…
Victoria,
Let me pose you a hypothetical question:
Suppose a staunch anti-gun legislator like Carolyn McCarthy or Chuck Schumer managed to attach to the Amber Alert Bill a law mandating the surrender or all privately-owned firearms.
Or suppose somebody attached to the Amber Alert Bill a law saying that search warrants are no longer needed to search people, or their homes, cars or luggage in the United States.
Would you still demand Ron Paul (or anybody else, for that matter) vote for that Amber Alert?
PastorTA in #68
Thanks for a calm, well-reasoned response, as opposed to some of the rabid emotionalism exhibited in other responses.
I think its fair to say that time and again Ron Paul has said that he doesn’t believe the presidency should be a dictatorship so he wouldn’t be able to eliminate everything he says we wants to without the cooperation of the legislative branch and without taking into account the proper amount of time necessary to “wean” ourselves off of this monster of bureaucracies.
Some people try to paint him as an “extremist” (which is only measured by the status-quo anyway), but I guess I just don’t see him that way.
I was worried too when I saw the list of things that Ron Paul voted against - things that on the outset looked really good (like Amber Alert, No transport of minors for abortion etc.), but I looked at the reasons he voted against them. Usually it was because there were items attached to these bills that would have put laws on the books that threaten our constitutional rights or that they were matters that ought to be left to the states to determine. He has a different approach than big-government, top-down “conservatives” so naturally his pro-life, pro-constitution votes aren’t always going to line up with his “pro-life” counterparts - hence when NARAL determines that a NO vote on a piece of legislation means “pro-choice”, in Ron Paul’s book it just means “not a matter for the federal gov’t” OR “stuff attached to this that is unconstitutional”.
He had this to say about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act: “The worst offender of federalism is the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which not only indirectly surrenders the pro-life principle but actually directly undercuts the right to life by granting a specific exemption to abortionists! This exemption essentially allows some to take life with the sanction of federal law. By supporting this legislation, pro-lifers are expressly condoning a legal exemption for abortionists.”
So, before slinging mud at Dr. Paul for being practically “pro-choice”, understand that his approach is to avoid the entrenchment of the “right” to abortion in our legal system, as well as to stick to the literal meaning of our constitution. This is the long-term approach that actually might yield long-term victory.
Let’s be honest, most of us have not read the exact wording of the bills that Dr. Paul chosen to vote “No” on. (Who doesn’t want lost children to be found as quickly as possible?) There are reasons he votes “no” on seemingly good bills. Hear him out on the “why’s” and you’ll find you might agree.
The most likely result in voting for a libertarian for president is another Warren Harding or Andrew Johnson. The least likely result is another Abraham Lincoln. If you’re a libertarian, that’s as you want it, of course.
I’m more concerned about what Ron Paul does rather than the things he votes against. For instance, he votes against bills laden with pork and loads them up with his own earmarks for plainly unconstitutional spending. He votes against them so he can say “see I didn’t vote for it!” when he knows that the bill will pass and violated the constitution for his own political benefit. That’s worse than people who do it and don’t say they care about the constitutionality. He’s betraying his own principles for political power.
And that is the guy that you think will save us all from government? That’s what you think a libertarian is?
Now watch the excuses, justifications and spin the supporters of Ron Paul put on this: it will tell you everything you need to know about the man and the people backing him.
He’s got some good things to say, his position on the constitution is often very valid. But he’s not the guy. And I think the biggest reason to be wary of him is the rabid, foaming at the mouth support he gets, the unquestioned allegiance. That’s more disturbing than anything.
Alyssa,
Well said.
Sen. Jon Kyl: The Anti-Paul
In the summer of 1994, my congressman at the time, Rep. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), was running for US Senate. And an important provision of the the Clinton “Crime” Bill was also being hotly debated, namely, the “assault weapon” (really, scary-looking semi-automatic rifles) and high-capacity (over 10 rounds) magazine ban.
Jon Kyl was highly rated by the NRA, and his office responded to every letter I wrote opposing the gun and magazine ban — and I wrote several over 2 or 3 months — with pledges to stand up for my 2nd Amendment rights. He assured me he would never vote for the bans.
When the Clinton “Crime” Bill finally came up for a vote in September, well lo-and-behold, Rep. Kyl voted for it!
I fired off a very angry letter to Rep. Kyl, demanding an explanation.
He replied with a 4-page, single-spaced letter with lots of tap-dancing and apolgies, but that basically said this:
Now I’m no lawyer, but I knew that the Constitution gives the national government absolutely no authority to criminalize violence against women.
