Ron Paul - What has he accomplished?

[Jason]

....he's sure been quiet on occasion....especially anything to do with gadiantons and conspiracy!

From another thread:

Some comments about Ron Paul in a recent article by G. Edward Griffin:

I am confident from past statements by Ron Paul that he is aware of a conspiracy to create a one-world dictatorship. Here are 3 such:

I’m aware of only one current U.S. Congressman who has acknowledged his awareness of a conspiracy to create a one-world dictatorship. Speaking in the House of Representatives 29 April 2003, Congressman Paul stated, as reported on his thelibertycommittee.org web page: “...Perhaps it’s time to stop trying to manipulate the UN, and start asserting our national sovereignty. If we do not, rest assured that the UN will continue to interfere not only in our nation’s foreign policy matters, but in our domestic policies as well. UN globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes. They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.”

And at an event near Austin, Texas on August 30th, 2003, Congressman Paul was asked: “...If we can take a look at the big picture, could you tell us, the people in this room, any information that you may have of an international and deceptive conspiracy to overthrow the American Republic and its Constitution & Bill Of Rights in order to set up and usher in a totalitarian World Government likely espoused under the UN also.. ? Congressman Paul replied: He asked if there was an international conspiracy to overthrow our government. The answer is Yes . I think there are 25,000 individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are in our Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One World Government. And if you believe in One World Government, then you are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and you are talking about setting up something that you could well call a Dictatorship - and those plans are there ...

Speaking to an audience of like-minded libertarians at a Campaign for Liberty regional conference in Atlanta the weekend of January 16-17 2010, Congressman Paul said: “There's been a coup, have you heard? It's the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They're the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. ... And of course the CIA is every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. ... And yet think of the harm they have done since they were established [after] World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They're in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators ... We need to take out the CIA.”

...yeah he's definitely shared enough to let you know....that he knows. But there have been plenty of big media spotlight moments when he's ducked the questions as well. Like most politicians....it depends on the audience. No one gets anywhere in politics without knowing who the power players are! Even locally...

I don't blame him one iota for the choices he's made with that regard.....as I've said its really just a demonstration of the signs of the times and how awful the situation really is. I just don't see how it would change if he stepped into the President's shoes.

[lundbaek]

I have been a fan and supporter of Ron Paul for about 20 years. He has both done and said more, IMO, to awake and educate Americans to the advantages and importance of compliance with moral and constitutional principles in government than probably any other member of Congress. Presidents David O. McKay, J. Reuben Clark, Ezra Taft Benson, and other Church leaders conld not get but a very few LDS people going on these principles. To my mind Dr. Paul has accomplished a great deal. He is a great example of what Romney ahd Huntsman and any LDS member of Congress should be.

[Teancum-Old]

However, in this climate, it seems that those who really go in all guns firing are often taken out one way or another. Perhaps you may say he should go all out regardless of what the consequences may be. However, he may see that the best he can do is just do enough to make a difference and to inspire others in order to try and help change the tide of things rather than being overbearing and ending up being ousted as a result.

You have to pick your battles carefully and wisely, especially in politics, and I think that may be what he has been doing.

Truthseeker sums it up nicely for us. :ymapplause: Ron Paul is picking his battles wisely. The way I see it, this is the way the Church does it too. Take for example the Constitution. Many on this forum get frustrated for the Church not actively taking part in the work to save the Constitution. They wonder why the Prophet does not come right out and say that the Constitution is hanging by a string (ETB said it but that was years ago). They wonder why the Church does not allow members to form Constitution discussion groups on its property, etc... Does this mean the Church is copping out on the responsibility to preserve the Constitution??? No! All the prophets (as noted on LDS Conservative) have spoken about the importance of the Constitution and its role in in the restoration and the need to preserve it for our posterity. But the Church is not in a position to actively take part in this issue (tax exemption, politics are dividing and the wheat is not quite ready for the tares to be separated yet).

Also, with Prop 8 (Protect Marriage in CA), the Church was very careful in the way it involved itself in this battle. We were not allowed to use Church property to distribute Prop 8 materials, or to organize, or to preach from the pulpit. Did this mean the Church was against Prop 8? Of course not, as you all know and agree.

