Shuck and Jive

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

What About Ron Paul?

Since Rachel has been so nice, I thought I would throw out a blog post about her candidate for President, Republican Ron Paul. I was impressed that the Ron Paul contingent supported the peace rally in Johnson City in September.

Frankly, I don't trust the leading Democratic candidates to get us out of Iraq. Kucinich I trust, and if folks voted their ideals rather than who was politically likely to win, Kucinich would have a fighting chance.

But this post is about Ron Paul. I don't think he has any more chance than Kucinich.

From reading his web page, what do I like?

His stand on the war:

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.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

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.

No taxes on tips: Sounds fair to me.

Overall, Ron Paul is for limited government. So, he is therefore in favor of less taxes and for balancing our budget. Clinton got us closer to relieving our debt that the Republicans and the current warmonger-in-chief have sent through the roof. I am with him on less taxes, especially when our taxes are funding the war and corporate welfare.

I think I am with him on the environment, but I need to know more. He says:

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.

Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards.

On some other issues, I am less than thrilled:

Education and home schooling (he wants less federal oversight and supports more home schooling--sorry, I think this will make us all dumber). He wants fewer laws against racism (I think that will send us backward. As much as we like to think we are color-blind, we are not). He is against a woman's sovereignty over her own body (which seems unique as he is otherwise pretty much a libertarian). I am for universal health care, so his views are not in line with mine. He wants to privatize social security. Nope.

For a Republican, he's not all bad. I am not sure that is an endorsement.

That is for Rachel. Defend your man!


  1. Before he got full-swing into the campaign, Paul was a semi-regular guest on the Thom Hartmann Program. Thom several times a week starts a show debating a conservative, and Paul would come on to defend his libertarian ideals. He alarmed me then and alarms me now.

    He's right on the war and on the Constitution (mostly, see below), but there's a lot he's wrong on. The most glaring examples are his stance on the gold standard (bringing it back now will cause massive deflation), privatization of roads and other infrastructure, regressive taxes (which penalize poorer folks), international alliances (he wants to withdraw from the UN, NATO, the Law of the Sea, etc), humanitarian intervention (he was the only no vote against the Darfur Accountability & Divestment Act of 2007), separation of church & state (he's agin' it), gun control (he says the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own machine guns), and the VA (he thinks it should be privatized), in addition to the issues John brought up like education and abortion.

    As far as the Constitution, I am alarmed by two efforts by Paul. One is the "We the People Act" which forbids the federal courts to even hear cases relating to sexuality (including abortion) and same-gender unions. This usurps the power under Article III to "all cases in Law or Equity" under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The other is (though it is a constitutional attempt, I grant him) to revoke the birthright in the Fourteenth Amendment that makes any child born on American soil a full US citizen. While I understand its controversy in regards to the illegal immigration problem, I think it's dangerous to start chipping away at the Constitution's definition of an American Citizen.

  2. Ron Paul is a good man with a lot of bad ideas.

    He's a little mixed up (in a quaint sort of way)as well.

    To quote Ron Paul:
    "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."

    Now, Ron Paul advocates dissolving the IRS and having no taxation. So why would his health care view include making health care costs "tax deductible"?

    Health Care Savings Accounts? LOL!
    The Bush plan? What is it Mr. Paul doesn't get? Americans already rejected the concept.

    Where in Mr. Paul's health care plan are the poor provided for?

    I challenge any Ron Paul supporter (particularly those smarmy internet spammers of his), to show me where the poor and destitute of America will find relief with him as president.

  3. I would never support Ron Paul in a million years. To his credit he is against the war in Iraq, but on economic and social justice issues he is a reactionary. No thanks.

  4. I am going to publish this on the internet, but don't tell anybody. At my first election, when I just turned 18, I voted for a Libertarian. Thought it was cool. Don't tell me what to do. I'll party if I want to.

    I also grew up in a "less government is best" state. Most of the roads were dirt.

    But I think differently today. We have responsibility for others. Government is the way in which we participate in that. Education, health care, housing, food, and care for the widows and orphans are things that a society should not leave to chance or fortune.

