The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

Girdweed said:

I can't believe we are discussing the role of the Supreme Court.

Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. The courts, like Congress, can compel the production of evidence and testimony through the use of a subpoena. The inferior courts are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court — once the Supreme Court interprets a law, inferior courts must apply the Supreme Court's interpretation to the facts of a particular case.--http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/judicial-branch

What role does a court play if not to interpret laws?

Click to expand...

londonfog said:

Hey you can play on words all you want but its been showed to you..You go find a law professor and have him explain Article III Section one and two...you can't make a ruling if you don't interpret the law...so you keep looking for that magic word​

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

WRONG!!! No Where in the constitution is the power to interpret the constitution given to SCOTUS. Your argument contains no facts either.

Click to expand...

londonfog said:

OMG its like having a conversation with Sara Palin

Click to expand...

National Review Online said:

June 9, 2011 3:00 P.M.
Ron Paul Rising
Upward from 2008

Three summers ago, Rep. Ron Paul, a white-haired obstetrician, shocked the political world.
The septuagenarian Texan, out of nowhere, stirred an army of youthful libertarians and disillusioned Republicans to support his long-shot presidential bid. He raised millions, rallied thousands, and spooked GOP contenders. But he did not win a primary.
Still, as he relaxes in his Capitol Hill office, Paul reflects on that wild ride with a smile. Tangling with the old guard, he acknowledges, was a bruising, nonstop battle. Same goes for organizing a nationally competitive campaign.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -​

ADVERTISEMENT​

​

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -​

Yet when he recalls spotting throngs of college students, at campus after campus, toting handmade signs and railing against the Federal Reserve, he knows that, in his own way, he won something. Paul hopes to do even better this time around. Last month, he announced that he would once again seek the GOP presidential nomination. He enters the contest as a nationally known name, a fundraising powerhouse, and most importantly, no longer a fringe figure.
“That is the difference between now and four years ago,” Paul says. “When it comes to practical politics, the face of the party has changed. Any place we go, I get invited to Republican meetings. Before, we had to have our own meetings, or we might have been excluded.
“Now we go, and I think, wow, this is really nice. I get to meet run-of-the-mill Republicans,” he chuckles. “We used to think of that group as the businessmen and the bankers, and all the establishment people that make up the Republican party. When we visit these days, we find out that they look like us.”
Beyond the pockets of Paul supporters popping up in local GOP organizations, polls show the Texan ready to rise. A Gallup survey late last month had him at 10 percent, seven points behind frontrunner Mitt Romney. A CNN poll released that same week had him at 12 percent, just three behind Romney.
Paul, however, shrugs off the numbers. He is pleased with the resonance of his message, to be sure, but he is not rabidly interested in the back-and-forth, the dishing and spinning, that usually accompanies presidential politics.
“People who work for me worry about that,” he laughs. “That not what I care about. Sure, the better the vote, the better endorsement for the policies I think are so crucial. But my job is to try to deliver a message in a better way, to develop a practical approach.”
Indeed, much of Paul’s appeal is that he keeps things loose. “There is no central political planning with this campaign,” he says. “That energizes people. We simply encourage people to get involved, and do it modestly.”
In other words, he articulates bold positions on the Fed, foreign aid, monetary policy, the drug war, and military spending, and then, it is hoped, things snowball.


Long an outsider, and a consistent critic of Republicans, Paul sees a real opportunity to catch fire. The field, he notes, remains quite unsettled, and people seem happy to hear him out.
On foreign policy, especially, Paul thinks that he can win over large swaths of primary voters. “The country is more with me now,” he argues. “The mainstream is swimming this way. Sixty to 70 percent of people, maybe even more, are saying after ten years at war, maybe it is time to try something new.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -​

