Hieronder ziet u alle thema's die u heeft behandeld. U kunt op een thema klikken om de antwoorden per vraag van u en van Ron Paul te lezen. Eventueel aangevuld met de onderbouwing van deze partij.
I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:
• H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
• H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/uploads/pdf/66.pdf
Stelling 2: Strengere wapenwetten leiden niet tot minder criminaliteit
Supported bills
H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993,
two invasive and unconstitutional bills
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/uploads/pdf/66.pdf
You see, if you listen to many politicians in Washington, the gun control crowd, and their mouthpieces in the "mainstream" media, you'd think the reason for our crime problem is a lack of tough (and un-Constitutional) gun-control legislation.
That, my friend, is NONSENSE.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/gunowners/
The UN claims to serve human freedom and dignity, but gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement, column by Rom Paul June 27, 2006
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html
Stelling 3: Alle semi-automatische wapens moeten worden verboden
In Congress, I have followed a constitutional approach to environmental action:
I consistently vote against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests.
I am a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property.
Taxpayers for Common Sense named me a "Treasury Guardian" for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare.
I am a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, a bipartisan caucus devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/
"Environmentalists go back and forth, from warning about a coming ice age to arguing the grave dangers of global warming."
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
June 29, 2006
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr062906.htm
"Ron Paul Slams Global Warming "Fearmongering"
Congressman dismisses doomsday predictions during interview
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Congressman Ron Paul, who many would argue has remained somewhat neutral on the issue of global warming thus far, slammed alarmist predictions of the earth's decline as "fearmongering" and encouraged contrarian thinking on the issue during an interview with popular Internet TV broadcast G4.
"People think that Greenland's going to be gone in 20 years - I don't buy into that," Paul told host Layla Kayleigh.
Asked if he bought into "the ice glaciers melting," Paul responded, "They can find just as many places where the ice is building up - in Greenland, in certain parts of Greenland, in Antarctica."
""Right now there needs to be a little contrarian thinking about the fearmongering that is going on with global warming like it's the end of the earth," said Paul, responding strongly when challenged by Kayleigh, who used to work for Al Gore's TV network."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120607_slams_fearmongering.htm
"I tend to think it's overblown"
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CUm1aVwRnC0&feature=related
Stelling 2: Een extra belasting op brandstof is een effectief middel om milieuvervuiling tegen te gaan
Freedom only exists where there is complete respect for rights of property ownership. When we go to another person's land, or home, or business, we should expect to be bound by their rules of conduct. And they should be free to protect their property and family as they see fit.
Increasingly, though, the government is usurping our property rights, in one fashion or another. It is fair to say that we are in a sense losing true property ownership. In many cases, the government prevents us from doing with our property what we would like, essentially making the land worthless. Yet government still manages to tax us at rates which rival rent for the pleasure of being forbidden from using the land. Some of the laws are ostensibly "environmental" in nature, others reflect a desire for "fairness," while still others make claims of simply being "good for everyone." While these laws may be good for the big-government bureaucrats, they are bad for almost everyone else. In fact, these laws amount to regulatory takings, which are prohibited by our Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/240/respect-for-property-rights-necessary-for-freedom/
The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the National Forests, and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.
The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.
In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/
Stelling 3: De VS moeten nooit internationale verdragen over klimaatverandering tekenen als die de economische groei beperken
In Congress, I have followed a constitutional approach to environmental action:
I consistently vote against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests.
I am a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/
Only a free market, with real penalties for causing harm, can bring about change. As president, I would fight to end oil subsidies, to stop giving preferential treatment to big energy lobbies, and to stop abusing our military by risking their lives to line corporate pockets.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977200038
[Global warming] is a problem. The environments are always better taken care of with strict property rights. Under property rights, you are never allowed to pollute. ... What has happened in industrial revolution, big business and government got together and permitted pollution. You ought to be able to stop a neighbor from polluting your land immediately. Just like if your neighbor dumped garbage in your yard, you could call the policemen; that's the way you should have protection of water and air.
-- Campaign stop in Iowa, May 3, 2007
http://whereistand.com/RonPaul/18920
PAUL: Just come home. We just marched in. We can just come back.
(APPLAUSE)
We went in there illegally. We did not declare war. It’s lasting way too long. We didn’t declare war in Korea or Vietnam. The wars were never really ended. We lose those wars. We’re losing this one. We shouldn’t be there. We ought to just come home.
