The real Ron Paul

[julebuggy]

Originally Posted by Noahma

as I said in my post. He fits my views pretty well. There is only really one issue I do have with him. and roe vs. wade is not one of the issues I have with him

I want the states to have the powers they once had back. bring the choices to a community level so it is more personal, and get the money back into the local community so it can be spent the way the people want, not the way the big wigs in D.C. think we want it spent. I am sick and tired of people doing what they think I want, or what they think is better for me. I want to decide what is best for me, and what is best for my community with the help of people in the community.

Doncha know? This new kewl globalist economy changes everything and we can't go back to that fuddy duddy Austrian economics. The world has changed. Just like dot bomb changed the way we evaluate P/E ratios or flipping homes and buying plasma TVs on credit changed the way we buy. Saving, producing goods, and a strong currency is for suckers and is sooooooo 1800s dooooooooode.

[texdav]

I frankly don't see any other candidate using Ron Pauls views. They in fact stay as far away as possible from his views.Ron Paul is just a man out of the George Wallace era of politics in the deep south. His supporters seem the same;making one wonder if they were trapped in some time warp.

[carloco]

Here's the REAL deal on the 8th of Upton's list of 9 misrepresentations about Ron Paul, that he "supports a Constitutional amendment for school prayer."

Contrary to this claim, I learned Ron Paul actually voted AGAINST the bill which made it to the House floor for a full vote that would have lead to the constitutional amendment allowing prayer in public schools (H.Res. 78 - 105th Congress, 1998).

Anyone who cares to know how I discovered this, read on and follow the tedious trail I took to get the truth.

Upton, I hope you will read on and see why your authority for this claim is untrustworthy.

I first followed the link Upton gave on his first reply (01-27-2008, 03:24 PM), entitled "Ron Paul on Education."

It's from "ontheissues.org," whose "Mission" statement on its "About Us" page, says it's a "non-partisan" info-provider for the 2008 presidential elections.

Based on the BS I found there on just this one candidate I'll wait for someone to prove that the entire site, and its "non-partisan" nature, is PURE BS. Its "home" and "about us" pages are totally silent as to who owns it, who writes for it, etc. Why do they hide?
Who's paying them to pay for this?

Maybe some of you other truth seekers in the group can weigh in on their hidden id. One might be gleaned from a combined effort to analyze the entire site's treatment and statements of all candidates. From that data, a list of recurring advocacies can be distilled and compared to the partisan groups who are promoting an identical list. The "usual suspects" will emerge, no doubt.

But will anyone here want to go to that effort?

It was easy for me to see the "Ontheissues.org" group was against Ron Paul, since he's the guy I'm very familiar with and the spin they put on all other matters I'm familiar with ran false.

JustinFromBoise and AmnesiaMD are both right-on, exposing the common anti-Paul BS with their common sense.

As any open minded human is prone to do, JustinFromBoise confessed ignorance in the face of Upton's new "revelation," #8. He asked for proof, and Upton's reply prompted me to use my uncommon discipline to fact-check his authority.

My painstaking effort here is to illustrate to Upton and others who, like him, fall for the "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." Speaking of which, Al Franken's book by that name (or one like it) was the best "how-to" manual I've found for removing all the BS from the closest thing to the truth any of us "ordinary citizens" can hope to get,

In this age of information, that's pretty close, if you know how to do it. If you don't, shame on you, go read what Eisenhower said will happen to us all if we don't become an informed and knowledgable citizenry. (This was his last speech as president, on the eve of Kennedy's inauguration).

Upton, you don't seem to be an unreasonable citizen and I hope you will take my offer in the spirit of friendship that moves me to write. It's not my intent to insult you, but make no mistake, you've done something wrong and I mean to inform you.

I came to Paul with a huge degree of skepticism myself.

My professional career spanned 24 years during which I was paid to bust liars, many of them using printed documents to commit fraud against my clients. That's the main reason I was able to figure out how to validate from the PROPER SOURCES what was true and not true about Ron Paul from the first time I heard about him (August 2007) right up through today.

No political candidate has been depicted by the mainstream press so far from reality as Ron Paul has, in my opinion.

It's for one reason, I'm sure.

The mainstream press knows their very survival depends on them derailing his chances for victory. Paul threatens them like no one ever has, because he threatens their owners' obscene profiteering under the current government's "welfare for the rich" programs.

Here's what I found near the bottom of the "Ron Paul on Education" page I went to through Upton's link [I'll indicate the pasted section with green font and end with "PASTED EXCERPT ENDS, CARLOCO's REPLY RESUMES"]:

Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.