ADVERTISEMENT​

​

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -​

Romney and other big-name Republicans, such as Tim Pawlenty, are not arguing for major cuts to the defense budget: Just snips, Paul laments, nothing more. Growing concern on this front, he hopes, will lead him, at the very least, to shake up the conversation. “The times are changing,” Paul says softly, his hands clasped like a country doctor. “I always predicated that our foreign policy is going to change, that we will come home, not because I gave a great speech, but because we are broke.”
He brushes off the criticism that he can easily be cast as an irascible isolationist. “This is a powerful political issue,” he says, his finger tapping his oak desk, as he makes his case against U.S. militarism. “It looks like I care more about people here at home then I do about throwing money down these rat holes around the world, where they tend to give us more trouble than we deserve.”
“Other candidates will have to deal with this,” Paul predicts. “In that sense, I don’t think there will be any of these putdowns, like we saw last time, for political reasons. Why put me down? Why would you antagonize a large segment of the party that’s growing?”
As the competition, perhaps, adjusts to the Paul-influenced, tea-soaked grassroots, the congressman also aims to make them “squirm a little bit,” on everything from “personal privacy, to the Patriot Act, to the Fourth Amendment and groping at airports.”
“I think the country is in big trouble if we don’t shift our policies,” he says. “But replacing a conventional Democrat with a conventional Republican will not change anything. The attitude toward the Federal Reserve will stay the same, as will the attitude toward entitlements. People will still attempt to simply tinker around the edges.”
He may talk tough on the issues, but when it comes to anti-Obama rhetoric, don’t expect much. Paul says that his campaign, unlike those of the majority of GOP contenders, will not focus on lambasting the president.
In fact, Paul disdains the way many Republicans tag Obama as a “socialist” when describing the president’s politics.
“You will not hear me saying that we have to stop Obama or something like that,” he says. “Lots of Republicans will talk like that, but when it comes to using those words, they don’t come out very easily for me.”
Paul also keeps an even temperament when talking about Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, who is competing with Paul for the libertarian slice of the GOP electorate.
Johnson, like Paul, is a drug-war skeptic, a low-tax advocate, and a champion of civil liberties.
Paul does not see him as a foe. “The more the merrier,” he says. “In the narrow, political sense, I don’t think it hurts. It might make me a better candidate.”
Paul emphasizes that he is on an educational mission. “[Johnson] might appeal to a different group of libertarians,” he says. “My goals may be a little different for the long term, but that does not mean that we should be sharp political competitors.
“It is good to have a couple people up there during debates, it gives us both more credibility. During the first debate in South Carolina, when they quizzed me about drugs, he backed me up.”
As he heads to New Hampshire this weekend, and prepares for next Monday’s debate at Saint Anselm’s College, Paul will not make predictions about his chances. “Only time will tell how things will go this time,” he says.
But with his son, Rand Paul, serving in the U.S. Senate, his campaign flush with cash, and his name near the top of the polls, he must feel pretty darn good.
— Robert Costa is a political reporter for National Review.

Click to expand...

FOX NEWS said:

Top Gingrich Aides Resign, Leaving Campaign in Question


Published June 09, 2011
| FoxNews.com

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments (2389)

Top aides to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have resigned en masse, Fox News has learned, imperiling [COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]the [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=blue ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]Republican's[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] 2012 presidential campaign at a crucial time.
Among the senior staff members Gingrich is losing are spokesman Rick Tyler and campaign manager Rob Johnson, along with other strategists. Insiders say Gingrich and senior aides were unable to agree on the direction of the campaign.
On his Facebook page Thursday afternoon, Gingrich assured supporters he remains in the race.
"I am committed to running the substantive, solutions-oriented campaign I set out to run earlier this spring. The campaign begins anew Sunday in Los Angeles," he wrote, referring to a foreign policy address he's scheduled to deliver Sunday evening.
But the exodus puts the former House speaker, who already had been struggling to rank in early GOP primary polls, in a tough spot. The conservative icon was one of the first major candidates to officially launch his campaign, but several other GOP heavyweights have followed suit in recent weeks and gone aggressively after President Obama.