And you know what? So did the Supreme Court, because they struck down the Violence Against Women Act as unconstitutional, and for just that reason.
So at the end of the day, Jon Kyl didn’t get his precious (and unconstitutional) Violence Against Women Act, but the American people did get their 2nd Amendment rights infringed. You know, the same 2nd Amendment Jon Kyl promised he would defend.
(Oh, incidentally, during the 10-year life of the scary-gun and lots-of-bullets ban, Jon Kyl never lifted a finger to repeal it. Another broken promise to his constituents. Oh, and the NRA? Even though they dropped his rating to a C+ for voting for the Clinton “Crime” Bill, they still supported Kyl over the NRA-rated A+ libertarian candidate. Party pragmatism reeks.)
So Victoria, when you read or hear that Ron Paul voted against this or that bill, I’ll bet you 10-to-1 that it’s because the law was unconstitutional — you know, against the highest law in the land — and not because he opposes the ostensible purpose of the law as stated in its title.
Christopher Taylor (85): … I think the biggest reason to be wary of [Ron Paul] is the rabid, foaming at the mouth support he gets, the unquestioned allegiance. That’s more disturbing than anything.
Frank: Hmm. Just wondering, have you ever that same argument for all the “rabid, foaming at the mouth support” Bush gets from evangelical conservatives, and their “unquestioned allegiance”? Especially after 9/11 and the launch of his Global War on Terror? Here at WMB, or in any other forum?
Have you?
“Have you ever made that same argument,” i.e. …
Christopher Taylor,
Perhaps you could provide us with a couple of examples of Ron Paul’s “pork” in bills he has voted against. If it is so prevalent as you say, it should not be difficult.
And, FYI, i have not always been a Ron Paul supporter. In fact, it has been a very recent thing in my own political voyage. However, having seen how vapid the Neo-Conservative cause is and how very dishonest (and, really, just liberal at their heart) their tactics are, i can no longer support the Neo-Conservative wing of the Republican Party.
Ron Paul certainly is not perfect. Who could ever claim that of any politician. However, when stacked against almost any other politician, Paul is seen as a straight-shooting, honest, and principled man. I don’t agree with him on everything or even on how to do what we do agree needs to be done. However, i see the direction he wants to take our Republic (indeed, instead of the irresponsible Democracy of poll-rule that it has become, he wants to make it a Federal Republic again). Better a direction that will lead us, as a nation, where we need to go than to pick one or two issues and vote for a man on what he says about those one or two issues. When we do that, we get a man like George W. Bush or Abraham Lincoln: war-mongering tyrants who subvert the rule or law rather than enforcing and perpetuating it.
Christopher Taylor said: “They’d do so by having different branches of the military that handled each aspect here, and were funded, had their own buildings, uniforms, etc. How is that different than having the present structure, and especially how is that any more constitutional?
“A little discernment and skepticism can go a long ways, particularly with politicians.”
Well, there are actually two very big differences. First, it produces much greater efficiency of such functions of our Federal government by eliminating the redundancy of such a task. As it stands, our military personel already have specified jobs specializing in all the various tasks of intelligence-gathering. What is the point of having an unconstitutional, civilian, Federal police force to do the same thing? The only thing it leads to is territory disputes from agency to agency and the inability of any one of them to do a thorough and proper job.
Second, we already do fund those tasks for the military, and the Federal military force happens to be specifically sanctioned by the Constitution–much more than you can say for the FBI or the CIA. By eliminating the FBI and CIA (and NSA, for that matter), we’d not only make the legal intelligence-gathering force more able to do its job by eliminating redundancy, but we’d also do it in a more fiscally responsible way. Why pay for a thing four times (CIA, FBI, NSA, and US Military) that works less well, when you can pay for it one time and it will work better? This is just basic common-sense, which is really what our Constitution gives us: common-sense safeguards and guidelines so that our rights will be preserved and not infringed upon by the government “we the people” through our several states established.
Indeed, discernment and skepticism *DO* go a long way. If you’d be a little skeptical of the Federal government as it is, instead of assuming they’re doing it the best and most constitutional way, you might end up seeing just how important that little thing called the Constitution actually is. It shouldn’t matter if some function of the Federal Government is good or beneficial; if that function is not sanctioned by the Constitution, it should be seen as the illegal agency or act or department or power that it is. And if we would eliminate all those things that our Federal government does that are not given it to do (in keeping with the Tenth Amendment), we’d not only make our lives more free and protected from the government, we’d also save a boat load of money that our government squanders illegally.
