[Editor's Note: On Tuesday Aug. 28, 2012, after a roll-call vote at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, FL, Ron Paul, with 190 delegates compared to Mitt Romney’s 2,061 delegates, failed to become the official Republican nominee for president.
Ron Paul later wrote on his campaign website: "Due to our Liberty Movement's youth, energy, and growing numbers, establishment Republicans are recognizing their days of controlling the national GOP are coming to an end. Even now, they are being forced to recognize that our issues - like finally auditing the Federal Reserve - are not going away.
My hope is, with your continued support, it will not end until free markets, sound money, constitutional principles, respect for individual liberty, and a common-sense foreign policy are all restored in America."]
Ron Paul
Republican Presidential Candidate
US Representative (R-TX)
Con: "Philosophically, I consider the issues of life and abortion, probably the most important issue of our age...
To me this issue draws attention to what kind of respect we have for life, to do abortion on demand means there is no respect for life, and it is a very very bad sign for civilization...
Liberty is secondary to life... if you are careless about the definition of life you really can't be a champion of liberty...
A human life starts with conception...
Since I see abortion as an act of violence, I see that this is a state issue... We could have literally by now stopped millions and millions of abortions by allowing the states to legislate...
Life is precious, we should not legalize the killing of an individual, somebody has to represent the small and the innocent."
Speech at the National Right to Life Convention, www.youtube.com, June 2011
[Editor's Note: In addition to his Pro statement above, Ron Paul stated the following in his Dec. 19, 2011 addendum to the "Personhood Republican Presidential Candidate Pledge," available at www.personhoodusa.com: "I have previously sponsored a Human Life Amendment while in Congress, and though I ultimately do not believe this is how we will end abortion, achieving such an amendment is certainly a laudable goal. Of course, Presidents do not sign constitutional amendments - another reason I cannot guarantee what would happen on this issue.
A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does - through state laws.
To summarize my views - I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence."]
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course the Constitution says nothing about abortion…
If we, for the sake of discussion ignore the legal arguments for or against abortion and have no laws prohibiting it, serious social ramifications would remain. There are still profound moral issues, issues of consent, and fundamental questions about the origin of life and the rights of individuals...
I still believe in the Constitution, and therefore, I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue [abortion] and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have purposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion. Legislation of this sort would probably allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters...
As a pro-life libertarian physician, my strong advice, regardless of what is legal, is for medical personnel to just say no to participation in any procedure or process that is pro-death or diminishes respect for life in any way. Let the lawyers and the politicians and mercenary, unethical doctors deal with implementing laws regulating death."
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedoms, 2011
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "I would defer to saying it’s probably been pretty neutral [US relations with China]. I don’t think it’s deteriorated, because things are so much better than what I remember in high school. We were fighting the Chinese and the Koreans. One of my teachers was sent to Korea and never came back. So that had an impact on me. So it’s so much better. I think Nixon did a lot of terrible things... But he opened up the door to China. I think we’re much better off talking to the Chinese and trading with the Chinese, and they have an interest in staying peaceful with us, as we have an interest on them, even though we have our differences on some of the trade and 'Why do our companies go to China?' And in some ways, they embarrass us, because they’re more Capitalistic than we are. It’s easier for our businesses to go to China than it is to stay here. That aggravates me. But I blame ourselves for that."
Interview with Amy Walter and Rick Klein, ABC's Topline, YouTube.com, June 22, 2011
None Found: ProCon.org emailed the Paul campaign for his position to this question on Jan. 31, 2012, and Feb. 7, 2012. We also left a follow up telephone message on Feb. 2, 2012. We have not yet received a reply with Paul's position as of Feb. 9, 2012.
Con: "Congress should be looking critically at how we can extricate America from the four decades of destruction that has ensued since President Richard Nixon announced the federal war on drugs in 1972. As a medical doctor with over 30 years' experience, I certainly recognize the dangers that can arise from drug abuse. However, experience shows that the federal drug war creates many additional dangers, while failing to reduce the problems associated with drug abuse. Like 14 years of federal alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and '30s, America's federal drug war has failed to ameliorate the problems associate with drug use, while fostering violence and disrespect for individual rights...
Each successive ramping up of the federal war on drugs has made it more evident that this war is incompatible with constitutional government, individual liberty, and prosperity. It is time for Congress to reverse course... It is imperative that the House of Representatives pursue a dialogue on how we can end the federal war on drugs—a war that has increasingly become a war on the American people and our Constitution."
Speech on the floor of the US House of Representatives, "Statement on the Fair Sentencing Act," paul.house.gov, July 28, 2010
Con: "BLITZER: So just to be precise, is it ethnic profiling, religious profiling? Who would be profiled?
SANTORUM: Well, the folks who are most likely to be committing these crimes...
BLITZER: Congressman Paul?
PAUL: That's digging a... That's digging a hole for ourselves. What if they look like Timothy McVeigh? You know, he was a pretty tough criminal.
...terrorism is a tactic. It isn't a person. It isn't a people. So this is a very careless use of words...
...I would be very cautious about protecting the rule of law. It will be a sacrifice that you'll be sorry for."
Republican presidential candidate debate in Washington DC, sponsored by CNN, American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, archives.cnn.com, Nov. 22, 2011
Con: "I don't like the isolationism of not talking to people. I was drafted in 1962 at the height of the Cold War when the missiles were in Cuba. And the Cold War's over.
And I think we propped up Castro for 40-some years because we put on these sanctions, and this -- only used us as a scapegoat. He could always say, anything wrong, it's the United States' fault.
But I think it's time -- time to quit this isolation business of not talking to people. We talked to the Soviets. We talk to the Chinese. And we opened up trade, and we're not killing each other now. We fought with the Vietnamese for a long time. We finally gave up, started talking to them, now we trade with them. I don't know why -- why the Cuban people should be so intimidating.