Another great example is the Church and Plural Marriage. Didn't the polygamists fundamentalists attack Pres. Woodruff for "folding" to U.S. pressure? Or was Pres. Woodruff led by God to wisely pick the Church's battles and choose to stop the practice of plural marriage in order to save its Temples and essentially the whole of the restored Gospel?

Just like Ron Paul, the Church has wisely picked and is currently wisely picking its battles. 9/11, Obama's not being a natural citizen, Ending the Fed now, and more are issues that would most certainly kill Ron Paul politically, if not literally, if he were to take them on with "all guns firing."

OI is right on in saying

The fact that almopst nothing that he has attempted has come to fruition is largely because often in a 534-1 vote, he was the one.

I hear what you are saying about actual accomplishment, Jason, however, in a body of 535, one can only be held responsible for the positions HE has supported, you cannot blame him for failing to convince a majority, and certainly you cannot blame him for anything he supported which did not then pass the Senate.

Jason: What more do you expect from Ron Paul aside from him supporting, promoting, and voting for all the right legislation? What more could he have done?? Be specific in your response and please do not forget to include Truthseekers wise thoughts about "pick[ing]... battles carefully and wisely" in order to have a larger, more effective impact. Ron Paul has been part of the Legislative branch, not the Executive. He has essentially no enforcement power, that is the job of the Executive.

[Teancum-Old]

I have been a fan and supporter of Ron Paul for about 20 years. He has both done and said more, IMO, to awake and educate Americans to the advantages and importance of compliance with moral and constitutional principles in government than probably any other member of Congress. Presidents David O. McKay, J. Reuben Clark, Ezra Taft Benson, and other Church leaders conld not get but a very few LDS people going on these principles. To my mind Dr. Paul has accomplished a great deal. He is a great example of what Romney ahd Huntsman and any LDS member of Congress should be.

:ymapplause: :ymapplause:

[jeanpierre]

"And while the gentiles established the Constitution, we have a divine mandate to preserve it. But unfortunately today in this freedom struggle, many gentiles are showing greater wisdom in their generation than the children of light." (Ezra Taft Benson, April 1965 General Conference)

Why is it there is not a Mormon candidate for President preaching the principles of goverenment the Lord gave us?

[Col. Flagg]

I have been a fan and supporter of Ron Paul for about 20 years. He has both done and said more, IMO, to awake and educate Americans to the advantages and importance of compliance with moral and constitutional principles in government than probably any other member of Congress. Presidents David O. McKay, J. Reuben Clark, Ezra Taft Benson, and other Church leaders conld not get but a very few LDS people going on these principles. To my mind Dr. Paul has accomplished a great deal. He is a great example of what Romney ahd Huntsman and any LDS member of Congress should be.

Amen Lundbaek!

[SAM]

I have been a fan and supporter of Ron Paul for about 20 years. He has both done and said more, IMO, to awake and educate Americans to the advantages and importance of compliance with moral and constitutional principles in government than probably any other member of Congress. Presidents David O. McKay, J. Reuben Clark, Ezra Taft Benson, and other Church leaders conld not get but a very few LDS people going on these principles. To my mind Dr. Paul has accomplished a great deal. He is a great example of what Romney ahd Huntsman and any LDS member of Congress should be.

Amen Lundbaek!

I also agree. Ron Paul is the reason I started looking more seriously into the Constitution and supporting principles and candidates in line with the Constitution. I am no one, but I do believe there are a quite a few people who have been awoken to the importance of sticking to Constitutional principles. I would be worried if RP was elected because I would consider him compromised and I do think he can't accomplish much in his one little Congressional seat, so his fruits aren't the same as the Founding Fathers. However, I believe he is sounding a voice of warning and that is an important accomplishment. He does need the backing of a righteous group of people to accomplish what the Founding Fathers did. He is doing what he can to educate and rally those people, but it's ultimately up to the individual to decide which side they are fighting on.

