Re: Contrarian versus libertarian?

In your view, everyone affected by draconian laws passed in their state if Ron Paul succeeds in destroying federal civil rights protections can just up and move elsewhere, regardless of jobs, health or family ties? Pretty unrealistic.

In my view what is pretty unrealistic is to have us believe that Ron Paul's election would lead to many, if any, states passing draconian civil rights laws and risking isolation by their fellow states and the rest of the world.

Ah, so we need Ron Paul to save us from the black helicopters and the Illuminati? Thanks for clarifying that.

You're welcome.  Consider it a free bonus to go along with my lessons on mainstream propaganda and vaccinations.

By the way, here's another source regarding Ron Paul and his views on civil liberties, which confirms what the author of the original article was saying.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/ig/2008-Republican-Candidates/Ron-P...

OK, since the website does not end with .gov, let's take a look at the site - which turns out to be an About.com candidate profile.  About.com, btw, gets it's materials from mostly volunteer moderators and contributors, as well as from heavily copying materials intact from sources such as Wikipedia.

Here it is:

Contributed by Tom Head

ACLU Rating:

 
Ron Paul has a 55% rating from the ACLU.

Pros:

Criminal Justice:
• Believes tht the federal government has the authority to prosecute only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. Believes that all other federal crime legislation should be revoked.
Death Penalty:
• Opposes capital punishment.
Drug War:
• Supports the abolition of all federal antidrug legislation.
• Has personally co-sponsored bills that would legalize medical marijuana and allow the use of industrial-grade hemp.
First Amendment:
• Believes that the Federal Communications Commission has no authority to regulate the content of broadcast communications.
  However:
  • Tends to oppose legislation written to secure church-state separation.

Gun Rights:
• Strong supporter of the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Lesbian and Gay Rights:

• Opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment.
• Believes that states that choose to recognize same-sex marriage should be allowed to do so without federal interference.
  However:
  • Supports the Defense of Marriage Act, and opposes the extension of federal marriage benefits to include same-sex couples.
  • In 1999, supported an amendment that would have withdrawn federal support for adoptions by unmarried couples.

 

 

 

War on Terror:

• Consistent opponent of post-9/11 civil liberties abuses, in virtually every possible context.
• Voted against the PATRIOT Act.

Cons:

Abortion and Birth Control:
• Opposes Roe v. Wade.
  However:
  • Opposes all federal laws banning or restricting abortion and birth control, believing that these are matters relegated to state control under the Tenth Amendment.
Immigrants' Rights:
• Opposes citizenship track for undocumented immigrants.
• Supports revising the Constitution to revoke the citizenship of infants born in the United States to undocumented parents.
Race and Equal Opportunity:
• Was one of only 33 members of Congress to vote against renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006.
• Believes that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty."
• Opposes all federal affirmative action programs.
  However:
  • Supports civil rights legislation on the state level.

Tom's Take:

 
Ron Paul is the rarest of animals: A legitimate Tenth Amendment candidate whose opposition to federal power is consistent and by no means limited to civil rights legislation. Paul stands no serious chance of winning the presidency, and that's probably a good thing, but his candidacy serves as a reminder that the party of Goldwater still has a few honest libertarians in it.

And there you have it.  I have no problem whatsoever with the profile.  It is consistent with Ron Paul's lifetime record of voting based on the consitutional merits of legislation regardless of the merits or lack thereof of the individual issues being voted on.

I would add, however, that it would appear likely that Tom Head's personal opinion of Ron Paul havinig no serious chance indicates that the profile was submitted prior to Ron Paul winning the call in votes after practically every televised debates as well as placing first or second in 27 different straw polls, not to mention raising more money in a single day in US History from over 37,000 individual contributions.  Otherwise, I might wonder whether Tom's real name was Richard and he had a different nickname.

Until that record fundraising day, almost all of the major media parroted the same opinion.  Many have now changed their opinions after such overwhelming evidence to the contrary that they can no longer deny his popularity and very real chance of success and still maintain credibility.

Thanks for pointing out what turned out to be a very accurate profile.  It is refreshing to see you contribute something positive.

DQ