Republican presidential hopeful, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaks at the Portsmouth Country Club in Portsmouth, N.H., Thursday, May 26, 2011, to a breakfast meeting of the Seacoast Republican Women. (AP)


Gingrich ran into trouble early on when he bluntly criticized House Republicans' plan for overhauling [COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important]Medicare[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR]. He has since walked that back, but disagreements continued to fester on his team over the message and strategy of the campaign. Aides said the team was increasingly concerned Gingrich did not appear willing or able to put in the time needed to run a viable campaign. In one clash, they had begged him not to leave the trail for a Mediterranean cruise with his wife -- advice he ignored.
Former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, who was a co-chairman of [COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important]Gingrich's[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] campaign until Thursday, has now joined former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's team.
"Tim Pawlenty is a great man, he was a phenomenal governor, and he is the person I now believe stands the greatest chance of defeating President Obama," he said in a statement.
The mass exodus could signal a potential [COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important]presidential [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important]campaign[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] by Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Johnson ran Perry's campaign for governor while Dave Carney, another strategist who left the Gingrich camp, also has very close ties to the Texas governor.
Another potential candidate is ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. But while those possible contenders make up their minds and Gingrich determines how to proceed with a shell of a [COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important]campaign [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important]team[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR], other Republicans are charging ahead. Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, among others, have all formally launched their campaigns and started hitting key primary states.
Gingrich, meanwhile, lost his top operatives in three important primary and caucus battlegrounds -- according to a person involved in internal discussions, his leadership teams in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa have all resigned their respective posts.
The source said those resignations came following disagreements about how to use campaign resources including the candidate's time. The resignations are being taken under consideration by Gingrich.
Fox News' Carl Cameron and Steve Brown contributed to this report.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/09/sources-gingrich-aides-resign-en-masse-from-campaign/#ixzz1OpMIxM2G

Click to expand...

deprave said:

Naaaaaa I think Ron Paul is just winning...all he duz is win

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtl2ZuJpG9M[/video]

Click to expand...

ginjawarrior said:

WOW i'd thought id seen it all but i have honestly never heard that one before

your trying to say one of the ways "blacks" arent empowered is because its too easy for them to buy stuff??

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

they make money and balance books like any other business. they just don't advertise themselves as being 'open to the public' like a public course a local muni.

by the way, that is a good example of government doing it better than the private sector can. the munis i have played all over the country are always better courses than private/public courses that charge the same price.

i once played pumpkin ridge here in portland, both their private and public courses. i like the local munis (redtail and heron lakes) much better. more challenging and just as well maintained. and i don't have to pay a $25k annual membership or $150 in peak season. in peak season, the munis are $30 - $40 for a better, more challenging course.

Click to expand...

Parker said:

You slicing hacker, the munis loose money. And yes I'd rather pay 25 at a muni than a private course which is in better shape.

Click to expand...

Girdweed said:

Parker, I will address you once regarding this post, then not address you any further. Your abrasive nature and name calling are rather infantile traits and do not warrant open discussion.

Click to expand...

Girdweed said:

Who do you feel should interpret the Constitution?

Click to expand...

Girdweed said:

The Constitution gave that responsibility to the Supreme Court. Your argument contains no facts, only someone's irrelevant opinion.

Click to expand...

Girdweed said:

You talk about how certain people feel but provide no information to back your claims. Then, you call folks names.

Click to expand...

Girdweed said:

Arguing that the 14th Amendment doesn't say what it says is an indefensible position IMHO.

Click to expand...

Girdweed said:

Good day!

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

have you checked a history book? back before civil rights, blacks had a limited selection to choose from. choice was taken away from them, and they were often left with inferior choices. i thought you were pro-choice?
seriously dude, check a fucking history book. segregation, discrimination, and the like DID hurt your fellow citizen. only a blithering fucktard would deny this historical fact.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

ya know, i am usually pretty good at putting an approximate age to most posters on the internet, but you are a tough case.
you are either 87 or 13.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

i am currently about an 8 handicap. my best round ever was a 67. and i play a power cut, not a slice.

