Vote for Ron Paul!

The following is a letter we are sending to a long list of friends and relatives. If we missed you, feel free to print it yourself!

September 27, 2007

Dear Friends,

To those of you who know us well, it will come as no surprise to learn that we are actively supporting the presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. While we would like to think that you are all familiar with Dr. Paul and his long-standing support for limited, constitutional government, we know that, realistically, many of you probably know little or nothing about him. We would be deeply grateful for the opportunity to change that.

Dr. Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He served in the Air Force as a flight surgeon before moving his family to Texas to begin his medical practice. A specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, he has delivered over 4000 babies. He and his wife, Carol, have been married for 50 years. They have 5 children and 18 grandchildren.

Dr. Paul’s record is well known to anyone who has closely followed federal legislation for the last thirty years. As a congressman during the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, he championed limited government and was an outspoken critic of the income tax system, the Federal Reserve and our national monetary system. He left Congress voluntarily in 1984, returning to his medical practice until 1996, when he was returned by the 14th congressional district of Texas. He is currently serving his 10th term as a U.S. Congressman.

On Capitol Hill, Ron Paul’s name has been synonymous with constitutionalism. On issue after issue, his vote has been cast on the side of freedom and morality, sometimes alone. His consistency has been legendary, almost incredible, as his colleagues have slipped one by one into mainstream vote-buying practices. His reputation for standing by his principles has earned him the nickname “Dr. No.” This consistency on a wide variety of issues is evident in the following examples.

Abortion:
Dr. Paul has always been 100% pro-life and a champion of the unborn. In 1981, he attacked the notion of “abortion rights” as held by liberals and many libertarians. “Just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights,” he said. “Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves.”

On February 16, 2000, Ron Paul introduced the Partial Birth Abortion and Judicial Limitation Act. This bill, under Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, would have prohibited federal courts from overturning state laws banning the procedure. His efforts were unsuccessful. Three years later, the partial birth abortion ban that did pass elicited these insightful words from Dr. Paul:

“As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem. ... Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system. … Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.”

Gun Control:
Ron Paul has never voted for any bill that included a restriction on private gun ownership. While many politicians pay lip service to the 2nd Amendment, Ron Paul recognizes that it was intended to do far more than protect hunting traditions. Ten years ago he wrote: “A gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen serves as a very real, very important deterrent to an arrogant and aggressive government.” In 1976, he spoke forcefully against the proposed Washington, D.C. gun ban. He has repeatedly introduced and sponsored legislation to repeal federal gun control laws and to require concealed carry permit reciprocity between all 50 states. Following the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Ron Paul successfully worked to repeal federal laws that prohibited airlines from arming their pilots, but the Dept. of Transportation refused to implement the change.

National Security and Terrorism:
On February 12, 1998, Ron Paul introduced legislation to prohibit then-President Clinton from sending troops to Iraq without a congressional declaration of war. In response to the Clinton administration’s claim that an invasion was needed because Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction, he said: “There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of 'policemen of the world,' opposes the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the US.” It is interesting to note that he was joined in his opposition by many of his fellow Republicans, who later changed their positions under pressure from a Republican administration.

A year prior to 9/11, in his weekly column, he criticized American foreign policy in the Middle East, saying that commercial interests and those of the military/industrial complex were being placed before America’s national security. On Sept. 12, 2001, he reminded his colleagues in Congress: “In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress' foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient.”

Five days later he spoke regarding the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force: “For the critics of our policy of foreign interventionism in the affairs of others the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise and many have warned of its inevitability.” He supported military action against the Taliban, but also called for eliminating foreign aid to nations friendly to terrorism, proposed expanding the federal definition of piracy to include acts committed in the skies, and advised the President to look beyond the military when dealing with terrorists.