Paul sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:
H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.
H. J. RES. 78 (1997):
To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.
Proposed Legislation:
H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha)
H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson)
S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond)
H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham)
H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts)
H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.)
[SIZE=1]Source: H.J.Res.78 97-HJR78on May 8, 1997 [/SIZE]

PASTED EXCERPT ENDS, CARLOCO's REPLY RESUMES

In this excerpted paragraph, "Ontheissues.org" makes the blatant misrep that Ron Paul sponsored ALL those House Resolutions listed under the list's intro "Paul sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:[list of omitted]"

The truth is that he did not sponsor ANY of them.

He did "co-sponsor" one, the last listed (and oldest), H.Res. 78.

Anyone thinking there's no distinction between a sponsor and co-sponsor can go to the "About Co-Sponsor" link contained on the THOMAS site (THOMAS is the Library of Congress engine), and see this definition (in purple font):

A cosponsor is a member of Congress who has joined one or more members in his/her chamber (i.e., House or Senate) to sponsor a bill or amendment. The first member to "sign onto" a bill is considered the "sponsor," members subsequently signing on are "cosponsors." Any number of members may cosponsor a bill in the House or Senate.
The THOMAS cosponsors display shows the member's name and date that she or he signed onto the bill. Member names can be displayed in chronological order by date of cosponsorship or alphabetically.
Occasionally, a member may choose to withdraw cosponsorship. If that happens, the line with the member's name in the cosponsor display indicates cosponsorship "withdrawn" and the date of the withdrawal.

And anyone who thinks I'm just as bad as "OntheIssues.org" for not being upfront in disclosing to you that the record shows Paul co-sponsored the very bill he then voted AGAINST, well, I won't plead "guilty" but I will plead "no contest" and offer this explanation in hopes of restoring my damaged credibility.

If I had started with this finding, you may not have come this far, dismissing my entire reply with an erroneous assumption that I was making much ado about nothing - letting the anomaly overshadow the deceit. You might not have had your curiosity piqued enough to see just how the subtle and insidious this deceit really is.

Now you've invested this much time, you're almost there.

Spending a great deal more time and effort than you've spent reading this, I used the THOMAS engine to find all the House Resolutions (even checked the one Senate Resolution - S.R.1) and see which ones had Ron Paul's sponsorship, endorsement or support.

My review of these was limited to just those records which showed who sponsored and co-sponsored them.

None of them showed Ron Paul as either sponsor or co-sponsor, with one exception: H.Res. 78, and for it, Ron Paul was just 1 of 153 co-sponsors.

I suppose that's why, at the very bottom of the paragraph (and pasted above) the small link is to just that resolution and none others.

Since I was by this revelation even more skeptical of the claim by Upton's authority, I read all there was on THOMAS about H.Res. 78, and learned it was voted out of the judiciary committee and onto the floor of the House for a roll-call vote.

I don't know why the record shows Paul as a co-sponsor of that resolution on May 9, 1998, the day it was introduced by its sponsor, Mr. Ernest Istook.

Whatever the reason, it ceased to hold any currency after 6/4/1998, at 4:26 pm, when the bill failed after the roll-call House vote, thanks in part to Paul's voting "NAY"!

All who claim Paul "supports" a school-prayer constitutional amendment needs to come up with something called "evidence" that will refute his record of opposing it by his VOTE!

Many anti-Paul people will likely jump on the inconsistency as proof of some kind of "flip-flop" flaw in his character, rather than look for the truth as to why it happened.

If he's answered the riddle in one of the countless interviews he's given, maybe I'll find it while waiting to see what kind of crowd I've joined, by the replies, if any, it draws.

If there's none, I'll only be back if I find an answer to this riddle I found.

Write on!

Carloco

[carloco]

Originally Posted by paperhouse

Read the text. You linked us to it.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article--

`SECTION 1. The States shall have power to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and Congress shall have the power to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.'.

How does this interfere with my right to burn a U.S. Flag in protest that I purchased - as opposed to burning one that is owned by the federal government?

[carloco]

Upton, did you get the flag desecration cite you posted (to H.J.Res. 80) from the "OntheIssues.org"? I just posted another reply on here showing why that's a bad source for good info.

Regardless where you get your info, do you ever bother to question its reliabiliity, even when it is supported by official records from the U.S. Congress?

I don't see a lot of constructive criticism leveled against you - most are counterproductive to a meaningful debate. But kudos to you for getting so much attention.

Please, for Upton and for anyone else who reads this, I gotta ask, does anyone want to try communicating something that might further mutual understanding? Or is this where folks gather to enjoy political put-down contests.

I'm convinced all humans are capable of coming to a mutual understanding of one another's points. Sadly, most are too arrogant to want that, and I find it best to ignore them.

