Everything is Unconstitutional according to Ron Paul…The Federal Reserve, The War on Drugs, Free Trade…everything. The Iraq War, pantie hose, canned dog food and baby wipes…all unconstitutional… The guy is so far off base he has to be mentally ill. The more I read about Ron Paul and the ignorant statements he has made…I just can’t help but shake my head. This is the great hero people claim should be President? My God… What kind of thinking person could support such ignorance? We’ve always had people who suffer from paranoid schizophrenia and have delusions 
of grandeur in this country. About 6% of Americans suffer from this, which is about 12 million people. These people think they are so important the Government, a.k.a. “Big Brother” is out to get them. They are so delusional, they think the CIA has nothing better to do with their time than spy on them and listen to their phone calls. We’ve all met these wackos… if you talk to them long enough they will tell you “Big Brother” has implanted a chip in their head, and tracks their every move… Now these weirdos have somebody they can support…Ron Paul. And Ron Paul will laugh all they way to the Bank, and when it is all said and done, he’ll retire in Texas with the millions of dollars people have given him… What a joke.
Ron Paul is seditious, and wants to destroy this country. He wants to end our military and leave us defenseless. He wants to end Social Security and Medicare, leaving our elderly to beg for help from churches. He wants to watch the children of the poor slowly die with bloated bellies swollen from lack of nutrition. He wants to legalize drugs…??? The man is mentally ill. If you support Ron Paul, you are either mentally ill or you have a boiling hate for this country that is very sad….
Oops… I’m sure what I’ve written here is viewed as “Unconstitutional” by Ron Paul…everything else is…lmao
#1 by Anonymous on November 11th, 2007
Quote
Um, your premise is not connected with the body of your work. If you wish to prove that Ron Paul is unconstitutional, you must supply examples from the U.S. Constitution.
I award you a D. Spelling does count for something!
#2 by vote for hillary online on November 11th, 2007
Quote
Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance at all to win the presidency. If you want to check out a real candidate with real values, check out Hillary Clinton. You won’t be disappointed.
#3 by Anonymous on November 11th, 2007
Quote
Bit of a shame the two of them aren’t actually competing for anything at the moment.
#4 by Joe S. on November 11th, 2007
Quote
The dollar plunges on foreign exchanges and oil skyrockets, and yet the government is telling us there is no significant inflation.
Yeah, we’re idiots. For trusting you guys.
#5 by Allen on November 12th, 2007
Quote
“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and demonize the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” – Hermann Goering
“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal” – Martin Luther King Jr.
#6 by Allen on November 14th, 2007
Quote
October 15, 2001
Effective and Practical Counter-Terrorism Measures
Over the past month I have introduced several bills designed to address terrorism and make Americans feel more secure. While many counter-terrorism proposals were considered in Congress last week, my belief is that the most effective steps we can take do not infringe upon the civil liberties of American citizens. In fact, I believe only a free society can ever be truly secure. The goal should be to make terrorists feel threatened, not the American people.
Here are some concrete steps Congress can take immediately to make our borders, our cities, and our skies more secure:
Arm Pilots: It is unthinkable to leave pilots defenseless in the cockpit after the events of September 11th. We trust pilots to operate multimillion dollar machines filled with human cargo, yet incredibly we do not trust them with firearms. While airport security certainly can be strengthened, pilots must have the choice to carry weapons as a last line of defense against future hijacking attempts.
Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.
Better intelligence gathering: Burdensome regulations and bureaucratic turf wars hamper the ability of federal law enforcement personnel to share information about terrorists. My proposal would slash regulations and make sure the CIA, FBI, State department, Justice department, and military work together to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts.
Harsher criminal penalties for terrorists: The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts.
Letters of marque and reprisal: This constitutional tool can be used to give President Bush another weapon in the war on terrorism. Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the intelligence of private parties, who may stand a better chance of finding Bin Laden than we do through a conventional military invasion. Letters of marque also may help us avoid a wider war with Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations.
End legal preferences for terrorist suspects: Congress should clarify all federal criminal statutes to insure that so-called “extralegal” preferences for criminal terrorist suspects are eliminated. In some past terrorist investigations, federal rules have been interpreted to require law enforcement to show something more than standard probable cause to obtain warrants. Law enforcement officials should never have to demonstrate anything more than standard probable cause when seeking a warrant in the war on terrorism.
- Ron Paul
#7 by Allen on November 14th, 2007
Quote
September 23, 2002
Will We Bring bin Laden to Justice?
A year has passed since the terrible September 11th terror attacks, yet still we seem unable to locate Osama bin Laden or his al Qaida associates.
President Bush has made it clear that he intends to use “all appropriate means” to oust Saddam Hussein, although everyone concedes that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. So why is the same approach not justified for the al Qaida criminals directly responsible for 3000 American deaths?