I -- I don't know where you get this assumption that all of a sudden all the Cubans would come up here. I would probably think they were going to celebrate and they're going to have a lot more freedom if we would only open up our doors and say, we want to talk to you, and trade with you, and come visit. Sometimes they can't even send packages down there.
I -- I think we're living in the dark ages when we can't even talk to the Cuban people. I think it's not 1962 anymore. And we don't have to use force and intimidation and overthrow of a -- in governments. I just don't think that's going to work."
Now Not Clearly Pro or Con: "It's been a while since I've had a major change of opinion, but I try to understand and study and figure out how things work and become better. But on that issue (the death penalty), I did have a change of opinion... It was not overnight, but my position now is, since I'm a federal official and I would be a U.S. president, is I do not believe in the federal death penalty... but I would not come and say the federal government and the federal courts should tell the states they can't have the death penalty anymore...
I read an article yesterday, and 68 percent of the time they make mistakes.
It's so racist, too. I think more than half the people getting the death penalty are poor blacks.
This is the one place, the one remnant of racism in our country is in the court system, enforcing the drug laws and enforcing the death penalty... If you're rich, you usually don't meet the death penalty...
I don't think it's very good sign for civilization to still be invoking the death penalty."
"The Death Penalty? 'I Think It's Uncivilized,'" www.concordmonitor.com, Aug. 21, 2011
Pro: [Editor's Note: Prior to Ron Paul's Not Clearly Pro or Con statement from Aug. 21, 2001, he expressed a Pro position as indicated by the statement from Aug. 25, 2007 below.]
"Well, all states have the right to impose capital punishment. But I have become so skeptical of the federal government that under our system... the federal government has made so many mistakes and with DNA evidence now revealing so many errors that I don't even like the idea of our federal government pretending that they know whose life they are going to take because of their total ineptness in just about everything they do. As far as the state goes, yes capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime."
"Exclusive Interview: Ron Paul on God/Government; Abortion; Homosexuality; and Much More," The American View, Aug. 25, 2007
Con: "I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.
Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.
Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.
The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.
It is time this process is put to an end."
"Commentary: Bailouts Will Lead to Rough Economic Ride," www.articles.cnn.com, Sep. 23, 2008
Con: "I don't like the idea that you have good bailouts and bad bailouts. If bailouts are bad, they're bad, and we shouldn't be doing it.
But this argument about maybe one that works, you know, well, now that the bankruptcy or the bailing out of GM worked, I said that's sort of like if a criminal goes out and robs a bank, and he's successful, therefore you endorse what he did, because he's successful. But you have to rob people, you have to distort the law.
The government is supposed to protect contracts. They're not supposed to regulate contracts and they're not supposed to undermine contracts. And that's what we've been doing...
A lot of people will accuse me of advocating a free market, that there's no regulations. Actually, the regulations are tougher, because you have to go through bankruptcy and you have to face up to this.
And it isn't like General Motors would be destroyed. Newt made that point there, that there were good parts of General Motors. But politicians can't figure this out. Then they serve the special interests, and then you have labor fighting big business.
I opt for the free market in defense of liberty. That's what we need in this country."
Republican presidential candidate debate in Mesa, AZ, sponsored by CNN and the Republican Party of Arizona, www.presidency.ucsb.edu, Feb. 22, 2012
Con: "While it is good to see serious debate about our debt crisis, I cannot support the reported deal on raising the nation's debt ceiling. I have never voted to raise the debt ceiling, and I never will.
This deal will reportedly cut spending by only slightly over $900 billion over 10 years. But we will have a $1.6 trillion deficit after this year alone, meaning those meager cuts will do nothing to solve our unsustainable spending problem. In fact, this bill will never balance the budget. Instead, it will add untold trillions of dollars to our deficit…
I believe in the great American traditions of free markets, sound money, and personal Liberty. But we are moving far away from what made us the greatest nation in human history. We must cut spending and balance our budget now, before it is too late.
[I]f we continue to print money and pyramid debt, we will destroy ourselves and lose the promise of America forever...
These difficult times require a President willing to stand against runaway spending. If elected, I will veto any spending bill that contributes to an unbalanced budget, and I will balance the budget in the first year of my term. I will not allow the Federal Reserve to destroy the value of our money by shoveling dollars into the pockets of its banker friends."
"Ron Paul Issues Statement on Debt Ceiling Deal," www.businesswire.com, Aug 1, 2011
Con: "Recently there have been some encouraging signs that Congress is finally willing to admit what should have been evident two years ago. Even after a $150 billion bailout, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still bankrupt and should be abolished. Indeed Rep. Barney Frank, a longtime champion of Fannie and Freddie has made a few statements alluding to this and I have signed on to a letter asking him to clarify his remarks and hold hearings on this topic. There seems to be a growing consensus in favor of abolishing Fannie and Freddie. This is the good news.
The bad news is that instead of simply returning to the free market,Fannie and Freddie will probably be replaced with something equally damaging, and at this point we can only guess what that will be. One possibility is that instead of these two giant Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) the government will deputize thousands of smaller banks to do the same thing – that is to securitize mortgages with taxpayer guarantees to encourage lending that otherwise would not happen. In other words, there will be a myriad of smaller Fannies and Freddies, and government involvement will reach even deeper into the financial sector.
Fannie and Freddie, and thus the taxpayer, has an alarming $5 trillion exposure to the mortgage market. To some, spreading out this risk might seem tempting, and a smart thing to do. But the fact remains that if a bank expects to lose money on a loan, so will the taxpayers. Playing around with structures and definitions will still not deal with the root problem – government meddling in the housing market, playing fast and loose with our tax dollars, and central planning by the Federal Reserve."
"Let the Housing Market Normalize!," paul.house.gov, Aug. 28, 2010
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
Pro: "Judge Napolitano: What would happen in a Ron Paul presidency if we were to return to a gold standard. How soon could this happen and how would it happen?