    I like Ron Paul's anti-Iraq and anti-Empire stance, but not his anti-UN stance, nor his social policies.

    The challenge for me will be if it is between say him and another candidate who I appreciate on social issues, but has it wrong on Iraq or Empire. Then it will be a tougher call.

    It is making me think about what is (or are) the most pressing issue(s) in 2008.

  5. At my first election, when I just turned 18, I voted for a Libertarian.

    It's okay, John. We all did silly things when were that age. :)

    Libertarianism is the sort of ideology that often seems to have a particular appeal for people that age who don't have enough experience in life to know better.

  6. Thanks Reverend Shuck for starting this blog. I have so much to say about Ron Paul and why I support him. It is going to take a while for me to share my ideas and the way I view things. First, I want to say that I have never found a presidential candidate or a person who I agree with on absolutely everything, and I bet none of you can say you have either.

    I hope after expressing my views and opinions that someone on this blog can convince me that I am absolutely crazy for supporting Ron Paul. Because as of now I feel like Ron Paul is a modern-day prophet. The more I read about his stance on issues, the more things start to make sense to me.

    First, I want to say that I love all people and I want justice and equality for all just as much as the next person. I believe that it is wrong to judge anyone based on their race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation.

    I'll start with tn420's challenge: " me where the poor and destitute of America will find relief with him as president."

    Just what kind of relief has the past and current governement shown them? Do you actually know anybody under 25 who lives in subsidized housing and receives welfare, foodstamps, and free health coverage? I do, and I know what it does to their lively hood. I will tell you a personal experience. I am working towards becoming a high school science teacher. For my graduate assistantship I get to go around to different middle schools in several counties and work with science teachers and students. Recently I visited a couple of schools in Carter County. At one of the middle schools, the teacher asked her sixth grade class of 25, "what do you want to do when you grow up?" 12 of the 25 kids said they wanted to draw a check like their momma. Only 65% of Carter County's children graduate high school! So tn420, I ask you, show me how foodstamps and welfare helps the poor and destitute of America? We should be giving people opportunites to work, not lowering their standard of living and lively hood.

    What kind of relief are you referring to? If you are expecting the Government to take care of people from cradle to grave, then Ron Paul is not your man. I believe that for people to live to their fullest potential they should work and make a living and provide for themselves and their families if they are able.

    Here is what Ron Paul has to say when asked similar questions in an interview that can be found at ( :
    Q: You would -- talking about domestic policies now -- eliminate the income tax. How would you then pay for services that are provided by the government?
    Paul: Well, most of the services and most of the expenditures of the government aren't strictly designated by the Constitution. So you want to wean the government, wean the people off from this dependency, because it has led to overdependency, not self-reliance, and a bankruptcy. And that's why our dollar is on the ropes, because we can't afford it. So we just print the money, and we overtax, and we overborrow, and then overprint, and this has led to a very serious situation. And we can't turn that off immediately, and I realize that. And if you just got rid of the income tax tomorrow, it would just make the deficit that much worse, and then they'd print more money. So you'd have to get a consensus of people saying you have to cut the spending.
    But my approach is to reverse the trend. If you get to reverse the trend, it would restore some confidence to the markets and I would start with foreign policy. I wouldn't start with any domestic program, where people become dependent. The elderly who have been promised to be taken care of -- although that was maybe not the best way to do it -- you don't start with them. You take care of them. And the only way you can try to fulfill those promises is to stop spending overseas to the tune of not a couple billion -- hundreds of billions of dollars you could save. You could help those who are dependent. You don't have to throw anybody out on the streets. At the same time, you can get young people out of the system and work toward the day where you absolutely don't need an income tax. Most of our history we didn't have an income tax.

    Q: You mean out of the Social Security system?

    Paul: Well that, yeah. Get out of Social Security and, of course, getting out of the tax system. If we ever got our government reduced to constitutional size... We've only had it since 1913. We haven't even had it 100 years, and people aren't very happy with it.

    Q: But if you were to strip the government down to just its bare essentials, that is, maintaining a military, and... I guess the question is I don't know what other services you were thinking that the federal government should provide, but how would you pay for those? Where would that money come from?