[Teancum-Old]

Posted a thread here some time back on what Ron Paul definitely CAN and WILL do on his own if he becomes president
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 36&t=16223

Quoted here for ease:

Many on this forum seem to have lost their zeal for supporting Dr. Paul's efforts to bring this country back to the Constitution. I know there are some disagreements on this forum as to whether his monetary policy (gold/silver/commodity backed currency) is viable and that the end of times are imminent (2011/2012?) but does that give us the excuse to sit out this presidential election (let alone any election)? Have we come to a time where some think we no longer need to heed the Lord's following counsel:

"Wherefore honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil" (D&C 98:9-10)?

Were we not all in agreement 3 years ago when Ron Paul was the closest we could get to satisfying President McKay's admonition stating:

"Next to being one in worshipping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States." (Statements on Communism and the Constitution of the United States. Deseret Book Co., 1966 p. 6)

Why are things suddenly different today? What has changed? Should we not still actively do our part to bring about good in our country and the world? Will we not be found lacking when we stand before God to be judged for doing anything less (D&C 98:10)?

In considering the above statements, I came across the the following article: http://www.justinholloman.com/archives/218. The article tells exactly what Ron Paul would do as president, if the day were ever to come. He prefaces his entire plan by saying,

just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering.

I have summarized some of his plans below:

1. "I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs."
2. "If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin withdrawing troops from other areas of the world."
3. "The president can use his authority to set policies and procedures for the federal bureaucracy to restore respect for the Constitution and individual liberty. For example, today manufacturers of dietary supplements are subject to prosecution by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if they make even truthful statements about the health benefits of their products without going through the costly and time-consuming procedures required to gain government approval for their claims. A president can put an end to this simply by ordering the FDA and FTC not to pursue these types of cases unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer’s clams are not true. Similarly, the president could order the bureaucracy to stop prosecuting consumers who wish to sell raw milk across state lines."
4. "A constitutionalist administration would also defer to state laws refusing compliance with the REAL ID act and denying federal authority over interstate gun transactions. None of these actions repeals a federal law; they all simply recognize a state’s primary authority, as protected by the 10th amendment, to set policy in these areas."
5. "Another important step he can take toward restoring the balance of powers the Founders intended is repealing unconstitutional executive orders issued by his predecessors."
6. "Only Congress can directly abolish government departments, but the president could use his managerial powers to shrink the federal bureaucracy by refusing to fill vacancies created by retirements or resignations. This would dramatically reduce the number of federal officials wasting our money and taking our liberties."
7. "A president could also enhance the liberties and security of the American people by ordering federal agencies to stop snooping on citizens when there is no evidence that those who are being spied on have committed a crime.... He should also order the Transportation Security Administration to stop strip-searching grandmothers and putting toddlers on the no-fly list."
8. "The most efficient step a president could take to enhance travel security is to remove the federal roadblocks that have frustrated attempts to arm pilots... However, the processes for getting a federal firearms license are extremely cumbersome, and as a result very few pilots have gotten their licenses. A constitutionalist in the Oval Office would want to revise those regulations to make it as easy as possible for pilots to get approval to carry firearms on their planes."
9. "The first step in enacting a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget that outlines the priorities of the administration. While it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for the congressional appropriations process... If Congress failed to produce a budget that was balanced and moved the country in a pro-liberty direction, a constitutionalist president should veto the bill. Of course, vetoing the budget risks a government shutdown..." A constitutionalist president would repsond with, “I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America’s freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare state. I am the moderate; those who believe that America can afford this bloated government are the extremists.”
10. "Eliminating federal involvement in K–12 education should be among a constitutionalist president’s top domestic priorities."
11. "A final area that should be front and center in a constitutionalist’s agenda is monetary policy." (This is the one some on this forum now disagree with Dr. Paul.)

Many people say that Ron Paul will have no power to change anything if he ever became president. I say that the above list of items are significant changes to our existing regime, more than any recent president I have ever lived under.

If you still will not support Ron Paul, who then will you support in 2012? Or will you sit this out and wait to usher in Zion (remember D&C 98:10)?