Ron Paul: I wish we could do this overnight and we could do a few things like repealing the executive order of Nixon but that in and of itself wouldn't be enough...
I would like to have a transition period. Just legalize gold money, and allow us to use gold and silver as legal tender. And we can work our way back...
What we want to do is legalize the use of gold and silver as the constitution dictates rather then punishing the people who try to do that.
But yes, it will come about. I am quite convinced the system we have here will not be maintained and that's what these last four years are all about, and that's what the turmoil in Europe is all about.
So the question is: Are we going to move towards a constitutional form of money or are we going to go another step further into international money? Instead of having an international gold standard based on the market, will we go towards a UN, IMF standard, where they are going to control with the use of force, another fiat standard?"
Interview with Andrew Napolitano on Fox News' Freedom Watch, YouTube.com, Nov. 29, 2011
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "If the Obama administration succeeds, it could result in the virtual destruction of right-to-work laws all across the country: No longer could private companies decide for themselves where to move or open new facilities; the government would now take on that responsibility and make decisions based solely on what benefits the big-labor elite. Right-to-work states would be left out in the cold.
According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, right-to-work states had more than double the job growth of forced-unionism states over the past decade. In other words, big-labor control over American workers is a drag on our economy.
It was organized labor's stranglehold that drove the big three automakers to the brink of bankruptcy — until American taxpayers were forced to rescue them. And it's not just in the private sector. Big labor's control of government workers in California, Illinois and elsewhere has driven those states to the brink of bankruptcy...
As a congressman, I've been a consistent cosponsor and supporter of national right-to-work legislation. Such a law won't put more federal code on the books or make government any bigger; in fact, it will help shrink government by repealing forced-dues mandates in federal labor law passed under FDR.
Along with cutting taxes, spending and regulations, passage of right to work would go a long way toward getting our economy moving again.
With so much at stake in this fight, and considering the ever-declining state of our fragile economy, it's never been more important that the Republican nominee for president be 100 percent committed to standing up for fighting forced unionism."
"Ron Paul: The War On Jobs," www.fitsnews.com, Sep. 9, 2011
Con: Ron Paul, US Representative (R-TX), introduced H.R. 4759, a bill to provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement, on Mar. 4, 2010. The bill, available at thomas.loc.gov, stated in its entirety:
"To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE NAFTA.
(a) Withdrawal of Approval- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the approval of the NAFTA by the Congress provided for in section 101(a) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act shall cease to be effective beginning on the date that is six months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Notification of Withdrawal- On the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall provide to the Governments of Canada and Mexico written notice of withdrawal of the United States from the NAFTA in accordance with Article 2205 of the NAFTA.
(c) NAFTA Defined- In this section, the term ‘NAFTA’ means the North American Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States, Canada, and Mexico on December 17, 1992."
Con: "We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government 'investment' in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.
Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.
Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it."
"Ron Paul Answers Your Questions, Part Two," www.freakonomics.com, Nov. 20, 2008
Pro: "A lot of protectionists thoughtlessly push protecftive tarrifs purely as a job program meant to protect noncompetitive domestic industries... The moral hazard of protectionism is that the less efficient will not be motivated to become more efficient in order to survive. Conplacency and inefficiency set in...
I believe everyone has a right to spend his or her own money any way they see fit, whether it be on foreign or domestic goods. If tennis shoes from China cost $20 but $100 if manufactured in the United States, why punish the poor for the sake of protecting domestic industries?
Chinese production uses low-cost labor for sure, but they're jobs that working-class Chinese egerly seek; they are never forced to work as slaves...
What many here don't want to admit is that much of our labor is priced artifically higher as a consequence of minimum wage laws, unemployment benefits, and compulsory unions, while prices are pushed higher as a consequence of excessive regulations, taxation, and government-caused inflation.
Protectionist measures don't solve the problems; they only protect the status quo that keeps us from being competitive in many industries."
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, 2011
None Found: ProCon.org emailed the Paul campaign for his position to this question on Oct. 26, 2011, Nov. 4, 2011, Jan. 31, 2012, and Feb. 7, 2012. We also left follow up telephone messages on Oct. 26, 2011, Nov. 8, 2011, and on Feb. 2, 2012. We have not yet received a reply with Paul's position as of Feb. 9, 2012.
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
Con: "So the first thing a president should do is - the goal should be set to get the government out [of education] completely, but don't enforce this law of No Child Left Behind. It's not going to do any good, and nobody likes it. And there's no value to it. The teachers don't like it, and the students don't like it."
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
Con: "It's quite clear that there's no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education... Ideally, education in a free society would be the responsibility of the parents or the individual or local community, not the government...
In the past sixty years especially, the federal government has become very much involved in financing and directing education at all levels. There is no evidence that quality of education has improved... there's definitely been more violence, more drugs, and more dropouts associated with more centralized control.
Most people today accept the idea that the Department of Education is a legitimate federal institution. Not too many years ago, however the Republican Party platform argued for getting rid of the Department of Education. This pretense was removed with the election of George W. Bush... With both Democratic and Republican support, he massively increased the Department of Education with the disastrous No Child Left Behind program. Now national control of all public schools is firmly a bipartisan effort... Once an institution is hooked on federal financing, it's virtually impossible to stop the bureaucratic regulations and mandates that routinely follow subsidies."
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, 2011
[Editors Note: The Jan. 8, 2002 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act instituted federally mandated standardized tests for public school students in all 50 states. The law mandated standardized testing in reading and math (and later science) in Grades 3 through 8 and again in 10th Grade. Since Ron Paul is clearly against NCLB, and clearly wants the federal government out of education all together, we have listed him as Con to our question.]
None Found: ProCon.org emailed the Paul campaign for his position to this question on Jan. 31, 2012, and Feb. 7, 2012. We also left a follow up telephone message on Feb. 2, 2012. We have not yet received a reply with Paul's position as of Feb. 9, 2012.
"Was the US Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which allows for unlimited political contributions on the grounds of free speech, good for America?"