    Paul: Well, we'd look to how did we pay for them, you know, in our first 150 years. We did it through tariffs. We did it through user fees. We did it through different types of fees. But the government was much smaller, and there was always enough money. It was only when they went to war that they needed an income tax.
    I mean, they proposed the income tax in the Civil War. That was found unconstitutional. And then they had the amendment, and we've been having an income tax. And we've had war, you know: first World War, second World War, Korea, Vietnam. So the income tax just encourages big spending. Instead of really helping poor people, it helps corporations who get control. So you fight wars. The corporations make the money. You have housing bubbles created for poor people and the building companies and the mortgage companies make the money, and then the people lose their houses. So even with the good intentions, it really doesn't work very well.

    Q: How would the safety net work for the poor? How would they access government services? How would you qualify?

    Paul: Depends on where we are in the state. I mean ideally, the poor would be taken care of by a market economy that would make it so much healthier. I mean, we didn't have any of these things before the Depression. They blamed the Depression on capitalism, and that was a serious mistake. So they said everybody has to have a safety net, which has actually created more poor people. They've resorted to inflation, which destroys the middle class and undermines the poor. So to help the poor, you have to have a sound economic system. But if you have somebody that doesn't make it: families, friends, neighbors, churches charities. But there would be so few.
    But once you design a program where everybody is involved, you eventually lower the standard of living for everybody. Right now, the standard of living is going down for the lower 50 percent of our people, and they're very annoyed by it. But they don't quite understand why they're being punished. Sometimes they say, well, if we only had more stuff from the government it would solve the problem. But the fact is the government has been the redistributor of wealth that has created these inequities.

  7. Flycandler: why do you put so much faith in the United Nations, when they are controlled by an inside group. The UN is nothing more than the Elite’s verson of a trojan horse. On the outside it tells you it promotes peace. Ask yourself something, when did you ever know the UN to cause any peace in the world. If the UN did it’s job properly it should have labeled what Bush and the Neo-cons did a war crime. But it didn’t, all it did was say “oh well, we tried, better luck next time”! Come on, they gave China awards for it’s one child policy! Whenever a UN peace keeping force occupies a country there is anything but peace. The UN has failed at every effort it has put forth to avoid war in any case! There is a reason for that, because the UN cannot have it’s one world government without war, because how could they act like they want peace if there is not war! The UN is set up to look benign just like George Bush is set up to look like an idiot! Do you really think an idiot can take us into a war without the approval of congress and succeed? Do you really think the UN is doing it’s best to avert war? Do you really think that an organization set up by the Elite is going to care about the lives of innocent people? Do you really think the answer to all the world’s problems is to form a world government run by the Elite of the Elite? If you think any government, democratic or rupublican, without checks & balances will save us all from war, poverty, and absolute genocide you are only fooling yourself. And in doing so you have lost everything it means to be free. I challenge any of you to tell me one instance when government ever cared about the people! If everything that is happening in this country, and on the world stage (including 9/11) is just by chance, or a conincidence, why is it that nothing ever happens in the favor of the average person? Ask yourself why that out of all the people in the world that believe the United States is still a free country live in the the United States! Nobody wants to believe there is a group of people so evil in our government that they could carry out 9/11 as a pretext for war and the dismantaling of the constitution, and neither do democrats. That is why democrats want to believe so bad that Bush is a bumbling idiot instead the sadistic liar he is. That is why republicans defend him, even to the point of looking like fools themselves.I hope, for the sake of our nation, you all wake up to the cat and mouse game before it is to late!

  8. John: I believe that you are wrong on thinking that Education would be worse off without the federal government involved. I have been a graduate student at ETSU in education for two years now. As a graduate assistant, I have visited over eight local county middle school science and math classrooms. The fedral government and No Child Left Behind is dumbing down our kids and creating social injustice! National standards and certain national organizations are fine, but the Dept. of Education is corrupt. It has been handed over to so-called non-profit government entangled corporations who want to do nothing but market are kids with their advertisements, and through their routine standardized testing, they treat every child like they are on a sweat shop line. They are dumbing down the kids with their tests because teachers now only teach to the test and the material they cover is superficial. Teachers only have time to barely scratch the surface on many topics. It has gotten really bad. If you know plenty of adults who can't think for themselves now, trust me, that number will be quadrupled with this generation of kids! Here are some cool YouTube videos to watch on education and NCLB:

    Oh, and if you didn't know already, only 1/3 of our students graduate high school in this country and 11% of all students have a learning disability by fifth grade.