Upton, I think you're not in that majority, and I invite you to engage in a civil discussion so as to prove me right. I also invite any of your detractors to join in and prove which group they're really representing.

The THOMAS site you cited revealed there were several other bills "related" to the one you cited, H.J. Res. 80.

Yes, it's true Paul sponsored and introduced that bill. He was alone (no co-sponsors), and he "introduced" it on June 10, 1997.

Among the other related bills was H.J. Res.54.

It takes some work to read all the pages required to get the big picture, but if you do so, you'll see how it is assembled like a jigsaw puzzle.

H. J. Res. 54 was just 2 days from being put to a vote before the entire house when Paul introduced his "related" H.J. Res. 80 bill.

Paul's bill died in subcommittee, after the house voted on and passed H.J. Res. 54, on June 12, 1997. H.J.Res. 54 was sponsored and introduced by Rep. Gerald Solomon, months earlier (February 13, 1997). That bill had 283 co-sponsors, and Ron Paul was NOT among them.

Reading H.J. Res.54, as introduced and as passed, reveals what Paul was trying to do in sponsoring/introducing his H.J. Res. 80.

Here's the full text of H.J. Res.54 as it stood on June 10, 1997, the day Paul introduced H.J. Res.80 (Blue font):

June 5, 1997


Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
HJ 54 RH
House Calendar No. 44
105th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 54
[Report No. 105-121]
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 13, 1997


Mr. SOLOMON (for himself, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. ARCHER, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BAKER, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. BARCIA, Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. BASS, Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BISHOP, Mr. BLILEY, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. BONO, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BRYANT, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURR of North Carolina, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. BUYER, Mr. CALLAHAN, Mr. CAMP, Mr. CANADY of Florida, Mr. CANNON, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. COBLE, Mr. COBURN, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. COX of California, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. CRANE, Mr. CRAPO, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Ms. DANNER, Mr. DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. DELAY, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. DOOLEY of California, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. EDWARDS, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. EHRLICH, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. EWING, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. FORBES, Mrs. FOWLER, Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania, Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. FROST, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. GANSKE, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. GOODE, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GOSS, Mr. GRAHAM, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. GREEN, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. HAMILTON, Mr. HANSEN, Mr. HASTERT, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HILL, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. HORN, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. HULSHOF, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. HYDE, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. JOHN, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. KELLY, Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut, Mr. KIM, Mr. KING, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. LINDER, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma, Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut, Mr. MANTON, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. MASCARA, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. MCDADE, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. MCINTOSH, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. METCALF, Ms. MOLINARI, Mr. MURTHA, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. NEUMANN, Mr. NEY, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PAPPAS, Mr. PARKER, Mr. PAXON, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. PICKETT, Mr. PITTS, Mr. QUINN, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. REYES, Mr. RIGGS, Mr. RILEY, Mr. ROEMER, Mr. ROGAN, Mr. ROGERS, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado, Mr. BOB ******** of Colorado, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mrs. SMITH of Washington, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. STUMP, Mr. TALENT, Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr. THOMAS, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr. TURNER, Mr. WALSH, Mr. WAMP, Mr. WATKINS, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mr. WELLER, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. WISE, Mr. WOLF, Mr. WYNN, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, and Mr. YOUNG of Florida) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
June 5, 1997


Additional sponsors: Mr. BRADY, Mr. CLEMENT, Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts, Mr. LAZIO of New York, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. THUNE, Mr. COOKSEY, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. COOK, Ms. DUNN of Washington, Mr. GEKAS, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. JONES, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. PASCRELL, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. WICKER, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. HEFNER, Mr. MOLLOHAN, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr. SNOWBARGER, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. BONILLA, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. LUTHER, Mr. RYUN, Mr. SANFORD, Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. SALMON, Mr. UPTON, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. KASICH, Mr. GILMAN, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mrs. NORTHUP, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. BAESLER, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. GOODLING, Mr. HILLIARD, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. PEASE, Mr. SHAW, Mr. MICA, Mr. POMBO Ms. HARMAN, Mr. BERRY, Mr. KLUG, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MOAKLEY, Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. BOYD, Mr. FAWELL, Mr. REDMOND, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, and Mr. Castle
June 5, 1997

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

• Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article--

• `The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'.

END OF PASTE, RESUME CARLOCO's REPLY

In the context of the free-speech smashing H.Res.54 that was about to be passed and sent to the senate, can you see why Paul introduced H.Res.80?

I pasted all the co-sponsors of H.Res.54, in case you'd like to see if any of them are reps you find demonstrated acceptable judgment during their service.

Take care as you evaluate your sources, Upton, if you care about such things as credibility, integrity, truth, as I'm betting you do!

Write On!

Carloco