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
Pro: Emilie Boyles: "[What] is your perspective on energy independence, particularly on the Keystone XL pipeline, and what needs to happen to make sure that American energy is used in America?"
Ron Paul: "We don't have to be dependent on foreign imports... If we had the proper policy in this country where it was deregulated we were allowed to drill, allowed to put pipelines through our country, allow alternative sources to come out, don't favor one energy source over another... we would have enough energy. I would not worry about it one bit..."
Emilie Boyles: "And should the Keystone get approved?"
Ron Paul: "Absolutely. What's distressing to me about that is one person in our country, even if he is the president, can make or break something that important. Where does he get this much power? If I'm president I'm not going to act like a King and pretend I have that much power. He should get out of the way and let the market deal with this and let the States deal with this."
Interview, www.examiner.com, Feb. 19, 2012
[Editor's Note: On Feb. 16, 2012, Ron Paul abstained from voting on a bill that would have forced the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. The bill was H.R. 3408, the Protecting Investment in Oil Shale, the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy and Resource Security Act. The bill passed in the house (237-187). According to a statement from the Executive Office of the President (230 KB) the bill would “circumvent a longstanding process for determining whether cross-border pipelines are in the national interest by mandating the permitting of the Keystone XL pipeline project."]
Pro: "David Asman: The overreaction about nuclear energy [after the Fukushima incident], do you think there is some of that going on in the beltway?
Ron Paul: Oh I think a lot of it is overreaction... I think nuclear energy is very very dangerous, but I’m also convinced it is the safest form of energy that we can have...
The regulators are going to be down here, the environmentalists are going to go nuts... I'm scared to death they are going to quit building nuclear power plants here. After 35 years we finally got around to doing it and I imagine just like they closed down drilling in the gulf in deep water, they will probably close down any more development...
David Asman: Do you think that there will be another nuclear energy plant built in the United States in our lifetime? Ron Paul: I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it. I think it should."
Interview with David Asman on Fox News' FOX Business Show, YouTube.com, Mar. 15, 2011
Pro: “[D]ecades of misguided federal action have helped lead to skyrocketing fuel prices, making it even more difficult for hardworking families to make ends meet...
In fact, much of the 'pain at the pump' Americans are now feeling is due to federal policies designed by environmental alarmists to punish traditional energy production – like oil, coal, and natural gas...
As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to... [r]emove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home."
"Energy Independence," available at www.ronpaul2012.com (accessed May 10, 2012)
Pro: [Editor's Note: On Apr. 20, 2005, Ron Paul voted against H.AMDT.72, an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The amendement, introduced by Congressman Edward J. Markey, would have protected the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling.]
Con: "You can count me among the global-warming skeptics. I gather that my ranks have grown enough so that the fear of global warming is now replaced with a more generalized fear of 'climate change,' covering all empirical contingencies...
Why do so many fall for propaganda and pseudoscience that this whole movement spews out? It's out of fear. It took quite a few years to convince the majority of Americans to accept the idea that CO2 was a poison whose production caused global warming of crisis proportion...
Most Americans have been bamboozled into believing that all reputable scientists believe in global warming and that CO2 emissions are a major problem. The truth is there are just as many and even more qualified scientists refuting the sketchy and questionable evidence regarding global warming...
Climate change has been going on for millions of years."
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedoms, 2011
Pro: Ron Paul, US Representative (R-TX), voted yes on the "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011" (H.R. 910), an act to amended the Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from regulation as a pollutant, on Apr. 7, 2011. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) summary of the Act, available at www.thomas.loc.gov, states the following:
"Amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas (GHG) [including carbon dioxide] to address climate change. Excludes GHGs from the definition of 'air pollutant' for purposes of addressing climate change."
Con: "I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.
I disagree with the Oregon law [Death With Dignity Act]. If I were in Oregon, I would vote against that law...
If we can come here in the Congress and decide that the Oregon law is bad, what says we cannot go to Texas and get rid of the Texas law that protects life and prohibits euthanasia...
As bad as the Oregon law is, this is not the way we should deal with the problem. This bill applies the same principle as Roe versus Wade...
I believe that nobody can be more pro-life than I am, nobody who could condemn the trends of what is happening in this country in the movement toward euthanasia and the chances that one day euthanasia will be determined by the national government because of economic conditions. But this bill does not deal with life and makes a difficult situation much worse."
House floor speech against the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260), www.gpo.gov, Oct. 27, 1999
[Editor's note: In addition to the above "Con" statement, Ron Paul, on Dec. 22, 2011, signed the "Personhood Republican Presidential Candidate Pledge," available at www.personhoodusa.com, which contained the following language: "I oppose assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and procedures that intentionally destroy developing human beings."]
Con: "The federal government lacks constitutional authority to mandate labeling of products containing genetically-modified food. Furthermore, those who do not wish to consume genetically-modified products should be leery of federally-mandated labeling because history shows that federal regulatory agencies are susceptible to 'capture,' where the regulators end up serving the interest of the business they are supposed to control. In the case of labeling, federal agencies could redefine the meaning of 'modified' to allow genetically-engineered food on the market without fully-informing consumers of the presence of genetically- engineered ingredients. Instead of federal regulation, consumers should demand that manufactures provide full information and refuse to buy those products that are not fully labeled. Once producers see there is a demand for non-genetically-engineered products they will act to fulfill that demand. Of course, makers of genetically-engineered food should be held legally responsible if they fraudulently market their products or harm anyone."
Pro: "Politicians and a complicit media have conditioned many citizens to view government as our protector, leading to more demands for government action whenever tragedies occur. But this impulse is at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individualism, and it also leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty...
We need to reaffirm the core American value of individual responsibility. Consider the young man who had the courage to tackle the shooter [Jared Loughner] and prevent further carnage because he himself had a concealed weapon. Without that gun, he could have been yet another sitting duck. When peaceful citizens are armed, they at least have a chance against armed criminals.
