Another Reason to Vote for Ron Paul
We had a new user register for the site yesterday who described her views as “Generally a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, closer to Libertarian, although firmly believes that the government does serve a purpose and that the US should be involved in the rest of the world, at least a little.” That’s pretty much how I feel. That last part is what keeps me from really being a gung ho Ron Paul supporter.
However, there are times when a vote for Dr. Paul seems like it really would be a vote to “save America”. Yesterday the House passed the SAFE-Act, which says that:
anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.
That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user's account be retained for subsequent police inspection.
By most accounts this bill is both redundant and unworkable. It also reinforces my opinion that a President or politician is better off understanding the internet than understanding Einstein’s general and special theory of relativity.
So what does this have to do with Ron Paul? Well, the bill passed by a vote of 409-2. Do you even need to look to know that Paul was one of the 2? Throughout his career Paul has been the lone voice crying out in the wilderness. Maybe the NY Times will write another hit piece on him and use this vote to claim that Paul is “soft on pedophiles”, but when I’m standing in the voting booth I’ll remember that Ron Paul consistently votes against legislation that’s meaningless, unworkable and violates our rights in the guise of security. That may be enough to sway me – and I’m not alone.
Posted by at December 7, 2007 09:49 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1570
|# December 7th, 2007 9:55 AM BVBigBro|
|Who was the other? |
|# December 7th, 2007 9:57 AM kris|
|Paul Broun, a Republican from Georgia - I also fixed the link, so you can see the roll call now. |
|# December 7th, 2007 8:07 PM BVBigBro|
|I like Ron Paul, but his isolationism is the big problem for me. I don't know that I can get past it. Fred Thompson has potential, but I need to to see and hear more. Beyond those two, there are no major candidates I have many positive feelings for. |
|# December 9th, 2007 1:04 AM james|
|ron paul isn't an isolationist. he supports free trade and diplomacy with all nations.
he is "non-interventionist," however, and believes that america should not be fighting in foreign wars that don't directly threaten the american state.
what makes you think that he is an isolationist?
|# December 9th, 2007 7:46 AM BVBigBro|
|His own statements are isolationist. He does not support NAFTA and other multinational organizations. Foreign policy under himwould be isolationist, and that has consequences. |
|# December 10th, 2007 8:23 PM james|
|I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about NAFTA, but I will point out that a lack of support for NAFTA doesn't necessarily equate to an isolationist agenda. Think of it like this: I am against "hate crime" enhancers, but I support laws prohibiting the murder of any person. Or: I support equal opportunities for all people, irrespective of race, but I'm decidedly against and & all affirmative action programs.
Like Ron Paul, I'm not a big fan of the UN, because I believe that it infringes on American sovereignty. Each and every power that the US government holds was granted to it by the people. (This is a very different situation than present in other world governments, most of which trace their source of power to a king or other dictator. ) As such, the government must always be accountable to the people. An organization like the UN not only destroys that link to the people, but it seizes it as well.
Ron Paul's opposition to NAFTA is based on his view that it takes power away from the American people. I'm inclined to think that he is right, as I've read that several state legislatures have passed unanimous resolutions opposing the agreement. If a trade agreement with another nation is preventing citizens and states from controlling their own government, then the trade agreement has to go.