We seem to have forgotten that our primary objective in the war on terror is to capture or kill bin Laden and his henchmen. One year ago, the desire for retribution against bin Laden was tangible. President Bush referred to finding him “dead or alive.” And while the hunger for vengeance was understandable, the practical need to destroy al Qaida before it mounted another terror attack was urgent. Yet we have allowed the passage of time and the false specter of an Iraq threat to distract us from our original purpose. We’re preoccupied with an invasion of Iraq, which actually will benefit bin Laden by removing a secular regime led by his enemy Saddam Hussein. This vacuum may well lead to a more fundamentalist Kurd government in Iraq that aligns itself with al Qaida.
Our troops in Afghanistan, and defense secretary Rumsfeld himself, are becoming increasingly frustrated over the lack of progress in locating bin Laden. Clearly we need to provide President Bush with innovative new tools to bring these criminals to justice. The drafters of the Constitution provided just such a tool to retaliate against attacks on America by groups not formally affiliated with a government: letters of marque and reprisal. Letters of marque and reprisal are especially suited to our modern campaign against terrorism, which is fought against individuals rather than governments. Essentially, marque and reprisal authorizes the President to use private parties to find international terrorists wherever they hide.
Conventional armed forces are ill-suited to tracking down international terrorists. Our military invasion of Afghanistan undoubtedly has scattered al-Qaida throughout the Middle East and Europe. Marque and reprisal would create an incentive for individuals close to bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. This method in effect places a bounty on the heads of international terrorists, who often travel between countries, melt into civilian populations, or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the knowledge and expertise of private parties, especially given the lack of western intelligence in many of the countries likely to harbor bin Laden. Marque and reprisal could turn the tables on the terrorists, forcing them to live as marked men. Terrorist should fear us, not the other way around.
Ultimately, letters of marque and reprisal could help us avoid a wider war by bringing terrorists to justice without the need for military action- saving American lives in the process. I recently wrote defense Secretary Rumsfeld, urging administration support for my legislation, the “Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.” Unless and until the administration puts the focus back on bin Laden and al-Qaida, the horrific crimes of September 11th will remain unpunished.
Ron Paul
#8 by Allen on November 14th, 2007
Quote
May 14, 2007
Security, Washington-Style
Congress voted this past week to authorize nearly $40 billion for the Homeland Security Department, but the result will likely continue to be more bureaucracy and less security for Americans.
Five years into this new Department, Congress still cannot agree on how to handle the mega-bureaucracy it created, which means there has been no effective oversight of the department. While Congress remains in disarray over how to fund and oversee the department, we can only wonder whether we are more vulnerable than we were before Homeland Security was created.
I was opposed to the creation of a new Homeland Security Department from the beginning. Only in Washington would anyone call the creation of an additional layer of bureaucracy on top of already bloated bureaucracies “streamlining.” Only in Washington would anyone believe that a bigger, more centralized federal government means more efficiency.
When Congress voted to create the Homeland Security Department, I strongly urged that — at the least — FEMA and the Coast Guard should remain independent entities outside the Department. Our Coast Guard has an important mission — to protect us from external threats — and in my view it is dangerous to experiment with re-arranging the deck chairs when the United States is vulnerable to attack. As I said at the time, “the Coast Guard and its mission are very important to the Texas Gulf coast, and I don’t want that mission relegated to the back burner in a huge bureaucracy.”
Likewise with FEMA. At the time of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, I wrote “we risk seeing FEMA become less responsive as part of DHS. FEMA needs to be a flexible, locally focused, hands-on agency that helps people quickly after a disaster.” Unfortunately and tragically, we all know very well what happened in 2005 with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We know that FEMA’s handing of the disaster did in many cases more harm than good. FEMA was so disorganized and incompetent in its management of the 2005 hurricanes that one can only wonder how much the internal disarray in the Department of Homeland Security may have contributed to that mismanagement.
Folding responsibility for defending our land borders into the Department of Homeland Security was also a bad idea, as we have come to see. The test is simple: We just ask ourselves whether our immigration enforcement has gotten better or worse since functions were transferred into this super bureaucracy. Are our borders being more effectively defended against those who would enter our country illegally? I don’t think so.
Are we better off with an enormous conglomerate of government agencies that purports to keep us safe? Certainly we are spending more money and getting less for it with the Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps now that the rush to expand government in response to the attacks of 9/11 is over, we can take a good look at what is working, what is making us safer, and what is not. If so, we will likely conclude that the Department of Homeland Security is too costly, too bloated, and too bureaucratic. Hopefully then we will refocus our efforts on an approach that doesn’t see more federal bureaucracy in Washington as the best way to secure the rest of the nation.
Ron Paul
#9 by bill gillen on November 15th, 2007
Quote
You missed the point…RON PAUL IS MENTALLY ILL. I’ll give you a “D” for “Dunce.”