Advocates of gun control would urge us to leave our safety to law enforcement, but eyewitness reports indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day! Since police cannot be everywhere all of the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves."
"On Gun Control and Violence," www.thehill.com, Jan. 17, 2011
Con: "The terrible violence in Arizona last weekend prompted much national discussion on many issues. All Americans are united in their sympathies for the victims and their families...
[T]roubling are the renewed calls for stricter gun control laws, and for government to 'do something' to somehow prevent similar incidents in the future. This always seems to be the knee jerk reaction to any crime committed with a gun. Nonsensical proposals to outlaw guns around federal officials and install bulletproof barriers in the congressional gallery only reinforce the growing perception that politicians view their own lives as far more important than the lives of ordinary citizens...
Remember - liberty only has meaning if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and more government security is demanded. Government cannot make us safe by mandating security any more than it can make us prosperous by decreeing an end to poverty...
Since police cannot be everywhere all of the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves.
Our constitutional right to bear arms does not create a society without risks of violent crime, and neither would the strictest gun control laws. Guns and violence are a fact of life."
"On Gun Control and Violence," www.thehill.com, Jan. 17, 2011
Con: "Following months of heated public debate and aggressive closed-door negotiations, Congress finally cast a historic vote on healthcare late Sunday evening. It was truly a sad weekend on the House floor as we witnessed further dismantling of the Constitution, disregard of the will of the people, explosive expansion of the reach of government, unprecedented corporate favoritism, and the impending end of quality healthcare as we know it...
[T]he most troubling aspect of this bill is that it is so blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the ideals of liberty. Nowhere in the constitution is there anything approaching authority for the Federal government to do any of this. The founders would have been horrified at the idea of government forcing citizens to become consumers of a particular product from certain government approved companies. 38 states are said to already be preparing legal and constitutional challenges to this legislation, and if the courts stand by their oaths, they will win."
"Texas Straight Talk: Health Care Reform Passes," paul.house.gov, Mar. 22, 2010
Con: "WALLACE: Congressman Paul, you are a constitutional expert, and you talk a lot about the Constitution. What do you think of this argument, that the state has a constitutional right to make someone buy a good or service just because they‘re a resident, not because they‘re driving and need a driver‘s license, but just the fact that they are a resident?
PAUL: No, the way I would understand the Constitution, the federal government can't go in and prohibit the states from doing bad things. And I would consider that a very bad thing, but you don‘t send in a federal police force because they‘re doing it and throw them in a court. So they do have that leeway under our Constitution.
But we have big trouble in this medical care problem. And we have drifted so far from any of our care being delivered by the marketplace. And once you get the government involved — and both parties have done it. They‘ve developed a bit of a medical care delivery system based on corporatism. The corporations are doing quite well, whether it‘s Obama or under the Republicans.
The drug companies do well. The insurance companies do well. The organized medicine do well. The management companies do well. The patient and the doctors suffer. There‘s a wedge. Every time you have the government get in here with these regulations, and have these mandates, there‘s a wedge driven in between the doctor and the patient. We have to get the people more control of their care, and that‘s why these medical savings accounts could at least introduce the notion of market delivery of medical care."
Republican presidential debate in Ames, IA, sponsored by Fox News, The Washington Examiner, and the Republican Party of Iowa, foxnewsinsider.com, Aug. 11, 2011
[Editor's Note: In addition to the Aug. 11, 2011 statement above, Ron Paul stated the following in his Apr. 18, 2012 Texas Straight Talk article "End the Mandate," available at paul.house.gov:
"...[T]he very imposition of a health insurance mandate, no matter how 'minimal,' violates the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded."]
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
Con: "The prevailing attitude of the American People is that everyone has a right to medical care. This is an intellectual error that will lead us down the path toward destroying what is good in the current system and replacing it with a system that will be terrible for everyone. The supposed right to medical care can only be guaranteed at others' expense. The transfer can only be arranged by force. This creates oppressive bureaucracies, encourages overutilization of resources, and leads to technological stagnation and inevitably to rationing and deprivation.
It's true that everyone has a right to pursue medical care without being hindered by government policies. But that is not the system we have today. Today's messed-up medical system is a result of forty years of government interference in the process. Regulations, inflation, tax laws, and federal mandates to provide care through corporate-run HMOs, interference in providing insurance, massive subsidies, and licensing have all played a negative role in the delivery of medical care in the United States."
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom, 2011
Con: "It's important to note that the greatest resentment [regarding immigration] comes from government-mandated free services and a government created unemployment crisis. Fix these two problems and finding a scapegoat for our economic crisis wouldn't be necessary.
A free and prosperous economy always looks for labor; immigrant workers would be needed and welcomed. This need could be managed by a generous guest worker program, not by illegal immigrants receiving benefits for the family and securing an easy route to permanent citizenship and thus becoming pawns of partisan political interests...
Stop all federal mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants."
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedoms, 2011
Con: "FERRECHIO: Congressman Paul, you are opposed to a system that requires employers to verify the immigration status of their workers. Why would you want to eliminate one more tool to help curb illegal immigration?
PAUL: I don‘t like putting the burden on our businessmen to be the policemen. That means he has to be policing activity."
Republican presidential candidate debate, Ames, IA, foxnewsinsider.com, Aug. 11, 2011
[Editors Note: In addition to the above quote from Aug. 11, 2011, Ron Paul voted against the Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003 (H.R. 2359), a bill authorizing a national e-verify pilot program, on Dec. 3, 2003.]
Pro: “[I]f a rancher on our border wants to stop trespassers on his land, he is forbidden to do so. The Feds don’t even allow the state law enforcement officers to interfere! This, they argue, could lead to violence if appropriate use of force is not used...
My humble suggestions on what to do follow...
Enforce the laws now on the books with more border guards; permit states to enforce the laws; allow landowners to provide private property security assistance, just as we do every day throughout the United States, and to work with Federal Border Control authorities.”
