Marijuana: It’s Time For A Conversation

April 29, 2008

Before you watch, I want to say a few things.

It doesnt matter that this video was produced and funded by the ACLU.

This video parrots what William F. Buckley said for years.

Prohibition doesnt not work. All it accomplishes is driving it underground, inflating the cost, and sucks Billions per year out of the economy. I dont have to go into tax bennifit; that is a no brainer.

Please watch with an open mind, hard as that might be for some.




Ron Paul: Clinton ‘doesn’t understand the presidency’

April 23, 2008

by Nicholas R. Schwaderer

This year’s presidential election isn’t out of surprises.

When America had just settled into the Obama vs. Clinton vs. McCain political equation, Ron Paul proved Monday night that his message still has a place in the fray.

Earlier Monday, Clinton said she was prepared to “totally obliterate” Iran in response to a nuclear attack on Israel. She elaborated on that statement in later interviews, saying her goal was to reestablish a Cold-War-style deterrence.

The Chronicle asked Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul about Clinton’s statement during a press conference immediately before his rally at the University of Montana.

“She doesn’t understand the presidency if she’s making this type of commitment,” he said, launching into a discussion on foreign affairs.

Paul explained his core position through the lens of the current Iraqi conflict. He asserted that we are in the midst of an unconstitutional war that was never declared by Congress. He also expressed his distaste of treaties under which America is obligated to go to war.

When asked what his response would be under the same circumstances, Paul said Israel is safer without our presence and could sufficiently wipe out Iran on its own. He pointed out that Iran ‘may’ have been working on ‘a’ nuke since 2003, while Israel possesses 300.

“Iran is the peacemaker over there right now,” Paul said. “We wouldn’t do anything unless Congress says we should declare war.”

Paul would promote non-interventionism, focusing on self-reliance and seeking to “avoid entangling alliances” to prevent unwanted conflict. He also felt that because of the U.S. acting as the “world police,” we have fewer allies and more enemies than ever before.

During his remarks at the subsequent rally, Paul thanked Missoula County and Montana for his second-place finish in the state, behind Mitt Romney but ahead of presumptive nominee John McCain.

Paul’s 25 percent showing in Montana in February is his best result to date anywhere in the country. As shown by the standing-room-only crowd of sign-waving Paul-supporters, Montana’s enthusiasm for Paul’s message has not dimmed since Super Tuesday.

He attributed his resonance here to the fact that Montanans generally support individual liberty, small federal government, and fiscal responsibility. He also said his many young supporters come from an upcoming generation concerned about inheriting problems that the current federal government is setting up for them.

One point of tension during the rally came during the Q & A session when a supporter said he was pro-choice, expressing that he had no say in matters of pregnancy because it was “not his body.” The statement was greeted with sparse claps and cheers, followed by resounding boos.

Paul politely thanked the individual and said as a right-to-life candidate, he opposes abortion. The law demonstrates that the unborn has rights, he pointed out. For example, as a doctor, he could be sued if there were complications with a pregnancy. When a pregnant woman is murdered, the law recognizes it as a double homicide.

“I can’t use force or violence to hurt another,” Paul said in summary.

Paul also touched on education, saying that government should not be involved in education and that with less taxation, students will be more able to pay for college. He also supports a tax credit for the expenses students incur while at college. He noted that he paid his tuition by working at his University’s soda fountain.

Montana, among other states, has a strong pro-marijuana movement. Paul addressed this by detailing out a piece of legislation he carried in Congress several years ago. The bill called for the legalization of possessing and carrying raw milk. Simply put, Paul felt that the government shouldn’t further regulate what Americans eat, drink or smoke. He proclaimed that each American has the right to make decisions in regard to his or her soul and be able to live with the consequences. Though he may have raised his children and grew up himself with certain beliefs as to how he should treat his body, he obviously didn’t want to impress those upon all Americans.

Paul also agreed with supporters who said the mainstream media has not provided fair coverage of his campaign and his positions on issues, even though Paul received more votes than early front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.

“I think I was marginalized… I don’t take it personal,” Paul said, “I was never seen as a viable candidate.”

Why is Paul remaining in the race?

“[McCain] looks like he’s going to be the nominee, he’s not [yet]” Paul said, “As long as there’s enthusiasm … I’ve continued to campaign.”

He will continue to run as long as there’s a strong base of support and it’s financially possible, he told supporters. Asked repeatedly whether he would run as a third party candidate, he would only say that he “can’t tell” what the next few months may hold for his campaign.

Monday afternoon Paul signed copies of his recently published book, “The Revolution: A Manifesto,” at the University Bookstore. The book lists our current problems: ever-expanding government, rising taxes, wars, inflation, and disappearing basic freedoms. Paul advocates a smaller, fiscally responsible government and an emphasis on self-reliance.

Barney and Ron: Together Again

April 16, 2008

Topic: Government Regulation
Barney and Ron: Together Again

It may come as a shock to supporters of both men, but Barney Frank and Ron Paul are jointly sponsoring s bill affecting federal regulatory power and states’ rights.

by rtbohan
Wednesday, April 16, 2008

The Hill newspaper reports today thatBarney Frank and Ron Paul are together again, or perhaps together again for the first time.( They  jointly introduced a bill in the House of Representatives last Friday dealing with federal regulatory power and states’ rights, issues  on which most would expect them to be taking opposite sides. What may be even more surprising is that the measure is in reponse to complaints from bankes, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.

Barney Frank is a liberal Democrat and an advocate of strong federal regulation of business.  Ron Paul is a conservative Republican and libertarian who wants to limit federal regulation and supports the right of state government to set regulations on matters he believes are outside the legitimate scope of federal power.

What brought the two opponents into at least temporary agreement is their opposition to the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.  The law the two are sponsoring would prohbit the Federal Government from adopting any measures to carry out this law.

The 2006 Act does not prohibit internet gambling nor regulate it.  It directs the federal government and the banks to enforce various state laws prohibiting gambling.  A number of states, of course, are, directly or indirectly, in the gambling business themselves, either through the licensing and taxing of casinos or through lotteries, which are voluntary tax systems.  These states want to limit competition by banning gambling on the internet and prohbiting payoffs from internet gambling sites.  Unable to directly enforce these laws, they have called upon the federal government to act for them. The NFL and other sports organization as well as the Family Research Council joined in vocal support of the measure.

Representatuve Frank, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has already sponsored a law to legalize and provide for federal regulation of internet gambling, which would, among other things, repeal the 2006 Act.  It would treat  internet gambling as a matter of interstate commerce and therefore under the delegated power of the federal government.  In terms of economic and personal freedom this might not be an improvement over the current law.

He has joined Representative Paul in sponsoring the legislation introduced Friday in reponse to complaints before his committee from the American Bankers Association, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.  Because a great deal of business is done over the internet and a great deal of money changes hands, the government feels that devising regulations for distinquishing illegal gambling payments from other payments would be difficult to devise.  The bankers feel they would be almost impossible to apply without using too many of the banks’  resources in sorting out the payments.

The Frank-Paul measure would stop the implementation of the 2006 Act by prohibiting the creation of a federal enforcement mechanism  From Frank’s point of view, the measure provides a means of blocking an onerous regulation until his bill can be considered.  From Paul’s point of view, this is another means of limiting federal regulation of business.

This is not the only issue on which Frank and Paul are in agreement, despite their very different viewpoints.  Both, for example, want to leave regulation of at least marijuana, if not other drugs, to the states and get the federal government out. On the whole, however, they have very different views of the role of government and on the interpretation of the constitution.

But intelligent people holding strongly opposing views can work together when their goals coincide.