[tmac]

Now, for another Perspective:

http://newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest177.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WHO WILL BE OUR MODERN DAY THOMAS JEFFERSON?
By Nelson Hultberg

Anybody with a lick of sense realizes there's no difference anymore between the Democrats and Republicans. Both preach big dictatorial government to the people, and they do so relentlessly. Thus many Americans now realize that we need to open up the process and offer a small government vision as a third choice.

The question is how do we bring about such a goal. Many hurdles to a third-party exist, and many objections among conservatives to even begin such an attempt exist. What follows will provide some answers to those objections and outline a dramatic plan that will not only defeat Obama's socialist agenda in 2012, but also save America in the coming decades from Republican socialism.

Restoring the Republic

It is assumed that Ron Paul will run again for the Republican nomination in 2012. But could this maverick freedom advocate actually take the GOP nomination away from one of the establishment luminaries such as Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee, or Palin? Common sense tells us, no. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't try, for in the effort to do so the message of freedom at least gets a hearing.

But once Paul sees that he is going to be denied the nomination (along about February or March of 2012), he then needs to set his sights higher than just being a hard-money spokesman running Don Quixote-style campaigns to purge the Fed from the country. As important as this goal is, it's going to require many decades to achieve anything substantive regarding such abolishment. Are Americans ready to adopt a totally free-market banking system, which is what would be required if we eliminated the Fed? Certainly not this decade or next. Maybe in 50 years.

There is a bigger, better crusade for Ron Paul to lead, however. It could be implemented NOW, rather than in 50 years. And it wouldn't diminish his effort to expose the Fed and eventually phase it out.

Ron Paul needs to think "Independent Crusade" in the manner of Ross Perot in 1992, which would get him into the National TV Presidential Debates. The importance of this is that it puts Congressman Paul in front of 70 million voters on the major networks. Getting into the Republican nomination debates in primary season (as he did in 2008) only puts him in front of 10 million voters on the cable stations. Running as a Republican nominee is small potatoes. The big prize is the fall Presidential Debates. But only an Independent run can bring this about because Paul is not going to get into those debates as the GOP nominee.

There's also another reason why the "Presidential Debates" are so important. In the Republican nomination debates, the moderators can ostracize a candidate by asking him only a few superficial questions and then ignoring him in favor of statist favorites such as Romney or Gingrich. This is what they did to Paul in 2008. But in the fall Presidential Debates there has to be equal time given to all candidates. Thus the moderator cannot ignore the freedom candidate in favor of the establishment favorites.

For Ron Paul to create a successful Independent run, he will need to find a promising conservative (let's call him "Jefferson Thomas") to team with as his VP candidate and do what Ross Perot and James Stockdale did in 1992. It goes without saying that Jefferson Thomas must be a man with gravitas and big league political experience, which unfortunately Stockdale was not. Perot managed to get on the ballot in almost all the states in less than six months at a cost of about $25-$30 million. A ticket of Ron Paul and Jefferson Thomas could do the same thing. Paul has already demonstrated that he has that kind of money-raising capability.

Thus our goal must now be to find Jefferson Thomas, or to have him find us. He will have to possess a genuine respect for the Founders' vision. And he will have to be a strong social conservative, but one who wishes to promote traditional values in society through the churches and schools rather than legislative mandates.

By employing less radical language for some of Ron Paul's 2008 positions, a formidable ticket could be formed. In today's atmosphere of severe recession, ruinous foreign wars, Washington socialism run amok, and Tea Party revolts, such a ticket could garner the necessary 15% in the polls to gain entrance into the National TV Presidential Debates and give the freedom movement a podium in front of 70 million American voters.

A Ron Paul / Jefferson Thomas Independent run would electrify the country. It would sweep into the TV Presidential Debates in the same fashion that Ross Perot did in 1992. Today's crisis times would guarantee it. And what's most important is that this time, the Paul / Thomas ticket would be talking true free-enterprise and foreign policy sanity. Not to take anything away from Perot; he was a great American hero and a wonderful tribute to the country. But he did not advocate "limited government." He basically accepted the monstrous welfare-statism of the two major parties. Ron Paul and Jefferson Thomas would not do this; thus their message would be truly salvational. Imagine them running on the following four Pillars of Reform:

Pillar # 1: A 10% equal-rate income tax across the board as replacement for our progressive tax rate structure, which would restore equal rights under the law to the system. With elimination of all special privileges, exemptions, and breaks, the tax base would be large enough for a simple 10% rate to be revenue neutral. But most importantly such a tax would stifle the "infinite demand" for government services that results from exempting 50% of the nations voters as our present progressive system does. When voters pay zero taxes for their services, their demand for those services is infinite. This is a cardinal law of economics, and it is the primary source of the relentless government growth that is bankrupting our nation today.