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, 2011
Con: "But the people who want big fences and guns, sure, we can secure the borders - a barbed-wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick.
I don't believe that's what America is all about. I just really don't.
We can enforce our law. If we had a healthy economy, this wouldn't be such a bad deal. People are worrying about jobs. But every time you think about this toughness on the border and I.D. cards and real ideas, think that it's a penalty against the American people, too.
I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to lead with their capital. And there's capital controls and there's people control. So, every time you think of fence keeping all those bad people out, think about those fences maybe being used against us, keeping us in."
Republican presidential candidate debate hosted by NBC News and Politico at the Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA, www.nytimes.com, Sep. 7, 2011
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "A free and prosperous economy always looks for labor; immigrant workers would be needed and welcomed. This need could be managed by a generous guest worker program, not by illegal immigrants receiving benefits for the family and securing an easy route to permanent citizenship and thus becoming pawns of partisan political interests...
Most immigrants do not come for handouts; rather, they come for survival reasons and have a work ethic superior to many of our citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits...
Many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they 'take' are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered."
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedoms, 2011
Con: "For you to say that there is some scientific evidence and some people arguing that maybe in a year they [Iran] might have a [atomic] weapon, there's a lot more saying they don't have it.
There's no U.N. evidence of that happening. [James] Clapper at the - in our national security department, he says there is no evidence. It's no different than it was in 2003. You know what I really fear about what's happening here? It's another Iraq coming. There's war propaganda going on...
All we're doing is promoting their desire to have it. Ehud Barak, the defense minister for Israel, said that - that, if he were in - in Iran, he would probably want a nuclear weapon, too, because they're surrounded, for geopolitical reasons. So that's an understanding.
So the fact that they are surrounded, they have a desire. And how do we treat people when they have a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect. What did we do with Libya? We talked to them. We talked them out of their nuclear weapon. And then we killed them...
Sanctions are an act of war when you prevent goods and services from going into a country. We need to approach this a little differently. We have 12,000 diplomats in our services. We ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while."
Republican presidential candidate debate hosted by Fox News and the Republican Party of Iowa, Sioux City, IA, www.presidency.ucsb.edu, Dec. 15, 2011
Con: "When they [the Bush Administration] were agitating to go to war in Iraq, you know, that was to get those bad guys that had something to do with 911, it just turned out you know, all the scaremongering turned out to be false, there was no al-Qaeda there or weapons of mass destruction, and all the lies they told us, it just was not true...
The Patriot Act had been floating around a long time before 911, that [911] was an opportunity [to pass the Patriot Act], what was also floated around was the idea of invading Iraq, and that is the reason it happened even though they were pretending it had something to do with 911...
Just remember the first meeting Bush held in 2001 a long time before 911, that [invading Iraq] was high on the agenda... the discussion of when were they going to go into Iraq. So it isn't so much that 911 caused this - it gave them the excuse to do the many things that had been planned...
And this is what the people have to understand... the government keeps preaching that we have to go over there in order to make ourselves safe... to me it is absurd, I don't know how people can believe that - that the only reason they came here is because you are free and you have a little bit of wealth... this is preposterous."
Campaign speech in Los Angeles at the California GOP Convention, www.ronpaulforums.com, Sep. 17, 2011
Con: "Before our invasion of Iraq, only about 10% of suicide terrorism was aimed at Americans or American interests. Since, then however, not only is suicide terrorism greatly on the rise, but 91% of it is now directed at us.
Yes, the attacks of 9/11 deserved a response. But the manner in which we responded has allowed radicals in the Muslim world to advance a very threatening narrative about us and our motivation in occupying their lands. Osama bin Laden referred to us as 'crusaders' with a religious agenda to convert Muslims, westernize their culture and take control of their resources. If we had targeted our response to only the thugs and criminals who attacked us, and refrained from invading countries that had nothing to do with it, this characterization would seem less plausible to the desperate and displaced...
Instead, we chose a course of action that led to the further loss of 8,000 American lives, left 40,000 wounded and has hundreds of thousands seeking help at the Veterans Administration. We are three to four trillion dollars poorer. Our military is spread dangerously thin around the globe, at the expense of protection here at home...
Suicide terrorism did not exist in Iraq before we got there. Now it does."
"Foreign Occupation Leads to More Terror," paul.house.gov, Sep. 12, 2011
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "The Palestinian Authority's recent announcement that it would seek UN recognition as an independent state dominated the news and the political debate in the United States last week, though in truth it should mean very little to us. Only a political class harboring the illusion it can run the world obsesses over the aspirations of a tiny population on a tiny piece of land thousands of miles away...
I believe that we can no longer police the world. We can no longer bribe the Israelis and Palestinians to continue an endless 'peace process' that goes nowhere. It is not in our interest to hector the Palestinians or the Israelis, or to 'export' democracy to the region but reject it when people vote the 'wrong' way...
While I do not see UN membership as a particularly productive move for the Palestinian leadership, I do not believe the US should use its position in the UN Security Council to block their membership. I believe in self-determination of peoples and I recognize that peoples may wish to pursue statehood by different means. As we saw after the Cold War, numerous new states were born out of the ruins of the USSR as the various old Soviet Republics decided that smaller states were preferable to an enormous and oppressive multi-national conglomerate.
The real, pro-US solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily."
"A Palestinian State?," paul.house.gov, Sep. 26, 2011
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "I'd like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment Issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired.
The supercharged emotions are on both extremes of the issue, because neither extreme accepts the principles of a free society. One side [anti-gay marriage] is all too willing to have the state use the law to force a narrow definition of marriage on everyone... Those who seek social acceptance of gay marriage are also motivated by the desire to force government and private entities to provide spousal benefits...
I personally identify with the dictionary definition of marriage: 'The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live together as husband and wife by legal commitments or religious ceremony.' If others who choose a different definition do not impose their standards on anyone else, they have a First Amendment right to their own definition and access to the courts to arbitrate any civil disputes.