BTW, funny that you didn’t comment on the Tenth Amendment at all. I guess that’s just irrelevant compared to being able to wire-tap phones of American citizens and eliminating the core right of habeas corpus in the name of protecting us. Again, if you want your government to violate its highest law in your name, why even *HAVE* a Constitution to begin with? Why not just let the Federal Legislature and the Federal Executive to do whatever they let each other do? Well, constitutionally speaking, the reason for that is that the “checks and balances” of our government are not only the checks of the three brances on one another, but also the checks that the states have over the Federal government, as non-existent as that is today. The Tenth Amendment is as core to the preservation of our rights as the First and Second are, if not moreso.
Just wondering, have you ever that same argument for all the “rabid, foaming at the mouth support” Bush gets from evangelical conservatives, and their “unquestioned allegiance”?
Frank: I don’t know of a single evangelical conservative who has “unquesionted allegiance” for President Bush, so I have no idea what you’re referring to with this statement. Every evangelical conservative I know has been disappointed with a number of things about the President, from the ports deal to immigration to spending too much to the Harriet Meiers nomination.
You’re not winning any converts to RP with your over-the-top statements. But you are acting like him.
Pastor TA
Check out the Clyb for Growth’s RePORK card - it exposes Paul and his porking ways.
Pastor TA:
In case you haven’t heard it yet, Ron Paul was interviewed a couple weeks ago by John Lofton of American Vision.
Mr. Lofton asked many good questions, from a biblical perspective. Here’s the link to the page, the mp3 link is found there:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=898
I suspect you’ll see, as do I, that no, Ron Paul is not perfect, even from a biblical perspective.
But one thing I think he definitely has going for him: He seeks to be faithful to the US Constitution, not merely the “highest law of the land,” but our nation’s covenant between the government and the governed. The constitution has its own flaws, but it’s what we’ve got for now, and Rep. Paul takes it seriously.
To quote Doug Wilson, “The Constitution is the Queen Mum of American politics. She gets trundled out on the balcony to wave at the adoring crowds from time to time, but nobody ever does what she says.”
Nobody except Ron Paul, that is.
outkast (92): I don’t know of a single evangelical conservative who has “unquesionted allegiance” for President Bush, so I have no idea what you’re referring to with this statement.
Frank: Well, outkast, if the shoe doesn’t fit, then don’t wear it.
But in these pages, I and other Bush critics have been accused of “hating” Bush more often than I can count.
And from where I sit, anybody who would equate criticism with hatred sure seems to be harboring “unquestioned allegiance.”
Demonstrating hatred for the President doesn’t mean the people who point that out somehow worship the man.
BTW, funny that you didn’t comment on the Tenth Amendment at all. I guess that’s just irrelevant compared to being able to wire-tap phones of American citizens and eliminating the core right of habeas corpus in the name of protecting us.
Don’t try to lecture me on the constitution, sir. You know nothing about me or my positions, no what I’ve said and believe about the 10th or 9th amendment (or the 5th, more appropriate in the context of what you are discussing here).
Every law enforcement official on earth understands that you don’t always have time to get a warrant, which is why the FISA judges ruled (several times over the years) that in an emergency the government is free to engage in a wiretap of foreign-targeted phonecalls without a warrant.
If you have a problem with checking on phone calls to terrorist suspects overseas I have to question your motivation.
“Christopher Taylor (85): … I think the biggest reason to be wary of [Ron Paul] is the rabid, foaming at the mouth support he gets, the unquestioned allegiance. That’s more disturbing than anything.”
Such rich irony. Many of us have long been skeptical of W for exactly this reason!
Christopher Taylor (96): Demonstrating hatred for the President doesn’t mean the people who point that out somehow worship the man.
Frank: “Demonstrating hatred”? Huh?
Don’t misunderstand me. I too have seen what I would consider to be hatred for Bush expressed here. That’s not what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about people who disagree with — or even hate — the man’s policies being accused by Bushies of hating the man.
They aren’t the same thing.
outkast,
It is interesting, however, that you jumped up in response to my remarks at (88). Almost … reflexive.
Do you protest too much?
=8-o
No, Frank. I only visit this blog about 2-3 times a day since being married recently (much more important things to do), and just happened to sign on after your post.
Who’s protesting too much again, brother?
Well, outkast, despite our numerous disagreements, I hope you’ll accept my hearty congratulations on your wedding! “He who finds a wife finds a good thing …”
Really? Why? I mean, do you really think people who object to government tapping the phones must therefore be people with something to hide? Do you really find it inconceivable that someone might make a principled stand on strict adherence to the Constitution?
I mean, even if I’m wrong, can’t I at least be well-intentioned but wrong? Or in Chris-Taylor Land is everyone who disagrees a traitor?
