Ron Paul

From Everything Shii Knows, the only reliable source

This website is an archive. It ran from 2006-2010. Virtually everything on here is outdated or inaccurate.

The federal government of the United States today operates on the assumption that they can do anything they want. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches alike simply make up rules and force the entire country to follow them. Folks, I know you're smarter than that. Our representatives have good intentions but they are abusing their power. If you took American History in middle school you know that the founders of our country never intended it to turn out this way. So, I have a proposition for you. What if the United States had a President who actually preserved, protected, and defended the Constitution?

This isn't a hypothetical question. Right now, in the lead-up to the 2008 race, a candidate is running for office who would bring reality back to Washington. This is the answer. 2008 is not the year to shrink away from change and settle on the same old combination of graft and pandering that usually gets people elected. We have among our ranks a single guy who is actually focused on making the country work right. His name is Ron Paul.

Note to the cynical: I'm not joking! Read on for proof.


What is he?

Ron Paul runs for seats as a Republican, but he is not a neo-conservative. Of course, he is not a big government liberal either. But he does not volunteer himself as a libertarian. [1]

So, what is he? Simple: he believes in the Constitution. He believes that the founders of the United States, including Washington and Jefferson, had the right plan for the country. He believes that the primary problem with the federal government is how they have deviated from this plan.

Quotes about him

Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians alike are amazed by how right Ron Paul's simple politics are.

Wonkette on Ron Paul

Paul is a libertarian Republican who constantly enrages the GOP because he actually believes in a small federal government and sound fiscal policies. He’s anti-death penalty, anti-drug laws, anti-police state, anti-Patriot Act and anti-anything that’s not authorized by the Constitution. Texas Dems now love him for his "principled anti-war stance," while pro-abortion voters don't need to worry about the obstetrician/gynecologist's strong pro-life stance — he knows the federal government has no right to get involved in such stuff. And as California just proved, states can figure out universal health care and global-warming rules while the federal government can't do anything.

Fox News on Ron Paul

When most members of Congress see a bill for the first time, they immediately judge the bill on its merits, or if you're more cynical, they determine what the political interests that support them will think of it, or how it might benefit their constituents.
For Paul, the vast majority of bills don't get that far. He first asks, "Does the Constitution authorize Congress to pass this law?" Most of the time, the answer to that question is "no." And so Paul votes accordingly. This hasn't won him many friends in Congress, or, for that matter, his own party. It hasn't won him influential committee assignments or powerful chairmanships, either. Those are generally handed out to the party animals who vote as they're told. An incorruptible man of principle in a corrupt body almost utterly devoid of principle, Paul is often a caucus of one.,2933,252847,00.html

C|net on Ron Paul

According to C|net's rankings, Ron Paul was the #1 most Internet-supportive voter in Congress.

A less obvious winner was Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican who represents a rural district along the Gulf Coast that's home to few Web 2.0 start-ups but plenty of cattle ranchers and petrochemical companies. He topped the House rankings with a score of 80 percent, narrowly besting two Northern California Democrats.
"I believe strongly in protecting the Internet," Paul said in an interview. "My colleagues aren't quite as interested in the subject. That, to me, is disappointing."
Rep. Paul, a physician and Texas Republican, has been in a tense re-election campaign with Democratic cattle rancher Shane Sklar. Sklar has been running advertisements questioning Paul's voting record--and especially focusing on Internet-related votes.

Insight on the News

His consistently conservative voting record prompted a colleague to note, "Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers' ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are." Another colleague put it this way: "There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few."

Reason Magazine

The reason for the excitement is understandable: Ron Paul has been the most consistent successful politician advocating the limited-government principles that he sees embedded in the Constitution. Part of his appeal, to a voting base that we can safely presume isn’t as libertarian as Paul is himself, is that of the very rare politician following his own conscience and mind with steadfast integrity.

On the issues

Ron Paul's stances on all issues are simply brilliant. Even on divisive issues like abortion he is absolutely right. To talk about my own opinion would be one long stream of praise so I will simply let him speak for himself.


Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

Iraq (speeches made before the invasion!)

Much is made of Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, as a potential post-invasion leader of Iraq. Mr. Ritter told me that in his many dealings with Chalabi, he found him to be completely unreliable and untrustworthy. He added that neither he nor the approximately 100 Iraqi generals that the US is courting have any credibility inside Iraq, and any attempt to place them in power would be rejected in the strongest manner by the Iraqi people. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American military personnel would be required to occupy Iraq indefinitely if any American-installed regime is to remain in power. Again, it appears we are creating a larger problem than we are attempting to solve.
Why do so many knowledgeable military experts, including former generals Anthony Zinni, Brent Scowcroft, Norman Schwarzkopf, and Colin Powell, caution against war in Iraq? These men understand the geopolitics and military realities of Iraq and the Middle East from their service during the first Bush administration. Are the brilliant military minds of a decade ago suddenly irrelevant?

National ID

The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson's advice and "bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.


The modern-day, limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Political party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

The 9/11 Commission

The 9-11 Commission report is several hundred pages worth of recommendations to make government larger and more intrusive. Does this surprise anyone? It was written by people who cannot imagine any solution not coming from government. One thing you definitely will not see in the Commission report is a single critique of our interventionist foreign policy, which is the real source of most anti-American feelings around the globe.


International organizations can never “manage” trade better than it naturally occurs in a true free market of goods and services. At best, WTO acts as a meddling middleman, taking a cut for unnecessary services provided. At worst, it forces the United States to change its domestic laws in ways that seriously harm our economy and our sovereignty.


Why does Congress assume that the best approach is simply to write a huge check to FEMA, the very government agency that failed so spectacularly? This does not make sense. We have all seen the numerous articles detailing the seemingly inexcusable mistakes FEMA made – before and after the hurricane. Yet in typical fashion, Congress seems to think that the best way to fix the mess is to throw money at the very government agency that failed. We should not be rewarding failure.

George Washington Was Right

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, "times have changed," and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

External links

I visit these websites, like, all the time :)

Retrieved from ""

This page has been accessed 7,835 times. This page was last modified on 10 December 2007, at 19:48. Content is available under Attribution 2.5 .