Republican Debate Des Moines (Iowa) ABC News 05-08-2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/us/politics/05transcript-debate.html?pagewanted=print
Stelling 2: De VS zijn veiliger dankzij de inval in Irak
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
The number one reason it’s in our national self-interest and for our national security, think of our defenses now, how rundown they are. What is the morale of our military today when they’re sent over there for 12 months and then they’re kept for another three months? They come home and, with less than a year’s rest, they’re sent back again. Congress is currently trying to change the rules so we give these men an adequate rest.
This war is not going well because the foreign policy is defective.
Republican Debate Des Moines (Iowa) ABC News 05-08-2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/us/politics/05transcript-debate.html?pagewanted=print
Stelling 3: De nieuwe president moet onmiddellijk beginnen met het terughalen van alle Amerikaanse troepen uit Irak
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
PAUL: Just come home. We just marched in. We can just come back.
(APPLAUSE)
We went in there illegally. We did not declare war. It’s lasting way too long. We didn’t declare war in Korea or Vietnam. The wars were never really ended. We lose those wars. We’re losing this one. We shouldn’t be there. We ought to just come home.
Republican Debate Des Moines (Iowa) ABC News 05-08-2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/us/politics/05transcript-debate.html?pagewanted=print
Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.
Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/
Stelling 2: De belastingverlagingen voor de hogere inkomens moeten worden teruggedraaid
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.
Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/
MR. HUME: Congressman Paul, one last question for you on this. The president believed after 9/11 that the tax cuts that he had put in place were helpful in softening the economic downturn that occurred, and allowing the United States economy to rise out of it. Would you propose -- what economic policies would you propose under this scenario to avert or soften a recession?
REP. PAUL: Well, the lower the taxes the better, and I think cutting taxes would be beneficial. But we should find places where we could cut spending as well, because eventually a deficit can be very, very harmful to us.
Republican Debate South Carolina Fox News 15-05-2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16repubs-text.html?pagewanted=print
Stelling 3: De regering heeft geen verantwoordelijkheid voor het verstrekken van pensioenen
Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.
Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending.
The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.
We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.
Q: What do you think of Social Security?
A: It's a mess. And it proves that the government is not very good at central economic planning, even for retirement. The money was taken from the people with good intention. We should do our best to return it to those that have taken it. But we need to allow the young people to just flat out get out of the system. Because, if you have the government managing these accounts, it's not going to work.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007
Paul scores 30% by the ARA on senior issues
The mission of the Alliance for Retired Americans is to ensure social and economic justice and full civil rights for all citizens so that they may enjoy lives of dignity, personal and family fulfillment and security. The Alliance believes that all older and retired persons have a responsibility to strive to create a society that incorporates these goals and rights and that retirement provides them with opportunities to pursue new and expanded activities with their unions, civic organizations and their communities.
The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: ARA website 03n-ARA on Dec 31, 2003
I say, take care of these poor people. I'm not against that. But save the money someplace. The only place available for us to save it is to change our attitude about running a world empire and bankrupting this country. We can take care of the poor people, save money and actually cut some of our deficit.
So you don't have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work.
And you can't expect the managed care system that we have today, which promotes and benefits and rewards the corporations -- because it's the drug companies and the HMOs and even the AMA that comes to us and lobbies us for this managed care, and that's why the prices are high.
PAUL: It's only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/us/politics/21debate-transcript.html
In an early sign of his disdain for government spending, he refused to accept Medicare or Medicaid payments from his clients. He would instead treat them at a lower cost or set up extended payment plans. Later, when his children applied to college, he made sure they didn't have to rely on federal loans to pay for their education.
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/candidates/paul.html
Stelling 3: De Amerikaanse regering moet de inkomensongelijkheid terugdringen
Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/social-security/
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/
Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.
It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.
We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.
Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.
It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.
We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/social-security/
So yes, there's a lot of things that we can cut, but we can't cut anything until we change our philosophy about what government should do. If you think that we can continue to police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars overseas, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars running a welfare state, an entitlement system that has accumulated $60 trillion worth of obligations, and think that we can run the economy this way; we spend so much money now that we have to borrow nearly $3 billion a day from foreigners to take care of our consumption, and we can't afford that.
Republican Debate South Carolina Fox News 15-05-2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16repubs-text.html?pagewanted=print
But we have to realize where the resentment comes from. I believe it's related to our economy. When the economy is weakening and there's resentment because of our welfare system; jobs are going overseas; our good jobs -- pay is going down.
There's a lot of resentments because the welfare system is based on mandates from the federal government to put pressure on states like Florida and Texas to provide services which the local taxpayers resent.
Some of our hospitals are closing. So it's an economic issue, too.