A 10% equal-rate tax will stifle this relentless growth. Voters will no longer want all the pork and privileges if they have to pay for them proportionally out of their own pockets. They will begin demanding a steady reduction of government. They will begin demanding that the 10% rate be lowered to 8%, 7%, 5%, and eventually replaced with across-the-board tariffs and a small national sales tax. Voila! The horrid income tax and IRS could be ended in a decade or two simply by eliminating "progressive rates."

Pillar #2: Mandating by law that the Federal Reserve increase the money supply annually at the same rate as the growth of goods and services -- approximately 4%. This would reduce price inflation to zero every year and end the horrible destruction of our currency and savings until we can convince Americans to end the Fed and restore gold. Milton Friedman suggested this years ago. It has its own flaws and thus is not a permanent solution, but it will stifle price inflation and buy time for us to educate America about vital monetary truths.

Enactment of these first two pillars of tax and monetary reform will bring hundreds of billions of dollars of investment capital back to America and millions of jobs back from overseas. It will create an explosion of economic productivity. It will restore our country's manufacturing power and our people's freedom because it will end the government's ability to expand through confiscatory taxation and currency debasement.

Pillar #3: Radical immigration reform that encompasses a genuine crackdown on illegals and the total abandonment of any kind of amnesty. We don't need massive deportation schemes to bring this about. An effective immigration reform would entail mandating English as the country's official language, ending anchor baby policies, as well as chain migration and all welfare perks for illegals, along with persistent prosecution of all employers who hire illegals. In other words, remove the honey pots from our backyard, and the fire ants will stop invading us. The illegals will stay home.

Pillar #4: Ending the Mideast wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and returning to a mind-our-own-business foreign policy, which means we maintain a powerful military, but stop trying to be the policeman for the world. Carry a big stick, but walk softly would be the advice of the Founders. America does not need 820 military bases in 135 countries aound the globe. We are bankrupting the nation both morally and financially with such imperial hubris.

Imagine Ron Paul and Jefferson Thomas giving 30 minute lectures regarding these Pillars in prime time TV the night before each of their debates as Perot did so effectively in 1992 with his lectures on the coming debt crisis. Such an ideological challenge would shake up the corrupt Demopublican establishment in a very big way. In my opinion it would launch a profound paradigm shift in American politics.

Would a Paul-Thomas ticket be able to get 38% of the vote and win in a three-man race? Probably not; but what's important is that freedom would now have a powerful voice in national politics. This would lay the groundwork for Jefferson Thomas running again in 2016 as head of a new party and vision for America -- a small government vision of freedom and sanity. That new party is already formed. It is called the Conservative American Party, and it could be officially registered in all states and sufficiently promoted to the American people by 2016 if Ron Paul and Jefferson Thomas endorsed it. Paul would be 80 years old by then, but he would become the elder statesman, the symbolic head of the party.

Unlike today's conventional third-parties that get only 1% of the vote, this would be a REAL third-party that achieves parity with the Democrats and Republicans and then replaces the Republicans as they replaced the Whigs in the 1850s.

Naysayers on the Right

The naysayers on the right will protest that such a campaign would split the Republican Party vote and assure Obama's re-election, which is intolerable. This is a false fear that is stultifying the freedom movement. Here's why. If a Paul / Thomas Independent ticket loses and Obama wins as a result of the GOP support being split, his socialist agenda can still be stopped because Republican conservatives will pick up a considerable number of seats in the House and Senate in 2012 -- adding to their sizeable gains in the recent 2010 elections. This will create gridlock and force Obama to come into the center and govern no differently than a Romney or Gingrich.