    I believe that Ron Paul is right when he says parents need to start taking more control over their children's education. Studies after studies show that academic success correlates with socioeconmic status which I believe correlates in many instances with parental involvement. That doesn't mean homeschool them--that just means get more involved and quit expecting the governement to do it for you. Another reason Ron Paul is for homeschoolers is because he believes parents should be free to make educational choices for their children without government interference. Why shouldn't parents have this right?

    Also YouTube:George Carlin on Education in America

  9. Mystical seeker: You are going to have to come up with a better argument if you want to convince me otherwise.

  10. Rachel, from the length of your comments in response to this posting, you bear all the hallmarks of a True Believer--as libertarians tend to be. Why do you think I would try to convince you of anything?

  11. Mystical Seeker, what do you think I am a True Believer in? I love freedom and I hate injustice. Do you see something I'm not seeing. I am seeking truth, and I believe Ron Paul speaks it. What exactly are you seeking?

  12. Bless your heart, Rachel, you forgot about the black helicopters.

    Remind me, how many world wars, thermonuclear or otherwise, has the world experienced since 1945? How many cases of smallpox have there been since 1977? In how many countries is polio still endemic?

    The answers are zero, zero and four. This was the work of the UN and its agencies. The UN is not perfect, and Kofi Annan did a lot to reform it, but it is today just as it was 60 years ago the best hope for peace.

    Incidentally, as far as 9/11 goes, I was not responsible for it (despite the claims of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson), and I don't think it was George Bush's doing. I think he was criminally negligent (especially after the 8/6/01 PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States"), but I don't think he ordered it. Does Ron Paul think that George Bush was behind it?

  13. Amen, Rachael Baker,

    My kids were home-schooled through most of school, and are doing just fine. Hey, there are home-schoolers at Harvard.

    I realize that home-schooling is not for everyone, but the more parental involvement the better, IMO. We certainly don't expect the govt. to feed and educate our children. Why is it so different when it comes to education?

  14. Sorry, I meant to say "feed and clothe" our children. I definitely lean very strongly toward the libertarians myself. Although, I think we do need a basic safety net in place.

    But, I feel our main emphasis should not be so much in redistributing the wealth, but in generating more wealth so that everyone, including the poor can benefit.

  15. Hi Rachel,

    Glad you are here. I think this is a good discussion. Regarding the education issue, I agree that no child left behind makes teachers teach the test rather than teach the subject. Also, it is an unfunded mandated.

    I personally don't have anything against homeschooling. In fact, many students who were schooled at home do better. Many who go to private schools do better than those who go to public schools.

    I went to a Catholic high school. Yet my parents still paid taxes for public schools.

    Of course, parents need to be involved in education. We need to continue to work on that.

    I also see major problems with corporations becoming involved in schools with advertising and so forth.

    The problem with privatizing education is that it is uneven and leaves out the poorest. Public education is an equalizer. Obviously, it is uneven as well, but it is far superior to the alternative of having everyone had to fend for themselves.

    If you have the resources to send your kid to private school or to homeschool them, great. But you have to pay your taxes as well.

    I might be wrong about Ron Paul. But isn't he about reducing taxes and therefore funding for public education? Isn't he for vouchers?

    That is my issue. We are responsible for others and in being responsible for them we lift up the whole of society.

    Grace wrote:

    "We certainly don't expect the govt. to feed and clothe our children. Why is it so different when it comes to education?"

    Two questions: who are "our children?" and who is the government?

    We are the government and all children are our children. Yes, let us debate how we can make education better for all of our children not just those who will suffer from a decrease in funding for public education.

  16. Oops, my last line should read

    "Yes, let us debate how we can make education better for all of our children INCLUDING those who will suffer from a decrease in funding for public education."