There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage."
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, 2011
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "You know, I think character is, obviously - very important. I - I don't think it should be necessary to have to talk about it. I think it should show through in the way we live. And I think it should show through in - in a marriage. And I happen to have been married for 54 years and family person. But, I don't think we should have to talk about it. But, you know what?... if your marriage vows are important, what about our oath of office? That's what really gets to me."
Republican presidential debate in Des Moines, IA, available at www.abcnews.go.com, Dec. 10, 2011
Con: "[HR 2306 would remove marijuana] from the jurisdiction of the federal government and allow the states regulate it like they would alcohol, and you know this seems to be strange for a lot of people, but you know I'm only going back to 1937 where that's the way it was handled...
And I am motivated strongly also because the states legalize it for the use of medicinal purposes, and it is helpful for people who have cancer and are getting chemotherapy... It is something that was legal for a long long time and the war against marijuana causes so much hardship and accomplishes nothing...
The modern day war on drugs started with Richard Nixon and it's a catastrophe just as prohibition of alcohol was a catastrophe. "
Pro: "[HR 2306 would remove marijuana] from the jurisdiction of the federal government and allow the states regulate it like they would alcohol, and you know this seems to be strange for a lot of people, but you know I'm only going back to 1937 where that's the way it was handled...
And I am motivated strongly also because the states legalize it for the use of medicinal purposes, and it is helpful for people who have cancer and are getting chemotherapy... It is something that was legal for a long long time and the war against marijuana causes so much hardship and accomplishes nothing...
The modern day war on drugs started with Richard Nixon and it's a catastrophe just as prohibition of alcohol was a catastrophe."
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
"Is the 2012 NDAA, which authorized arresting and indefinitely detaining suspected terrorists (including US citizens) without charge, good for America?"
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
Con: "Do we own our own bodies and ourselves? We do, and it is based on this belief that we, as a country and society, reject slavery... In the same way, moral law should be all that is needed to prohibit the state from forcing certain individuals into involuntary servitude in the military for the purpose of waging wars against an enemy, real or imaginary...
Conscription should never be part of a free society. It's not permitted in the United States since our Constitution does not provide the authority to force someone into involuntary duty to fight a war. Slavery is precisely forbidden, and that's what involuntary service is."
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedoms, 2011
Pro: "[T]here is a lot of crony capitalism going on in this country.
And that has to be distinguished from real capitalism, because this occupation stuff on Wall Street, if you're going after crony capitalism, I'm all for it. And those are the people who benefit from contracts from government, benefits from the Federal Reserve, benefits from all of the bailouts. They don't deserve compassion... they deserve to have all their benefits removed. But crony capitalism isn't when somebody makes money and they produce a product. That is very important. We have to distinguish the two.
And unfortunately, I think some people mix that. But this, to me, is so vital, that we recognize what crony - what capitalism is versus crony capitalism. And believe me, when you have an inflationary environment, and all this speculation, and all the bailouts due to monetary system, believe me, you get a majority of crony capitalism, and that's why we're facing this crisis today."
Republican presidential candidate debate hosted by CNBC and the Michigan Republican Party, Rochester, MI, cnbc.com, Nov. 9, 2011
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
Not Clearly Pro or Con: "My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe.
From my viewpoint, this is a debate about science and religion (and I wish it could be more civil!) and should not involve politicians at all...
The real problem comes when government gets involved in this issue, whether the goal is to push theocracy or merely prayer in a public place, or the opposite, to crush all traces of faith expression in public places...
Most of the conflict between atheists and believers comes up because of public schools... it's a major hot button issue because the school curriculum and all standards of behavior are dictated by the federal government, the Department of Education, and the federal courts.
In a private setting, the 'owners' set the rules and participants come with an understanding of the rules regarding prayer and religious expression and what one wants to hear about evolution. This still leaves some problems with the possibility that local schools will overstep the bounds of etiquette or will use some textbooks considered to be offensive to one group or another. In this case, the closest one can come to having the 'owner' decide would be for the local school board to make the decision and be subject to public challenge at the polls. The Supreme Court handing down edicts that apply to every single circumstance around the country is not a solution."
Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedoms, 2011
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
Pro: "Social Security is broke. We spent all the money and it's on its last legs unless we do something. One bill that I had in Congress - never got passed - was to prevent the Congress from spending any of that money on the wars and all the nonsense that we do around the world. Now the other thing that I would like to see done is a transition. I think it's terrible that the Social Security system has the problems it has, but if people wouldn't have spent the money we would be OK. Now, what I would like to do is to allow all the young people to get out of Social Security and go on their own. Now, the big question is, is how would the funding occur?"
Republican Presidential Debate, Tampa Florida, Sep. 12, 2011
[Editors Note: One form of privatization of Social Security would allow workers to control their own retirement money through personal investment accounts either by opting out of the Social Security system or using the system to coordinate the private accounts. Ron Paul says that people should be allowed to have their own private investment accounts thus making him Pro to our question. However, Paul is strongly opposed to the alternate form of privatization where the government invests in private stocks on behalf of Americans as evidenced in part by this statement from Nov. 9, 2004, published at www.lewrockwell.com:
"We've all heard proposals for 'privatizing' the Social Security system. The best private solution, of course, is simply to allow the American people to keep more of their paychecks and invest for retirement as they see fit. But putting Social Security funds into government-approved investments could have dangerous consequences... The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital."]
Con: "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...
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."
"Rights of Taxpayers Is Missing Element in Stem Cell Debate," paul.house.gov, June 25, 2007
None Found: Failed to win the Republican nomination on Aug. 28, 2012; No additional research done as of that date to determine candidate’s position on this question.
Pro: "High taxes stifle innovation, prevent saving, destroy production, crush the middle class and the poor, and discourage investment. Every American is entitled to the fruits of his labor, especially during these tough economic times.