So what do we lose in 2012 by splitting the Republican vote? Nothing. What we gain, however, is the means to dramatically explain to America what is really happening. Our message of freedom gains access to 70 million voters! The Demopublican monopoly of ideas is broken! A genuine third choice is offered. This has never been done in the entire 48-year history of the Presidential debates.

What's important to grasp is that the country is finally ready to establish a conservative / libertarian era of government. The past 80 years of Marxist-Keynesian ideology has created the ruination that is driving the people to this realization. All that is necessary now is for a courageous leader to enter the scene and crystallize such a realization with a Ross Perot style campaign in 2012.

The path would then be open for a Jefferson Thomas win in 2016 on a Conservative American Party ticket, which would be genuinely revolutionary in a way that the ossified Republican Party can never be. The restoration of the republic could begin. The Four Pillars of Reform mentioned above could be implemented.

Would Ron Paul be willing to give up his House seat to run an Independent race? Hopefully so. At this time, we need him more in the National TV Presidential Debates than we do in Congress. He is no longer just a Representative from south Texas caught up in exposing the criminality of the Fed. He is the leader of freedom's hope in America. This entails different responsibilities and larger ambitions. The freedom movement needs to be sensationalized, which requires a leader who is articulately schooled in its ideological fundamentals. Ron Paul is the one who history has ordained as that political leader.

Many prominent intellectuals, talk show hosts, and activists, would support a Ron Paul / Jefferson Thomas ticket such as: Patrick J. Buchanan, G. Edward Griffin, Edwin Vieira, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Alex Jones, Chuck Baldwin, Peter Brimelow, Thomas Sowell, Paul Craig Roberts, John Stossel, Walter Williams, Bill Bonner, Sheriff Richard Mack, Stewart Rhodes, Rick Santelli, David Koch, Peter Schiff, John McManus, Peter Lillback, Ted Baehr, Paul Walter, and thousands of other prominent men and women in positions of leadership in the business, media, entertainment, religious, and literary arenas.

The latest Gallup Poll indicates that 58% of the American people feel that the Democratic and Republican Parties are doing such a terrible job that a third-party is needed. The time for such a revolution is now. As Shakespeare said, "There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries."

America desperately needs a small-government vision in its political arena. And the best way to bring such a vision about is to launch it with an Independent run by Ron Paul and Jefferson Thomas in 2012, to be followed by the official formation of the Conservative American Party for 2016 with Jefferson Thomas as its candidate for President.

[Rose Garden]

He changed my heart. Woke me to the truth politically. That's all that matters to me.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

IMO, Ron Paul's objective for ruuning for POTUS is to educate and awaken millions more Amdricans. In his heart ofn herats, he knows that this is his God given role, not to become POTUS. If he is measured that way, he is already a great success.

[moonwhim]

Ron Paul Goes After The TSA

Congressman to re-introduce American Traveler Dignity Act this week

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
July 4, 2011

In the wake of last week’s demise of the effort on behalf of Texas lawmakers to criminalize TSA transgressions, Congressman Ron Paul has taken up the cause, once again proving he is the only serious presidential candidate when it comes to protecting the liberties of Americans.

Paul announced today, on Independence Day, that he will introduce legislation into the House this week that will directly target not only grossly invasive TSA pat downs, but also the use of harmful radiation emitting body scanners.

“This week I am introducing the American Traveler Dignity Act, which establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation emitting from machinery on another person.” The Congressman stated in his weekly Texas Straight Talk update.

“They are not above laws the rest of us must obey.” Paul urged. “As we continue to see more and more outrageous stories of TSA abuses and failures, I hope that my colleagues within the House will listen to their constituents and join with me to support this legislation. ” The Congressman added.

“The press reports are horrifying. 95 year old women humiliated, children molested, disabled people abused. Men and women subjected to unwarranted groping and touching of their most private areas, and involuntary radiation exposure.” Paul stated.

“If the perpetrators were a gang of criminals, their headquarters would be raided by SWAT teams and armed federal agents. Unfortunately in this case, the perpetrators are armed federal agents.” he continued.

The Congressman previously introduced the legislation, H.R. 6416, last November, however it did not pass committee.