Apparently you believe it’s OK to violate the 4th Amendment if the goal (protecting America from terrorists) is good enough. This is in keeping with other neo-con beliefs expressed here — that if some goal is noble enough, the federal government is no longer bound by the Constitution and can take whatever action it likes. After all, no one wants to be attacked by terrorists, or to have children abducted, etc.
But this view is incredibly short-sighted. The American Founders did not disperse Federal power because they didn’t value safety. They dispersed Federal power because they correctly recognized that the abuse of concentrated power was the largest long-term threat facing any nation.
So here we are being wiretapped, and videoed, and spied on by our satellites, subject to warrantless searches and no-knock entries, made to get national ID cards, all for the sake of “protecting our homeland and/or children.”
I hope you like your mess of pottage, because that’s your birthright you just traded away.
jjf (102): So here we are being wiretapped, and videoed, and spied on by our satellites, subject to warrantless searches and no-knock entries, made to get national ID cards, all for the sake of “protecting our homeland and/or children.”
I hope you like your mess of pottage, because that’s your birthright you just traded away.
Frank: … all in the name of safety, and still, after all that, the only thing the liberty-killing warmongers can tell us is that we’re “safer,” but not safe.
I mean, do you really think people who object to government tapping the phones must therefore be people with something to hide?
I think people who object to the government tapping phone calls to overseas terrorists suspects and known terrorists have a curious sense of motivation and suspicious basis for objection.
Christopher Taylor said: “I think people who object to the government tapping phone calls to overseas terrorists suspects and known terrorists have a curious sense of motivation and suspicious basis for objection.”
Well, some of us want the government to do its job within the limits of the law and the Constitution, and that’s all the motivation we have. I don’t like terrorists or the thought of being attacked esepcially by Muhammadan vigilantes. However, my life is in God’s hands, not in the government’s. Let the government do what it has explicit authorization to do and nothing else, and let God take care of the rest. I can tell you that i trust him much more than i trust sinful men with centralized control.
As for FISA courts, we all should know what kind of liberties modern judges take with the Constitution. Roe v. Wade comes to mind, as does Kelo v. New London (speaking of the Fifth Amendment). It’s constant, the attack on the Constitution by judges that are willing to twist the Constitution to their own puproses. It really doesn’t surprise me that a completely secret court that has no accountability to the public would do the very same thing. My point, whether about FISA courts or for the FBI, CIA, or NSA, still remains the same: there is no specific constitutional warrant for anything of the sort, and as such, barring another amendment, it violates the Tenth Amendment.
But apparently, i do need to lecture you on the Constitution, because the Fifth Amendment is not exactly applicable to what we’re talking about. When we talk about wiretaps and surveilance, we’re dealing with Fourth Amendment issues. BTW, why exactly do you think the clear phrase “No warrants” somehow, somewhere, sometime can mean “some warrants”?
I’m not a liberal; i’m a real conservative. It is so ironic that people like Frank and jjf and me are ridiculed for our desire to maintain the Constitution, and we’re even accused of being liberal, when it is the Neo-Conservatives who are running rough-shod over the Constitution just like the real Liberals are, but only for their own pet issues. That’s like standing up for your own right to free speech when you say something unpopular, but not caring at all when someone’s else’s right to free speech is volated, just because you don’t like what he says.
It really says a bunch about a person when he only speals when his own dog gets stuck, but he’s perfectly content with others being violated. What’s that poem about the Nazi tactics? “First they came for the Communists, and i remained silent, because i wasn’t a Communist…” Well, I’m not going to wait until some court somewhere declares that it’s perfectly legal for the government to confiscate my property and spy on me without any warrant at all. I’ll speak up for the rights of all citizens under the Constitution now, before it comes to that.
I was talking to a friend over the weekend, and he says that even if Ron Paul can get enough votes to be elected, he will be assassinated before taking office. The reasoning goes like this: Ron Paul wants to abolish the CIA, FBI, etc. All those federal employees won’t be happy to lose their jobs. All it takes is one or two disgruntled CIA agents to take out Ron Paul, since they are trained to murder without leaving a trace.
What do you think? Is this a likely outcome?
“A,” if that were to happen, then it would prove that our government is no longer a government “for the people and by the people.” What more evidence would be needed that our nation needs to be refounded than that a government official or group of officials would rather overturn our very way of life than to see our government return to its constitutional limits?