Lowering taxes will leave you more money to take care of yourself and your family, and it will allow businesses greater opportunities to hire new workers, increase current salaries, and expand their companies."
"Lower Taxes: Keep More of Your Money," www.ronpaul2012.com (accessed Sep. 26, 2011)
Con: "Taking capital out of the private sector, where it can create real value in the form of new jobs and products, and instead giving it to Washington to waste and squander is not the solution. Tax increases may seem penny-wise to some, but in reality they would be very pound-foolish. The government currently takes in $2.2 trillion in taxes per year, which is far too much already. It spends $3.7 trillion, which is ridiculous and criminal. The problem is runaway government spending, not the American people having too much money."
"S&P States the Obvious," www.thedailybell.com, Aug. 16, 2011
Con: "Wolf Blitzer: What do you think about the Presidents support today for a proposal in the Senate for a 5.6% millionaires surcharge on income over a million dollars, paying an additional 5.6% [in taxes]... Good idea?
Ron Paul: No it's not going to do any good at all, its not a lack of taxation that's going on, there is just too much spending...
I don't mind criticizing, you know, the wealthy at times, and I criticized the bankers, and the bailouts, and the corporate people who got all the benifits, both when the financial bubble was being built, but then when it burst they got bailed out and then the people suffered.
But this does not mean that we should attack wealth for the sake of wealth. We should stop all the subsidies to the wealth, anybody who is getting wealthy because they get contracts from the government or because they are on the inside of the program where they get the bail outs, that's quite a bit different, we should stop that, but not blanketly penalize people who make wealth and who have created wealth...
The system has been biased against the middle class and the poor, when you destroy a currency you transfer wealth from the middle class to the wealthy."
Interview on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, YouTube.com, Oct. 6, 2011
Pro: "I like the fact that you include the word patriot with this tea party convention... A patriot is an individual who is willing to stand up against ones own government when the government is wrong. Unfortunately, these days that's quite frequent, and maybe that's why we have so many people in the tea party movement... you deserve congratulations, this is a grand meeting were having here today, and also, the [tea party] movement is great...
When the majority of the people change their sentiment, governments will change... I am convinced the people are waking up, and they've said, enough is enough...
What you have to do is you cut government back to its constitutional size, thats what you need, I believe that's what the tea party movement is all about."
Speech at the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Convention, YouTube.com, Oct. 9, 2010
Pro: Ron Paul, US Representative (R-TX), introduced H.J. Res. 46 on June, 13, 2007, which sought to amend the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to deny citizenship to children born in the United States whose parents are not US citizens, available at thomas.loc.gov. The H.J. Res. 46 said in part:
"Section 1. Any person born after the date of the ratification of this article to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Con: "‘Enhanced interrogation' as some prefer to call it, has been used throughout history, usually by despotic governments, to cruelly punish or to extract politically useful statements from prisoners. Governments that do these things invariably bring shame on themselves.
In addition, information obtained under duress is incredibly unreliable, which is why it is not admissible in a court of law. Legally valid information is freely given by someone of sound mind and body. Someone in excruciating pain, or brought close to death by some horrific procedure is not in any state of mind to give reliable information, and certainly no actions should be taken solely based upon it.
For these reasons, it is illegal in the United States and illegal under Geneva Conventions. Simulated drowning, or water boarding, was not considered an exception to these laws when it was used by the Japanese against US soldiers in World War II. In fact, we hanged Japanese officers for war crimes in 1945 for water boarding. Its status as torture has already been decided by our own courts under this precedent. To look the other way now, when Americans do it, is the very definition of hypocrisy...
The government's own actions and operations in torturing people, and in acting on illegally obtained and unreliable information to kill and capture, are the most radicalizing forces at work today, not any religion, nor the fact that we are rich and free. The fact that our government engages in evil behavior under the auspices of the American people is what poses the greatest threat to the American people, and it must not be allowed to stand."
"Torturing the Rule of Law," www.lewrockwell.com, May 26, 2009
Pro: "The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be 'sensitive' requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from 'ground zero.'...
The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer. Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish...
Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia...
The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative's aggressive wars."
"Angry Ron Paul Defends Ground Zero Mosque," www.newsmax.com, Aug. 23, 2010
Ron Paul's Biography
Title(s):
US Representative (R-TX)
Personal Information:
Full Name: Ronald Ernest Paul
Marital Status: Married
Birthdate: Aug. 20, 1935
Children: 5
Birthplace: Pittsburgh, PA
Religion: Protestant
Involvement:
Representative, United States House of Representatives, Texas (14th District), 1996-present
Republican presidential candidate, 2008, 2012
United States Senate, Republican Candidate, 1984
Representative, United States House of Representatives, Texas District 22, 1976-1977, 1979-1985
Republican Nominee for United States House of Representatives, 1974
Chairman, The Liberty Caucus of Fellow Congressmen on Capitol Hill
Member, Financial Services
Member, International Relations
Member, Joint Economic Committee
Member, Subcommitte on the Western Hemisphere
Member, Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology
Member, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (Financial Services)
Congressional Fire Services Caucus
Past Member, Gold Commission
Congressional Rural Caucus
Education:
MD, Duke University, 1967
BS, Gettysburg College, 1957
Affiliations and Memberships:
Ran for president in 1988 as a candidate for the Libertarian party
Obstetrician-Gynecologist, 1968-1996
Founder, FREE and the National Endowment for Liberty
Founder/Honorary Chairman, The Liberty Committee
Distinguished Scholar, Ludwig von Mises Institute
Air National Guard, 1965-1968
United States Air Force, Captain, 1963-1965
Other:
Missed 339 votes (27.7%) during the current (110th) Congress and missed 687 of 7054 votes (10%) since Jan. 7, 1997 (as of Feb. 15, 2008)
As a physician he refused to accept payment by Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to work for free or pre-arranged discounts or payment plans for poor patients