The bill contains just a short section that reads:

No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual’s body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual’s parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.

Listen to Congressman Paul’s update in full:





The Congressman’s commentary is presented in written form below:

The press reports are horrifying. 95 year old women humiliated, children molested, disabled people abused. Men and women subjected to unwarranted groping and touching of their most private areas, and involuntary radiation exposure.

If the perpetrators were a gang of criminals, their headquarters would be raided by SWAT teams and armed federal agents. Unfortunately in this case, the perpetrators are armed federal agents.

This is the sorry situation ten years after the creation of the Transportation Security Agency. The requirement that Americans be forced to undergo this appalling treatment, simply for the privilege of traveling in their own country reveals much about how the federal government feels about our liberties.

The unfortunate fact that we put up with this does not speak well for our willingness to stand up to an abusive government.

Many Americans continue to fool themselves into accepting TSA abuse by saying ‘I don’t mind giving up my freedoms for security. In fact though, they are giving up their liberties and NOT receiving security in return.

Last week, for example, just days after an elderly cancer victim was forced to submit to a cruel and pointless TSA search, including removal of an adult diaper, a Nigerian immigrant somehow managed to stroll through TSA security checks and board a flight from New York to LA with a stolen expired boarding pass and an out of date student ID as his sole identification. He was detained and questioned, only to be released and do it again five days later.

We should not be surprised to find this government ineptitude and indifference at the TSA.

At the time the TSA was being created, I strongly opposed the federalization of airline security. As I wrote, in an article back in 2001,

“Congress should be privatizing rather than nationalizing airport security. The free market can and does produce excellent security and many industries. Many security-intensive industries do an outstanding job of maintaining safety without depending on federal agencies.

Nuclear power plants, chemical plants, oil refineries, and armored money transport companies all employ private security forces that operate very effectively. No government agency will ever care about the bottom-line security and profitability of the airlines more than the airlines themselves. Airlines cannot make money if travelers and flight crews are afraid to fly, and in a free market they would drastically change security measures to prevent future tragedies.

In the current regulatory environment, however, the airlines prefer to relinquish all responsibility for security to the government, so that they cannot be held accountable for lapses in the future.”

What we need is real privatization of security, but not phony privatization with the same TSA security screeners in private security uniforms, still operating under the guidance of the federal government.

Real security will be achieved when the airlines are once again in charge of protecting their property and their passengers.

In the mean time, this week I am introducing the American Traveler Dignity Act, which establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation emitting from machinery on another person.

It means they are not above laws the rest of us must obey. As we continue to see more and more outrageous stories of TSA abuses and failures, I hope that my colleagues within the House will listen to their constituents and join with me to support this legislation.

——————————————————————

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-goes-after-the-tsa/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[lundbaek]

I strongly suspect that if there appears to be a possibility ofr the American Traveler Dignity Act passing, there will be one or more incidents designed to convince the American people that the current measures need to increased, not decrreased or eliminated.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

lundbaek: Come on??? That would mean a conspiracy exits withing our govt. That could never be.

[lundbaek]

In the Doctine and Covenants we are advised that the original Constitution is the Lord's standard for government for his people and anything more or less than this cometh of evil. Only one question remains..... among the candidates who has and will continue to protect the Constition from enemies foreign and domestic? Sadly, the LDS candidates for President and all save one of the remaining either do not understand the Constitution or haven't the integrity to be guided by it.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Lundbaek: Apparantly you aren't aware that there are two additons of the D+C. The other one has eliminated all references to the Constitution to help mullify those who like big govt and think that the Constitution is out of date.

[lundbaek]

The following statements appear in the Church publication "Principles of the Gospel", Page 135-136, Page 146-147, Published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1991.

“The men who framed the Constitution were directed by the Spirit of the Lord in establishing the basic freedoms guaranteed the citizens of this country....Unless we members of the Church do all we can to preserve the freedoms we have, within the bounds of the laws of God, we will be held accountable.” ...“The Constitution was established through the inspiration of God to preserve the liberty of the people and to maintain his promise.”