  17. Hi John:

    Thank you for continuing this dialouge.
    You wrote,
    "I might be wrong about Ron Paul. But isn't he about reducing taxes and therefore funding for public education? Isn't he for vouchers?"

    Ron Paul is not about reducing funding for public education. He is about letting more of it come form the local and state level, therby granting more power back to the local communities. He says in his own words "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. "

    I don't think that Ron Paul is for vouchers; at least he wasn't in 2003: read

    Here is something else you might want to read:

    "Ron Paul's education stance is similar to his stance on every other issue. He feels the first priority is to examine what the constitution says. It never declares that the federal government has the responsibility to educate the children, therefore that is a responsibility issued to the state and the state must uphold it. He wants to end all federal government involvement and keep the states involved that way two states with radically different cultures, such as Tennessee and Massachusetts, will not have to have the same standard form of education. He wants to increase equality in college admissions and scholarships to all forms of education. He encourages home schooling and parental involvement. He is against the No Child Left Behind act and wants to stop funding being based on test results. Overall, Rep. Paul wants to give the people the ability to decide their education by letting them vote in their respective states."

  18. Dear Flycandler,
    Ron Paul does not believe that 9/11was a conspiracy. He holds similar views to those of Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman. He believes “There is an ideolgical battle happening; some people believe in globalism, others believe in national sovereignty.” -Ron Paul, Youtube Debate, Nov. 28, 2007.

    I personally think that maybe there is a conspiracy. Youtube One World Order and Google the Bilderbergers. Documentaries to watch: ENDGAME: Blueprint for global enslavement; America, Freedom to Fascism; Loose Change Final Cut.

    Ron paul does not endorse any conspiracy theories. I don't really either, but they are interesting to watch.

    A really good book to read if you want another perspective to understand what is going on is "The Global Class War", by Jeff Faux.

    On the United Nations: if they have been so successful in fighting diesease, then tell me why do 2 million people die of malria each year and 400 million become infected in over 92 countries every year.

    And why is it that over 40% of the population of the world lack adequate clean drinking water?

    Here is a good blog to read:

    I will quote some stuff:
    "Get out of an organization that passes nearly 20 resolutions over 10 years condemning Saddam's regime and threatening the use of force if he didn't comply with its weapons inspectors, and then freaks out when the US actually cashes in on their empty threats? Nonsense.
    Get out of an organization whose members turned a blind eye to Saddam taking oil profits, rather than providing for his people, as was supposedly intended? That's absurd.
    Get out of an organization in which permanent security council members dealt with Saddam and discouraged his ousting, leading many naive Americans into thinking they were for peace and that the mass murderer-ousting US was the force of evil in the world? Insanity.
    Get out of an organization that has done absolutely nothing of substance to thwart the threat of world-wide terrorism? Get out of an organization that thinks it has a say over whether the US can use its military? Get out of an organization which stands for a member promising the erasing of a people and nation?"

    "I think a big problem for many people, seen here and elsewhere, is that they have become dependent on certain organizations. Please remember that, when Paul says he wants to get out of the UN, that doesn't mean the US will remove itself from the international dialogue. Please remember that abolishing the Dept of Education doesn't mean there will be no public schools. Please remember that dismantling the CIA doesn't mean that the US will not conduct intelligence activities, or doing the same to the Dept of Homeland Security and FEMA doesn't mean that the govt will have no way of responding to natural disasters or 'fighting terrorism'."

    "our country is on the decline because we meddle in the internal affairs of other countires and they are pissed about it, as they should be. Trade with everyone, be friends with everyone, but don't intervene in other countries' internal affairs (ie overthrowing governments)- that is ron paul's positiion and is supported by the constitution. "

  19. Rachel, one huge reason that the UN and the WHO can't eradicate malaria is that there is not a vaccine for it. The only effective control is to make the mosquito extinct. If that were even possible (and the insecticides didn't kill the humans as well), the removal of mosquitoes from the environment would remove a major source of food for fish and disrupt the food web, potentially causing starvation for the humans. So in the meantime, the UN and its agencies are working toward goals of education, mitigation and treatment in endemic areas. It's the responsible thing to do.

