Re: some things to consider about Ron Paul


The problem with your diatribe is that Ron Paul is for states
passing and controling what the people of that state want done, not
some group of dimwits in DC.
He supports the constitution that if it were obeyed would end our
problems and States could easily pass the same laws and do, The result
being an enormous duplication of government with the same enormous
cost that is bankrupting this country.
As it stands now our political parties are nothing more than a
giant two headed Rat whose appetite will consume this country.
Hillary versus McCain is nothing more than "more of the same" and
nothing will change.



On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:51:48 -0800 (PST), presidentbyamendment
<rick_hohensee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

reposted from Neijeli Demands Justice on myspace

Among the questions to which Ron Paul would answer "Yes" are the
following:

Are you in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Are you in favor of repealing the Voting Rights Act of 1965?
Are you in favor of ending Social Security and Medicare?
Are you in favor of dismantling all social programs?
Are you in favor of ending all environmental regulations?
Are you in favor of ending all worker protections?
Are you in favor of ending all food, medicine and other product safety
regulations?
Are you opposed to all civil rights, environmental or any other
legislation that "impinges .. rights?"
Are you in favor of ending public funding of schools?
Are you in favor of ending public funding of healthcare?
Are you in favor of ending public funding of roads, bridges, sewer and
water systems?
Do you consider property rights to be more important than human
rights, or to put it another way, do you consider things more
important than people?

Paul calls for an immediate end to the occupation of Iraq. It's a
sticking point for many, although it should not blur a sober analysis
of this reactionary, capitalist candidate's positions. He has been
forthright with his social and political program.
Paul's libertarianism--or "constitutionalism"--speaks frequently about
getting rid of invasive "big government." For workers who oppose the
Patriot Act, government spying, and inflated military budgets, this
position at first might have a certain appeal. But Paul wants to
create a "small government" so as to prevent any intrusion into the
affairs of big business. He upholds "free market" capitalism as the
solution to every social problem.
He does not want to create a government that defends workers and the
oppressed. Instead, Paul wants to overturn the concessions that
workers have won from the capitalist class through decades of
struggle. This is why he opposes the income tax--so that big business
does not have to give anything back.
Paul offers nothing to oppressed communities. His website claims that
bigotry is "a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's
hearts by passing more laws and regulations." In his view, the "true
antidote to racism is liberty," and "liberty means free-market
capitalism." Paul wants to get rid of affirmative action and any other
legislation that enforces "racial group identities."
Paul is supported by none other than arch-racist David Duke, former
grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and Don Black, co-founder of the
white supremacist website Stormfront. Paul has not condemned these
supporters or returned their donations.
A 1992 newsletter published under Paul's name claimed, "Only about 5
percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the
free market, individual liberty. ... I think we can safely assume that
95% of the black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or
entirely criminal." While Paul now claims that a former staffer wrote
and published the report without clearance, the newsletter never
rebuked or retracted the words of the alleged renegade employee.
On Dec. 23, 2007, Paul appeared on "Meet the Press," where he asserted
he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because it
impinged on the property rights of business owners.
As for workers' rights, Paul opposes the eight-hour day and the
minimum wage. He opposes laws banning child labor and other
legislation that ensures safe working conditions. He is against
unemployment insurance, welfare and food stamps. He would like to see
Social Security gradually eliminated. In Congress, Paul has voted
consistently against strengthening workers' rights and the
Occupational Health and Safety Administration, and on Dec. 5, 2007,
became the first presidential candidate to cross the picket line of
striking writers in Hollywood so that he could appear on ABC's "The
View."

Racist, anti-worker views
On immigration, Paul's six-point plan is nothing short of a nightmare
for foreign-born workers. Paul not only opposes legalization, but also
goes further than most xenophobes by explicitly proposing a
constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. He believes
undocumented workers should have no access to "hospitals, clinics,
schools, roads, and social services." Paul supports the construction
of the U.S.-Mexico border wall. He won the endorsement of the Iowa
Minutemen.
While Paul vehemently opposes the free movement of people across
borders, he has no problem with extending unrestrained rights and
access to capitalist corporations.
On the environment, Paul called the Kyoto Protocol--the current
international framework for the reduction of greenhouse gases--"anti-
Americanism masquerading as environmentalism." For Paul, the "key to
sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights." He
thinks individuals should be responsible for suing polluters who
violate their property rights, and the rising cost of lawsuits would
stop those committing environmental destruction.
Paul wants to repeal the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which
gave women the right to have an abortion legally. He claims this is a
question of "states' rights." In a sick twist of logic, he has opposed
gay rights because they privilege a specific grouping within society.
Apparently, his libertarian defense of "individual liberty" only
extends so far--certainly not to people suffering special oppression
under capitalism.
Paul's domestic program includes the abolition of the Department of
Education and federal college funding like Pell Grants. In his view,
the right to free public schools should be made at the state level;
education should be privatized and treated like any other commodity.
Paul claims, "Health care should not be left up to HMOs, big drug
companies, and government bureaucrats." This message may have a
populist appeal, but what he proposes--a "free market" healthcare system
--is the opposite of universal health care.
Contrary to Paul's assertions, a market-based healthcare system does
not increase "personal responsibility." It allows the insurance
corporations and healthcare providers to ravage, manipulate, and
overcharge working people.
This is the truth regarding all the social issues on Paul's
libertarian agenda. As much as working-class people rightly hate the
U.S. government, the end of government regulation in a capitalist
society can only strengthen the capitalist class to the detriment of
workers.
In the United States and around the world, the rule of "free market"
capitalism has led to immense suffering and starvation.
The country's "founding fathers" advocated for "small government" and
states' rights as mechanisms to protect the slave system from the
intrusions of the central government. The U.S. Constitution offers no
more solutions to the modern wage slave than it did to the chattel
slave when it was written.
Paul has made clear his opposition to the Iraq war. Unlike many of the
so-called anti-war Democratic candidates he has refused to vote for
war funding.
But Paul opposes the war in Iraq for the same reason that Pat Buchanan
and David Duke oppose the war. Paul's American exceptionalism is a
dead end for the anti-war movement.
What we need is international solidarity, not false notions of
isolationism. There can be no isolation from the plight of workers
across the world in the modern age of imperialism and globalization.
In the 2004 elections, much of the movement supported the John Kerry
campaign--with disastrous consequences. Kerry did not even oppose the
war, although his social positions are more palatable than Paul's for
many. But a key issue then was, as it is now, the war. The channeling
of anti-war anger into a campaign for any capitalist politician leads
to nothing but demoralization. There is no room for supporting the
"lesser evil" when it comes to elections. No capitalist politician
will carry out a sustained, fighting, pro-working class program. Paul,
anti-worker to the core, is no exception.
Progressives and socialists need to expose the reactionary program of
Ron Paul. In the coming year, as the electoral propaganda intensifies,
it will become increasingly important for the anti-war movement to
stay in the streets and stay independent of the two major political
parties.
Working-class people and socialists need to be clear: we will support
no candidate who advances the interests of the enemy class.

Rick Hohensee
www.myspace.com/presidentbyamendment

.