Click to expand...

Reason July 2011 Issue: Ron Paul’s Radical Vision

The libertarian Republican warns of impending disaster, reaches out to the left, and prepares for a presidential campaign.
Brian Doherty from the July 2011 issue
Ron Paul by now is well-known for many things, yet he remains an underrated retail politician. Paul has the extraordinary distinction of having won a seat in Congress as a nonincumbent on three separate occasions. After fighting his own Republican Party to regain a House seat in 1996 (the GOP establishment preferred a turncoat Democrat in the primary), Dr. No has won re-election in the 14th Congressional District of Texas by progressively larger margins in every campaign but one. In 2004 and 2008 the Democratic Party didn’t bother running a candidate against him. All this even though Paul eschews such fail-safe political gambits as co-sponsoring (or even voting for) spending bills that benefit his constituents and makes a point of directly challenging such modern Republican notions as an ever-expanding warfare state—all while representing what he characterizes as a Bible Belt conservative stronghold.
Paul’s newsmaking 2008 presidential run emphasized a noninterventionist foreign policy that made him anathema to the rest of his party. But those views helped inspire a ragtag, young, and surprisingly large political movement that shows few signs of dissipating three years later. Animated by this unlikely coalition, Paul’s career-long crusade to shed light on, rein in, and ultimately destroy the Federal Reserve became a mass populist cause. Provisions of his perennial “audit the Fed” bill were incorporated into a bill the House passed in 2009 (although it did not become law). To the surprise of many, after Republicans retook the House of Representatives in November 2010, he became chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, which oversees the Federal Reserve.
As I write, the man who earned the fourth-highest delegate count in the 2008 GOP presidential primaries seems to be preparing for another run in 2012. An official exploratory committee was launched in April, and Paul was on stage making his pitch at the first Republican presidential primary debate in South Carolina in early May 2011. His public profile and continued relevance were buoyed in 2010 when his son and (for the most part) ideological heir, Rand Paul, became the gadfly superstar of the anti-government side of the Tea Party movement by winning election as a U.S. senator from Kentucky.
More
http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/09/ron-pauls-radical-vision

Click to expand...

Getting More Congressional Endorsements



After seeing the pair of Iowa representatives endorsing Ron I would like to suggest that we all contact our representatives and urge them to support the good Doc.
I think it is very important to get all the current members to come out to endorse Ron and let them know that their endorsement will prompt us to support them as well.
My congressman is Rush Holt, who before I woke up I actually went door to door for and worked on election day for. Which I did not fail to mention in my below email.
I urge everyone to contact their rep and explain the left or right position that will be most beneficial to convincing them to come out and endorse Ron. My letter below is one example how I urged a Democrat to support Ron. Feel free to use it as a sort of template.
...(Noticed two small typos after I sent it of course lol.)



Good Morning Mr. Holt,
I have previous helped campaign for you in the past in the Jamesburg area. I have gone door to door and handed out flyers and worked on election day to convince voters on your behalf.
Today however, I am writing in hopes that you can help another very important candidate. In defense of liberty and national defense, and personal choice there is no better qualified candidate then Texas Rep. Ron Paul. He served in the military during Vietnam which makes him the only candidate for commander in cheif with military experience.
He is also very experience with healthcare service, being a doctor and delivering 4000 babies during his medical career.
He has studied much about the concept of the free market and understand the problems with out failing economy. We cannot continue to spend outside our means and expect to ever pay off out unimaginable 14 trillion dollar debt.
Without the information provided by Ron Paul we would have never had the economy, deficit, and Federal Reserve brought to the forefront of political debate as it has become today.
He correctly explained the reason for the previous bubbles, great depression, and the implosion of the housing bubble that has brought our economy to the edge of disaster.
If we do not take action now our country will face an economic crisis. Central planning cannot predict human action like the market can. Only an unhampered market, like that during the first 100 years of American history can truely restore this country to it's place as a economic superpower and bring the necessary jobs back to NJ and our country.
If you can please come out and endorse the one man who will bring out troops home and defend our nation against attacks without killing innocent civilians overseas causing more instability and hatred I will be glad to help you in the future maintain your position.
As a very intelligent man I know you will agree that history proves Dr. Paul correct on every issue, and because I know the Constitution is the most important aspect of American lives please endorse the man who in 30 years, never once violated his oath to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Thank you for your time. If you need any clarification about Ron Paul's position you can either ask me, visit his congressional page, or ask the man yourself while in DC.
Take care