If we deal with the welfare state and a healthy economy and a sound -- money and all this wasteful spending overseas, we would have a healthy economy; I think this problem would be greatly reduced.
Republican Univision Debate on 2007-12-09 in Miami,FL
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=338381&keyword=welfare&phrase=&contain=
Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.
We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american-independence-and-sovereignty/
Out of the United Nations?
Yes, I certainly think so, because it's part of the draining of our resources. It's not like you have to close it down in one day…. If you could immediately limit it to the participation in war, it wouldn't bother me quite so much. But I don't think our interests are well served by giving some of our sovereignty up.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12224561
Stelling 2: Iran vormt geen directe bedreiging voor de wereldvrede
As I have been saying all along, Iran indeed poses no quantifiable imminent nuclear threat to us or her neighbors. It is unthinkable that despite lack of any evidence of a threat, some are still charging headstrong into yet another war in the Middle East when what we ought to be doing is coming home from Iraq, coming home from Korea, coming home from Germany and defending our own soil
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Foreign%20Policy
(Press release 12/06 2007)
“It’s a bad idea. There’s no need for it. There’s great danger in doing it. America is against it, and Congress should be…
We don’t need to do this. The threat is overblown. The plan is an hysterical reaction to a problem that does not yet exist.
“Hysteria is never a good basis for foreign policy. Don’t we ever learn? Have we already forgotten Iraq?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/66/ron-paul-to-administration-no-escalation-with-iran/
PAUL: Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don’t we just open up the Constitution and read it? You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.
Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes. If there’s an imminent attack on us. We’ve never had that happen in 220 years.
PAUL: The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There’s no way. This is just...
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: This is—this is just war propaganda, continued war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war not only in Iraq, but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation. It’s a road to our financial disaster if we don’t read the Constitution once in a while.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21221689/
Stelling 3: De VS moeten hun uitgaven aan defensie verminderen
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.
In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/
Congress will spend nearly $2 trillion in 2002. This amount represents almost 11% more than Congress will spend in 2001. This massive spending funds an unbelievable number of federal departments, agencies, programs, and personnel. Most Americans understand that the federal government is far too large, yet most of their representatives in Congress continue to vote for spending increases every year. As a result, the same unconstitutional agencies grow, the same counterproductive programs are perpetuated, and the same military adventurism expands around the globe. In short, this spending insures that the federal government has more and more power over our lives, power never dreamed of nor intended by the authors of our Constitution.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/228/uncontrolled-spending-threatens-our-liberty/
As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it's important to ask ourselves an overlooked question: Can we really afford it? If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I'm quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted.
Recent column of Ron Paul
http://www.hetechtenieuws.be/index.php/nieuws/49/70
(...) as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.
(....) One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages, to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions. This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation.
(...) While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church – not the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
Ron Paul, Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny, Before the House of Representatives, July 22, 2004.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
He said the Defense of Marriage Act was good enough and if further regulations were necessary, "put it at the state level like the Constitution says."
Paul explained getting marriage licenses only came about in recent history for health reasons.
"True Christians," he said, "believe that marriage is a church function. It's not a state function. I don't think you need a license to get married."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57701
John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?
Ron Paul: Sure.
Stossel: The State says, we will believe in this?
Paul: Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they don’t expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can’t make me, personally, accept what they do, but they gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, I’d like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don’t think it’s a state function. I think it’s a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I don’t agree with that.
http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2007/12/2020-ron-paul-on-gay-marriage.html
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/uploads/pdf/61.pdf
"Do you support the Roe v. Wade decision or would you like to see this decision overturned? Why or why not?
Roe v. Wade nationalized the issue of abortion, and it has ripped our country apart ever since. I support taking jurisdiction over abortion law away from federal courts and allowing the states to set their own abortion policies, effectively overturning Roe v. Wade without a new Supreme Court decision. Because the Constitution neither gives the president nor Congress any authority to act in these areas, I will abide by the decision of each state and will not seek to interfere."
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/ron-paul/#abortion
Stelling 3: Het gebruik van embryo's voor stamcelonderzoek is acceptabel, omdat het ons in staat stelt ziekten te genezen
"Mr. Speaker, the issue of government funding of embryonic stem cell research is one of the most divisive matters facing the country. While I sympathize with those who see embryonic stem cell research as a path to cures for dreadful diseases that have stricken so many Americans, I strongly object to forcing those Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars.
The question that should concern Congress today is: Does the US government have the constitutional authority to fund any form of stem cell research? The clear answer to that question is no."
