Firm Support Medium

Ron Paul squelched by the major news media/repubies, or...?

...is Paul looking to"dispatch" Giuliani/Clinton? With major news media "pumping" Hillary Giuliani for our next "pre arranged" president & the likes of the house/senate "gods" such as kennedy/gingrich beating the same old drum is it ANY wonder that Americans are remaing gullible? Has the "GROUPIE" mentality set in so firm, that Americans can NO longer think "out side" the box as for them selves??? "LOGIC FOR THE INDIVDUAL, EMOTION FOR THE MASSES...Adolph Hitler-1934." Is it only REAL Americans that can see the difference between constitutional representation & groupie participation??? Does your presidential candidate support limited government? Does your presidential candidate support abolishment of the federal reserve/IRS? Does your presidential candidate support a precious metal backed REAL currency? Does your presidentiall candidate even support ANY of YOUR constitutional rights? YOU, reading this post, do YOU even know what your constitutional rights are, please respond!

I can't let "Asshat McGee" get away with that.

------------------------------------------------------
"Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007) "

FROM http://capwiz.com/atr/issues/alert/?alertid=9926546 :
"This bill would strip workers of their right to a private
ballot in deciding on union membership. Instead,
hired thugs would follow you to your home, your
church, or anywhere they can to get you to sign
yourself up for “union benefits.” What if you don’t
want to? That’s what bribes and baseball bats are
for." (Americans for Tax Reform)

------------------------------------------------
"Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) "

FROM http://www.nysun.com/article/26520 :
"The bill goes beyond Congress's power under
the Constitution to regulate foreign commerce."

FROM http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Families_+_Children.htm :
"That bill would also enlarge law enforcement's wiretap
and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations
of child pornography."
(Setting precedence...And it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL)

FROM http://markskatz.com/blog2/serendipity/archives/123-PROTECT-Acts-mandatory-sentencing-is-unconstitutional..html :
"Fortunately, federal courts repeatedly have found this PROTECT Act mandatory sentencing provision to violate the rationale of U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which prohibits a mandatory -- versus advisory -- application of the federal sentencing guidelines.... " (More on above link)

-----------------------------------------------
"Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004) "

When "green technologies" are more attractive they'll
receive the funding necessary. Paul opposes Federal
funding of alternative energy research for the same
reason he doesn't support subsidizing oil companies.
Doing so distorts the energy market, and in the end
consumers would have no idea if they're honestly
paying more or less.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Voted YES to Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)"

FROM http://www.votehemp.com/PR/02-13-07_federal_bill.html :
"It is indefensible that the United States government
prevents American farmers from growing this crop.
The prohibition subsidizes farmers in countries from
Canada to Romania by eliminating American
competition and encourages jobs in industries such
as food, auto parts and clothing that utilize industrial
hemp to be located overseas instead of in the United
States," said Dr. Paul. "By passing the Industrial
Hemp Farming Act the House of Representatives
can help American farmers and reduce the trade
deficit — all without spending a single taxpayer dollar."

"Under the current national drug control policy,
industrial hemp can be imported, but it can't be grown
by American farmers," says Eric Steenstra, President
of Vote Hemp. "The DEA has taken the Controlled
Substances Act's antiquated definition of marijuana
out of context and used it as an excuse to ban
industrial hemp farming. The Industrial Hemp Farming
Act of 2007 will bring us back to more rational times
when the government regulated marijuana, but told
farmers they could go ahead and continue raising
hemp just as they always had," says Mr. Steenstra.
(More on above link)

-------------------------------------------------------------
"Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)"

FROM http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=74411 :
"The tragic events of the past month have forced
both President Bush and Congress to reassess the
priorities of our federal government. The obvious
consensus is that we have to do a better job of
protecting Americans against future acts of war here
on our own soil. Indeed, the President has promised
that his administration will use every available resource
to fight the war on terrorism. Yet our most potent
resource, the U.S. military, is spread far too thin around
the world to adequately protect us from growing
terrorist hostilities and the possibility of a full-scale
war." (More on above link)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)"

GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN PRIVATE
LIVES, VIOLATING PRIVACY - UNCONSTITUTIONAL

FROM http://www.reason.com/news/show/30813.html :
"That bill would spend nearly $800 million of taxpayer money over the next four years on yet another anti-drug propaganda campaign. Among other things, this bundle of big-government hubris instructs states to drug-test teens seeking driver's licenses, making test results available to the would-be drivers' insurance companies; asks the secretary of education to develop a drug-free school rating system; creates the Drug-Free National Clearinghouse, which would serve as a one-stop shopping center for anti-drug materials; and encourages states to encourage businesses to adopt anti-drug programs."
(THE BILL WAS JUST ANOTHER EXTENSION OF THE FAILED "WAR ON DRUGS" THAT ONLY INCREASES ABUSE AND AVAILABILITY OF DRUGS, AND IS FILLING UP OUR PRISONS WITH PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE IN REHAB)