I was advised recently by Deseret Book that this Church publication is no longer in print. The above statements appear in 2 different chapters, "Civil Law and Government", and "The Constitution of the United States".

I am very tempted to believe that members of the Church no longer have any responsibility to strive to protect the US Constitution and the freedoms we have. Latter-day Saints are no longer obligated to familiarize themselves with the Constitution. We need not focus attention on it by reading and studying it, nor ponder the blessings that come through it. We no longer need to commit ourselves to its principles and be prepared to defend it and the freedom it provides.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Jean: Part of last days sifting. The vote is NOT secret to God. Could this be a possible scenario? The 2012 election is a trial to determine which LDS will actually support the Constitution? If not, might they then become an unwise virgin? What say ye?

[lundbaek]

How can the Lord hold members of HIs Church accountable for something they are being shielded from by their leadership ?

[Samuel the Lamanite]

IMO, he won't BUT the acountabilty will be on the head of the leaders.

I suggest you read Ezexial 3 http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ezek/3?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; especially verse 18 and after.

[lundbaek]

I think the real condemnation for neglect of freedom and constitutional principles, to whatever extent, will be much more of the heads of those who heard and read and ignored the admonitions of expecially Presidents Grant, G.A. Smith, McKay, Clark and Benson, and others to strive to support freedom and constitutional principles. As for members who never heard much or anything about that responsibility, I cannot fault them. But as for re-establishing constitutional principles to government, it seems relatively few members are at least currently up to speed enough to contribute to such an effort. And as our bishop suggested to me on the subject of trying to get more of them up to speed, there are bigger problems to deal with among the membership right now.

[Amore Vero]

How can the Lord hold members of HIs Church accountable for something they are being shielded from by their leadership ?

Because we are all accountable to get personal revelation on everything from the Holy Spirit, which all the righteous will have as their guide & thus they don't need Church leaders to tell them every little thing to do. They will still get the message loud & clear from the Spirit, that they should be studying, teaching, & living & voting according to the Constitution, whether it's ever mentioned again by the Church or not.

Same with any other subject in the Gospel. We must all be Prophets.

[Amore Vero]

And as our bishop suggested to me on the subject of trying to get more of them up to speed, there are bigger problems to deal with among the membership right now.

This is probably true today in most wards & stakes it seems. For trying to keep families together is a bigger problem than even freedom. For if we can't start keeping families together & stop the rampant disintegration of most of them, it will be impossible to maintain freedom no matter what else we do.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Amore: Isn't Satan using politics to attack the family? In China, one can only have one baby. The SCs seek to reduce world polulation by 2/3rds in order to have a sustainable earth. The Constitution is a major protector against destruction of agency as pertains to families. I guess I can't see how one can unlink protection and promotion of liberty from any religious issue. There are so tigghtyly bound together. It was liberty through agency that borught about this world.

What say ye?

[Amore Vero]

Amore: Isn't Satan using politics to attack the family? In China, one can only have one baby. The SCs seek to reduce world polulation by 2/3rds in order to have a sustainable earth. The Constitution is a major protector against destruction of agency as pertains to families. I guess I can't see how one can unlink protection and promotion of liberty from any religious issue. There are so tigghtyly bound together. It was liberty through agency that borught about this world.

What say ye?

I agree that Satan is using politics to attack the family, but as we see here in America, he is also using just natural man inclinations & the philosophies of men, that become taught as religious doctrine, even in our church, that most all good people have been deceived to accept today, which causes the people themselves to curtail & destroy their own selves & families.

Freedom starts in the home & family. If a person does not believe in the ideals of freedom within their own marriage & home, or even in their church, they will not be able to promote freedom in society.

Unrighteous dominion by leaders almost always starts in their own homes.

If a man won't protect & respect his own wife & children, he can't be trusted to protect & respect anyone else's family or freedoms.

And even good men who protect & respect their own wife & children, seem very reluctant & indifferent about protecting other families, even when they fall under their stewardship in church callings.

How can a man who won't protect the families close to him, ever be trusted to protect families he doesn't even know. Where is a man who will do this?

Freedom is only promoted by the protection from men & leaders in society, church & government.