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/82/no-federal-funding-for-stem-cell-research/
05/24/2005
The debate in Washington has again turned to federal funding of stem cell research, with President Bush moving to veto legislation passed recently by Congress. Those engaged in this debate tend to split into warring camps claiming exclusive moral authority to decide the issue once and for all.
On one side, those who support the President’s veto tend to argue against embryonic stem cell research, pointing to the individual rights of the embryo being discarded for use in research. On the other hand are those who argue the embryo will be discarded any way, and the research may provide valuable cures for people suffering from terrible illnesses.
In Washington, these two camps generally advocate very different policies. The first group wants a federal ban on all such research, while the latter group expects the research to be federally-subsidized. Neither side in this battle seems to consider the morality surrounding the rights of federal taxpayers.
Our founding fathers devised a system of governance that limited federal activity very narrowly. In doing so, they intended to keep issues such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out of Washington’s hands. They believed issues such as this should be tackled by free people acting freely in their churches and medical associations, and in the marketplace that would determine effective means of research. When government policies on this issue were to be developed, our founders would have left them primarily to state legislators to decide in accord with community standards.
Their approach was also the only one consistent with a concern for the rights and freedom of all individuals, and for limiting negative impacts upon taxpayers. When Washington subsidizes something, it does so at the direct expense of the taxpayer. Likewise, when Washington bans something, it generally requires a federal agency and a team of federal agents— often heavily-armed federal agents—to enforce the ban. These agencies become the means by which the citizenry is harassed by government intrusions. Yet it is the mere existence of these agencies, and the attendant costs associated with operating them, that leads directly to the abuse of the taxpayers’ pocketbooks.
If Congress attempts to override the President’s veto, I will support the President. As a physician, I am well aware that certain stem cells have significant medical potential and do not raise the moral dilemmas presented by embryonic stem cell research. My objection is focused on the issue of federal funding. Unfortunately, in the Washington environment of “either subsidize it, or else ban it,” it is unlikely there will be much focus given to the issue of federal funding. Instead, virulent charges will fly regarding who is willing to sacrifice the lives and health of others to make a political point.
Only when Washington comes to understand that our founders expressly intended for our federal government to be limited in scope, will policy questions such as this be rightly understood. But that understanding will not come until the people demand their elected officials act in accordance with these principles.
Ron Paul, Rights of Taxpayers is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate in Texas Straight Talk June 25, 2007. http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst062507.htm
"Congressman Paul, I want you to weigh in on this as well.
I believe — and correct me if I’m wrong — you voted o support that 700-mile fence along the border between the United States and Mexico. Did you?
REP. PAUL: I did.
MR. BLITZER: What about Canada? Is there a need for a similar fence along the border between the United States and Canada?
REP. PAUL: No. No, because that bill — probably the fence was my weakest reason for doing that, but for other reasons — to enforce the law — was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to."
Republican Debate New Hampshire CNN 05-06-2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/us/politics/05cnd-transcript.html?ei=5070&en=f90492e8216c5ff1&ex=1187668800&pagewanted=print
Stelling 2: Alle illegale immigranten zonder strafblad moeten de mogelijkheid krijgen legaal in de VS te blijven
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
[...]
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/
Stelling 3: Illegale immigratie is een bedreiging voor de nationale veiligheid
"The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked."
"No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services."
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform
"The federal government decided long ago that it knew how to manage your health care better than you and replaced personal responsibility and accountability with a system that puts corporate interests first. Our free market health care system that was once the envy of the world became a federally-managed disaster. By removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, we can make our health care system the envy of the world once again."
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/uploads/pdf/94.pdf
Stelling 2: De Amerikaanse regering moet alle bedrijven wettelijk verplichten voor hun werknemers een ziektekostenverzekering af te sluiten
Regulations from D.C. make it virtually impossible for small business owners to cover their employees. The unemployed often cannot afford insurance, meaning those who need basic medical attention overcrowd emergency rooms and drive up premiums.
[...]
Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/uploads/pdf/94.pdf
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
Stelling 3: De Amerikaanse regering moet zorgen dat de miljoenen onverzekerde burgers een ziektekostenverzekering krijgen
The federal government will not suddenly become efficient managers if universal health care is instituted. Government health care only means long waiting periods, lack of choice, poor quality, and frustration. Many Canadians, fed up with socialized medicine, come to the U.S. in order to obtain care. Socialized medicine will not magically work here.
Health care should not be left up to HMOs, big drug companies, and government bureaucrats.
It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:
Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.
By removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, we can make our health care system the envy of the world once again.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-care/
With drugs and needles illegal, the unintended consequence of the spread of AIDs and hepatitis through dirty needles has put a greater burden on the taxpayers who are forced to care for the victims. This ridiculous system that offers a jail cell for a sick addict rather than treatment has pushed many a young girl into prostitution to pay for drugs priced hundreds of times higher than they are worth. But the drug dealers love the system and dread a new approach. When we finally decide that drug prohibition has been no more successful than alcohol prohibition, the drug dealers will disappear.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm
Stelling 3: Voor elke misdaad moet een minimumstraf worden ingevoerd
Irrational mandatory minimal sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have non-violent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm
Ending the Drug War
Dr. Paul is opposed to the war on drugs for a number of reasons, particularly because it has been used as a tool to increase the size and scope of government, and as a means of eroding our personal freedoms. Here’s an article on the subject from the man himself. [...]
Under federal 1986 law, it only takes 1/100 as much crack cocaine as powder cocaine to trigger mandatory minimum sentences
http://www.drownedattheriver.com
11/25/2007
(Rated 11% by the NCJA, indicating a "soft-on-crime" stance.
Paul scores 11% by the NCJA on crime issues OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005 NCJA scores as follows:
0%- 74%: "soft-on-crime" record (approx. 133 members)
75%- 84%: mixed record on criminal justice (approx. 114 members)
85%-100%: "tough-on-crime" record (approx. 216 members)
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Crime.htm )
I will also return control over education to parents and local communities. Decisions about whether or not to fund vouchers, have merit pay for teachers or extend the school year should be made by parents and local school boards, not by D.C.-based bureaucrats.
http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/01/election-candidates-politics-oped-cz_rp_1002paul.html
Stelling 2: In biologielessen moet het scheppingsverhaal naast de evolutieleer worden onderwezen
"Today, as in the past, academic freedom has been threatened when questioning the theory of evolution, as in the case of the Iowa State astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez. His tenure was denied because of his work in intelligent design this May 2007. Censoring alternative theories and punishing those who hold them, dogmatic indoctrination, has replaced scientific methods of inquiry. Will your office support and encourage a more open approach to education and the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?
Ron PAUL: GREEN (yes)"
Values Voter Presidential Debate, September 17, 2007. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=429
It is an inappropriate for the president to decide upon e scientififc issue. I think there a theory, a theory of evolution and I don't accept it. It is not the most important issue for me to make a difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think, the Creator that I know ehhh you know created us, everyone of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all, I just don't think we are at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side, so I just don't ....if that were the only issue I think it is an interesting discussion, it is a theological discussion. and I think its fine, if that were the issue of the day I would not run for public office.
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2571
Stelling 3: De overheid moet meer geld uitgeven aan openbare scholen, niet aan ouders middels tegoedbonnen voor onderwijs
The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.
To help parents with the costs of schooling, I have introduced H.R. 1056, the Family Education Freedom Act, in Congress. This bill would allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools.
Another bill I have sponsored, H.R. 1059, allows full-time elementary and secondary teachers a $3,000 yearly tax credit, thus easing their financial burden and encouraging good teachers to stay in an underpaid profession.
Many parents have already shown their desire to be free of federal control by either enrolling their children in private schools or homeschooling them. And students enrolled in these alternatives have consistently performed better and tested higher than those in state-run schools.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/education/
After all, if centralized Washington control of education was working, parents wouldn’t be clamoring for vouchers in the first place.
Ron Paul February 25, 2002
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=241
The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to
collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.
I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some
victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that
will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/uploads/pdf/61.pdf
Stelling 2: Sommige vormen van marteling zijn acceptabel als daarmee terroristische aanslagen kunnen worden voorkomen
Legal issues aside, the American people and government should never abide the use of torture by our military or intelligence agencies. A decent society never accepts or justifies torture. It dehumanizes both torturer and victim, yet seldom produces reliable intelligence. Torture by rogue American troops or agents puts all Americans at risk, especially our rank-and-file soldiers stationed in dozens of dangerous places around the globe. God forbid terrorists take American soldiers or travelers hostage and torture them as some kind of sick retaliation for Abu Gharib.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul185.html
06/15/2004
But you know, I think it's interesting talking about torture here in that it's become enhanced interrogation technique. It sounds like Newspeak.
Nobody's for the torture, and I think that's important. But as far as taking care of a problem like this, the president has the authority to do that. If we're under imminent attack, the president can take that upon himself to do it.
Republican Debate South Carolina Fox News 15-05-2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16repubs-text.html?pagewanted=print
Stelling 3: Irak is maar één front in een breder gevecht tegen islamitisch terrorisme
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran. Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=938