--------------------------------------------------------------
"Says War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)"

FROM http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18524903.600 :
"Despite spending more than $45 billion over the past 25 years and increasing the numbers of people imprisoned for drug offences more than tenfold, the federal strategy has failed to curb drug use, the coalition says. Drugs are cheaper and easier to get than ever, it adds." - Ron Paul

FROM http://www.ronpaulhq.com/issues.php :
"You don't need to approve of drug use to believe that this is financial insanity. We are spending an outrageous amount of money trying to reign in the consequences of a black market created by drug prohibition, and we are demonstrably losing the "war." It is time to recognize that we are making the problem worse by driving it underground." Ron Paul

LEARN MORE HERE:
http://www.freecentury.com/2007/05/20/ron-paul-ending-the-war-on-drugs-lower-crime/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul179.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Voted YES to Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)"

TO RON PAUL, THIS IS JUST AS MUCH AN
ISSUE OF STATES' RIGHTS AS IT IS ABOUT
COMPASSION FOR THE SUFFERING &
COMMON SENSE.

FROM http://ohiopatient.net/newsletter/OPNews_July_2002.htm :
"As a physician, I of course support the right of doctors and patients to decide for themselves what treatments are appropriate, without interference from the federal government," said Rep. Paul, co-sponsor of H.R. 2592, the "States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act," which seeks to amend federal law so that states wishing to legalize and distribute medicinal marijuana may do so without running afoul of federal law. "The idea that [the federal government] is attacking sick people and the doctor-patient relationship is criminal. It's a criminal act."

Former Reagan aide Lyn Nofziger offered his support for H.R. 2592 after explaining how marijuana helped alleviate the suffering of his daughter while she underwent cancer chemotherapy. "Because of this [experience,] I have become an avid supporter of efforts to legalize marijuana's use for medicinal purposes," he said. "An administration that claims to be compassionate and conservative should enthusiastically support legislation that is truly compassionate and that also would return rights to the states that the 10th Amendment theoretically guarantees them."
(CLICK THE ABOVE LINK FOR MORE)

------------------------------------------------------------
"Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)"

FROM http://www.vlrc.org/articles/61.html :
"...the staunchest supporter of the Second Amendment in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul,...he refused to support their pet legislation on constitutional grounds, but they will not say a negative word about President Bush and his clearly political betrayal of gun owners. Ron Paul’s actions weren’t against gun owners. He didn’t do what he did to betray the Second Amendment. He rejected H.R. 1036 on clearly constitutional grounds – because he believed it violated the 10th Amendment. Yeah – another portion of the “inviolate” Constitution the NRA claims to protect."

(CLICK THE LINK - IT IS VERY REVEALING ABOUT THE NRA'S/BUSH'S BETRAYAL OF GUN OWNERS)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)"

FROM http://www.gunowners.org/a102005.htm :
"The anti-gun provisions in S. 397 would probably be stripped out in the House if all the gun groups were working together with GOA." -- Rep. Ron Paul, Sept. 15, 2005

It's a shame really.

Rep. Ron Paul is totally correct. Working united, we could have encouraged the House leadership to bring up a CLEAN bill.

As we have mentioned before, S. 397 imposes a mandatory "gun tax" by forcing every gun buyer to purchase a trigger lock and takes us to the verge of mandatory trigger lock usage.

The bill provides immunity (from lawsuits) for those who use trigger locks, but there is no such immunity for gun owners who keep a firearm available for self-defense WITHOUT a trigger lock.

The push towards trigger locks may very well follow the push for mandatory seat belts and motorcycle helmets. And if our country ever takes that next step -- and straps every gun owner with California-style lock-up-your-safety legislation -- then we will need to remember this day as the day that laid the foundation.

Another amendment which passed as part of S. 397 would give impetus to adopting a "penetration standard" for armor piercing bullets by commissioning a Justice Department study of the issue. If a "penetration standard" were adopted, a gun-adverse administration could probably use it to ban virtually all ammunition.
(THE FOLLOWING LINK IS A STORY ABOUT A GRANDMOTHER WAS UNABLE TO DEFEND HER 2 GRANDCHILDREN FROM BEING KILLED DUE TO THESE TRIGGER LOCKS)
http://www.grnc.org/mary_carpenter_letter.htm

----------------------------------------------------------
"Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)"

FROM http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9908.htm :
"Although the Republican House leadership and the NRA urged support for the final [House] version, they were hampered by opposition from other gun groups who were unhappy it required gun safety locks and raised to 21 the legal age for owning a handgun."

"'Please vote no on passage of HR 2122,' urged a letter from Gun Owners of America. And many conservative Republicans did just that."

http://www.gunowners.org/a102005.htm
http://www.grnc.org/mary_carpenter_letter.htm

Currently Available on eBay

And a selection of products from Amazon

The ActionCOACH Support System