On the contrary, i believe that we still have enough respect for the rule of law that such a scenario wouldn’t occur. Truth is, though, that those men and women are perfectly capable of having a private-sector job doing just the kinds of jobs in intelligence, security, and investigation. Plus, the Congress could grant any number of them Letters of Marque to carry out various operations against various targets in the “Global War on Terror.”
So, to be clear, they would be out of a government-dole job, but not necessarily without a livlihood. And, too, Dr. Paul has made it clear that he would make radical changes at a reasonable pace. The only people who would be immediately in need of employment (DV) would be IRS agents. And good riddance.
Well, some of us want the government to do its job within the limits of the law and the Constitution, and that’s all the motivation we have.
Then you’ll be glad with how the Bush administration is acting. Because they are behaving within the limits of the constitution.
As for FISA courts, we all should know what kind of liberties modern judges take with the Constitution.
A simple condemnation of judges in general is not sufficient to point out how this is unconstitutional in specific. You have to make a case that these judges ruled improperly. If you can do so, please do, but simply asserting it because a politician said so is at best weak.
I’m very very weary of Ron Paul zealots claiming they are the TRUE CONSERVATIVES and asserting that they have the deepest respect for the US constitution without even bothering to explain how and why. Abolishing the CIA and FBI isn’t constitutional, it’s a policy decision. The fifth amendment (not 10th as you listed) doesn’t prohibit the use of wiretaps without a warrant in every single situation and instance, it prohibits the abuse of government intrusion into citizens’ lives. Just like the 1st amendment doesn’t guarantee constitutional protection for people engaging in libel or slander.
Christopher,
You still haven’t acknowledged that you even know what the Tenth Amendment says. It is not incumbent upon me to show you how it is constitutional to abolish the CIA; it is incumbent upon you to show where the specific warrant is in the Constitution for the creation fo such a thing with such a purpose as the CIA (or FBI or NSA, &c.). You haven’t done that; it is unfortunate that, when it was formed, no one asked this question (or, if they did, it wasn’t heeded any better).
I am not claiming that the Tenth Amendment says anything about wiretaps (where you get that, i don’t know). What i’m saying is that the Federal government has no authority to do *ANYTHING* (categorically, without exception) unless it is *SPECIFICALLY* stated in the text of the Constitution. Apart from such excplicit permission, any action of the Federal government beyond such a point is fundamentally illegal. That goes for the Federal Reserve, the National Security Agency, the FBI, the CIA, and all other such government agencies without constitutional warrant, including such a thing as a secret court specifically set up to *OVERSEE* such an unconstiutional agency, which, to boot, has absolutely no public accountability, because it gives no information of its acts to the public at large.
So, no, i don’t care a bit for Bush’s actions. He is acting counter to the most fundamental protections of the Bill of Rights, including the ability to search and sieze the content of phone calls without warrant, and the ability to avoid proper adjudicature of the cases of citizens of the US. In fact, his expansion of Federal power and oversight is right up there with Franklin Roosevelt. Shameful.
Christopher Taylor,
It appears you need to re-learn constitutional law. The 1st Ammendment does not guarantee protection for libel or slander. Instead, it says the national government has no authority to outlaw or punish libel or slander. That authority belongs to the states. The same is true of the 4th Ammendment. The 4th Ammendment was written to prohibit the national government from doing any searches and seizures without a warrant. Verbal gymnastics like your own only anull the Constitution.
Ammendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Unfortunately, abolishing the CIA and FBI isn’t Constitutional, because the Constitution does not mention abolishing unconstitutional programs. It was assumed that unconstitutional programs would never be started in the first place. Abolishing the CIA and FBI is upholding the authority of the Constitution, because the Constitution does not allow for the creation of a national police force.
How very far we have sunk as a nation when deciding to act according to the Constitution itself is “a policy decision” and not the first purpose of every lawmaker, judge, and executive in the employ of our Federal government.
I think we need to Elect Ron Paul. You may have different opinions on his domestic policy, but how can one argue that the NEO-CON agenda of policing the world and militarily forcing America into the streets and homes of people who are better left alone. I think we have lost enough innocent men and we have borrowed way to much from various sources. Especially the CHINESE?!?! WHY are we allowing them to own us by default… Nothing conservative about any of that. We had all the information we needed to prevent 9/11.. We just didn’t think the information was credible enough.
All these ‘departments,’ the Federal Government is about to live our lives for us. The Department of Education…LOL, I survived public schools, and to think for a minute that some idiots in Washington know better than the local folk in dealing with problems in there backyards is very odd.
Anyways to tired to continue.. I will only vote for Ron Paul and if he doesn’t make it that far, then so be it- all the other candidates in either party are carbon copies of one another, so what is the real point.