Click to expand...

Convincing Leftists that a Ron Paul Presidency is Empowering

Convincing Leftists that a Ron Paul Presidency is Empowering
On the delusions of Citizen Powers under Centralized Government
A significant obstacle to convincing left leaning voters to accept a more libertarian position, is their fear that taking the federal government out of schools and health care and the like, would leave the citizenry powerless on such matters and that the resulting services would be inferior and less accessible.
I recently saw a comment along these lines by someone opposing Ron Paul and his libertarian constitutional type ideology. It reflected two common misunderstandings, which if grasped, would make Ron Paul's approach more widely agreeable. An understanding of these two concepts would allow them to see through the myths and distortions of years of government schooling and mainstream media propaganda which purports centralized government to be the great savior of all our economic and social woes.
The first misunderstanding is to think that Ron Paul could, or even intends, to take away the right of the various states to run such services that have become increasingly under the control of the federal government. The state governments would take control over such things as public schooling should the unconstitutional role of the federal government be withdrawn.
The second misunderstanding is that centralized governance somehow empowers the citizen consumer. In fact, the opposite is true. Centralization reduces the power of the individual citizen while increasing the relative power of a few lobby groups with vested interests. Centralization also enables bureaucratic webs of inefficiency and politically correct stupidity to infest and resist any progression toward producing a service that serves the consumer well.
Contrast the situation of a group of parents hiring a private tutor to educate their 10 or 15 children, as was the early tradition in schooling, with that of federally controlled schooling. In the decentralized system, each parent had considerable power in regard to influencing the schooling experience their child received. In the centralized system, parents are essentially powerless, unless they dedicate huge efforts toward political activism, and even then, their efforts will probably be in vain in regard to making any significant changes to what goes on at their child's school.
The further from the center of power that a person is, the lesser is their potential to affect change. The greater the degree of centralization, the greater is the degree of disempowerment to the consumer. Also, centralization reduces competition as it tends toward a 'one solution fits all' approach, further reducing consumers' power to receive a service to their liking.
One of the great, but largely forgotten benefits of smaller autonomous units of governance, is that it allows competition and variation among government services. This serves two very important functions. Firstly, it presents consumers with a choice of different services, though they may have to move to another suburb, city or state to be able to partake in a service they prefer. The second benefit is that the various units become more responsive to consumers' demands, as consumers of their services vote with their feet and they also gain power by being able to compare the successes of another region's service to their own. They gain empirical evidence as means to pressure change in their local system, to root out causes of waste and ineffectiveness in their local service, a tool which does not exist in a 'one service for all' centralized system.
Jeffrey Tucker, an entertaining proponent of consumer sovereignty, recently spoke on the relative powers consumers of Wall Mart have compared to consumers at the government's Department of Motor Vehicles. His observations demonstrate how consumers are king at Wall Mart relative to the de-humanizing treatment they receive from government service providers. His talk is below!
http://youtu.be/8OZGhHpWTSg
In summary, a Ron Paul, or libertarian constitutional type presidency, would not lead to a rapid dismantling of what is perceived as essential government services. Nor would a libertarian trend toward further decentralization or even free market provision of such services, reduce consumer power. These common fears are not only unfounded, they have things back to front. Our sovereignty as consumers, as reflected by our power to influence and choose, would increase as services progressed toward decentralization and privatization.

Click to expand...