    In the larger picture, I think the UN is still a good idea. Do I want an international organization to have some say on whether or not the US can use its military against a country that has not attacked or even threatened to attack? HELL YES. The UN Charter is written with your concern in mind: no nation is forbidden from protecting itself from an invader. It simply puts into place a means to keep would-be invaders in check. The upshot is that it holds ALL its members to the same standard.

    One of the biggest obstacles to that is the structure of the Security Council, which is largely the fault of the United States to begin with. Five of the members of the Council are not only permanent, they all have solo veto power. The five members cannot change and reflect the world political scene of 1946. The huge western empires (US, Britain, France) and the huge eastern empires (USSR-later-Russia, China) that won the war have their position in the world on V-J day forever frozen in time. I don't buy the American Exceptionalism argument that we are somehow morally superior to the rest of the world. We are sinners just like everyone else. The structure of the Security Council has the implicit assumption that the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union (now Russia), and China are somehow morally superior to the Irish, the Canadians, the Greeks, the Ethiopians, the Indians, the Pakistanis, the Thai, the Australians, the Costa Ricans, or anyone else. It ain't right.

    The absolute worst thing the US could do would be to withdraw from the United Nations. The UN would cease to be the court of world opinion that helped prevent a thermonuclear war during the Cuban Missle Crisis and brings stability and hope to millions today. My daily work actually involves a UN agency, the ICAO, and without it, safety, security and air traffic controls would be a dangerous mishmash from country to country. The ICAO is able to set a global standard that makes international air commerce possible, and the US economy can only benefit from it.

    Moreover, while the UN is consciously religion-neutral (and rightly so), it does represent a very important ideal for us Christians. Here is, in its entirety, Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

    Why is that worth abandoning?

  20. Dear flycandler,

    I hope to God that you are right about the UN. Honestly, I don't know enough about the UN to rebuke your argument. I have read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    My biggest worry is that they do not say in their Declaration that we are endowed by our Creator (God) with these certain inalienable rights. It seems too soon in human civilization to take God out of the picture.

    Their goals for the year 2015. Wow, it's like a Utopia. I don't believe Utopia should be forced upon people, I think humans and nations should naturally evolve to that level, and they can only do that through individual freedom and a free market of ideas and capital. Is this what the UN has in mind?

    Another worry is that they will be corrupted by the same inside group as the Bush/Clinton and the Neocons who want nothing but a One World Order and seem to only want to exploit the resources of third-world countries.

    In addition, I certainly do not want to be taxed by a world government on top of my national taxes.

    What role will the UN play if and when the economies of the European Union, Americas, China and Russia fall?

    I will continue to look into the issues you have addressed before I cast my vote on Feb. 5th.


  21. Hey Flycandler,

    If you get time, read this letter and let me know what you think:

  22. Honestly, Rachel, it makes him sound goofy. He's defending the Contras that (with ILLEGAL ARMS PROVIDED BY THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION) and the Muhajadeen that fought the Soviets in Afghanistan (led by a feisty Saudi construction fortune heir and later renamed "Al Qaeda"). I don't need to say anything about how good for American security the Muhajadeen was (and he wrote this in 2005), and I will point out that the current President of Nicaragua is none other than Daniel Ortega. Yes, that Daniel Ortega.

    I certainly invite you, Congressman Paul, or anyone else to look at the active, real daily work done by the United Nations that helps people rich and poor all over the world. It's an alphabet soup, but ICAO, IAEA, UNICEF, WHO, WMO, UNESCO, FAO, ITU (which makes this conversation possible), UN-HABITAT, and other agencies make a real difference to people. The most effective UN programs are often the ones you hear least about, because they are working as planned: providing a place for diverse countries to come together and work out a common standard for trade, transport, scientific research, information exchange, and dozens of other fields.

    And no, I'm not bothered by the lack of "God" in the UDHR any more than I'm bothered by the lack of a mention of God in the US Constitution. Look. Look again. God's not in there. The only times we even get close are to forbid religious tests for public office, to forbid government from making an establishment of religion, and to protect the freedom of religion regardless of the faith or lack thereof.

  23. I know that God is not mentioned in the Constitution. I was referring to our Declaration of Independence:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."