Ron Paul voted against the massive expansions of the executive branch under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Real ID Act and other “anti-terror” laws. He opposed the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, noting that “the pattern is always the same: government agencies fail to do their job, yet those same failed agencies are given more money and personnel when things go wrong.” He called instead for arming airline pilots, tighter border security, and extending the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes. While his opponents have attempted to portray Dr. Paul as an anti-war candidate hoping to gain from the public’s reaction to the Iraq war, the fact is that he has consistently opposed any undeclared, aggressive war, and his objections to the Iraq war are based on clear constitutional principles. It is worth noting that he enjoys widespread support within the military, leading all Republican candidates in donations from military personnel as of July 2007.

Taxes:
Ten years ago, Congressman Ron Paul called for the abolition of the IRS in his weekly column, “Texas Straight Talk” (9/22/97). He has repeatedly introduced legislation to repeal the income tax, calling for Congress to “find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues.” Only last week, he introduced the Cost of Government Awareness Act, noting that federal income tax withholding was introduced during WWII as a temporary measure and that “64 years is a sufficient lifespan” for any such measure. And while many candidates have criticized certain aspects of the income tax system, Ron Paul is the only one with the courage to point out the obvious conflict between a citizen’s right to privacy and the reporting requirements associated with any tax based on income.

On other issues worthy of note,

· Dr. Paul has steadily opposed globalization and US membership in international governmental organizations such as the UN and the WTO.
· He opposes trade deals that infringe on America’s independence, including NAFTA, CAFTA, the FTAA, and the new “Security and Prosperity Partnership,” which seeks to establish a North American Union while avoiding congressional oversight.
· He has repeatedly called for a return to a gold-backed currency and an end to the Federal Reserve Bank.
· Ron Paul is a proven supporter of home schooling and a tireless opponent of federal control of education.
· He has consistently fought efforts to regulate the internet.
· He opposes so-called campaign finance reform laws that infringe on the free speech rights of individuals.
. He has introduced legislation to repeal the federal tax code limitations on political speech in churches.
· Dr. Paul has never voted for any tax increase, unbalanced budget or congressional pay raise.
· After twenty years in Congress, he still refuses to participate in the congressional pension program, and his congressional office returns the unused portion of their annual budget to the US Treasury every year.

But while all of these issues are critical, what really sets Dr. Paul apart from every other candidate is not his conservative or libertarian positions on issues, but his grasp of the foundational principles of government. While other conservative politicians may agree with him on various practical questions, none of them recognize the limitations imposed on them by God or the Constitution in the exercise of their authority. Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands that the elected official derives his authority from the individuals he represents, and therefore he has no authority beyond what those individuals possess. He is also the only candidate whose first question regarding any piece of legislation is whether the proposed legislation is constitutional. While this has placed him at odds with the rest of the conservative community at times, his strict adherence to the Constitution stands in sharp contrast to the weak leadership of mainstream conservatives. Consider the following statements:

“Capitalism is not a system, but rather the result of free individuals taking economic actions without interference by government. A true capitalist economy is neither planned by bureaucrats nor steered by regulators. This is why it’s so important that we resist the idea that any president should plan our economy. If we accept that government “runs” the economy, we accept a fundamental tenet of socialism. We must understand that economic liberty is every bit as important as political and civil liberties. In a truly free nation, the government acts only as a referee by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, prohibiting force and fraud, and providing national defense.” October, 2004

“Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers.” February, 2005

With such a record, supporting Dr. Paul’s presidential candidacy was one of the easiest decisions we have ever made. However, casting a vote for him simply isn’t enough. Frankly, we never expected to see a major party candidate on the ballot who we could support so completely. We sincerely believe that the candidacy of Dr. Paul is an answer to prayer and a final opportunity to change the direction of this nation through the political process. I say “final” because another Clinton presidency, coming on the heels of the massive expansion of power that has redefined the executive branch over the last six years, will be suicidal for America. We are already at a point where extreme measures will be required to undo the damage that our national institutions have suffered. We simply cannot afford four years of unprecedented socialist expansion of the federal government. Our economy is overtaxed, our debt-based money system is on the verge of a collapse, our military is over-extended, and our welfare system is bankrupt. Millions of Americans who have poured their earnings into the state-run pyramid scheme of Social Security are about to find that there is nothing left to pay them back, even as more and more illegal immigrants are promised returns from the same empty chest. Our national debt stands at over 9 trillion dollars, or over thirty thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in the United States. Every one of the rights recognized by our founders has fallen to the threat of terrorism, and the safety we were promised in exchange remains a distant promise. The distraction of sports and entertainment media is all that prevents a complete meltdown of our society under the tremendous burden of the welfare/warfare state, and that will only last while we can afford the hundreds of dollars required to watch grown men chase a pig bladder around a cow pasture.

We believe Ron Paul is probably the only Republican candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton. His consistency on the Iraq war would deprive her of the greatest advantage she possesses in the public view, since he opposed the invasion on constitutional grounds while she repeatedly voted to support it. In addition, his nomination would force her to address real issues instead of relying on emotional talking points. In our view, she has no answers to the real issues Ron Paul has been speaking out on for decades, and the contrast would be most unfavorable to her. A Ron Paul nomination would inevitably result in the exposure of her insulting and condescending view of the American people.

The most common objection we hear to Ron Paul is that he doesn’t stand a chance. While we believe that integrity ought to be supported against all odds, the facts demonstrate that Paul is indeed a serious candidate. Out of 26 straw polls that included Congressman Paul’s name as of September 24, he won 10, placed second in 5 and third in 5. In five of these polls he received over 50% of the vote out of a field of nine or ten candidates, and between 20% and 50% in six others. His performance is especially significant when compared to the four alleged “front-runners.” He placed ahead of Giuliani in 23 out of 26 straw polls, ahead of McCain in 22, ahead of Romney in 15, and ahead of Thompson in 13. These numbers are hardly indicative of a long-shot candidacy. His performance in post-debate polls has been even more impressive, with unbelievable landslide wins in five of the first six debate polls taken by the major network hosts. Dr. Paul’s lower performance in random national polls is an indication of how few people even know who he is, but the debate and straw poll results, taken from audiences who are familiar with the candidates, prove that his message rings true with an astounding number of voters.

The mainstream media tends to focus on fundraising performance as the greatest indicator of a candidate’s appeal. This focus is improper for several reasons. First of all, the Obama campaign demonstrates the extent of the media’s influence on all aspects of the political process, including fundraising. Obama has received what amounts to millions of hours of free advertising, for reasons best known to the decision-makers themselves. By contrast, Ron Paul is hardly ever mentioned by mainstream media, except for a cursory reference to his “anti-war” position. Second, his constitutionalist stance and free-market economics ensure that he does not share in the generosity of the corporate and special interests who make the lion’s share of political contributions. To quote Dr. Paul’s own words: “In establishment politics, people make campaign contributions because they want something: a contract, a subsidy, a special-interest deal. But the thousands of people who contribute to this campaign want no favors from big government -- which must come at the expense of their fellow citizens, and sometimes our soldiers' lives. They want only what is their God-given, natural, and constitutional right: their freedom.”

In short, contributions to Ron Paul’s campaign come almost entirely from average Americans who have been introduced to his platform through alternative news media and who prefer physical and economic freedom to the plethora of benefits offered by the nanny state. With this in mind, the tremendous amounts of money and time being given to his campaign are simply phenomenal. He finished the last fundraising quarter ahead of alleged front-runner McCain in terms of cash on hand, and is expected to do even better this quarter. And as of this writing, Meetup.com lists 937 Ron Paul campaign groups in 759 cities across America, with a combined total of 42,831 members, and over 5,000 more Ron Paul supporters waiting for a group to start in their area!

We realize this has been a lengthy and difficult introduction to Dr. Ron Paul, but it is our prayer that you will be prompted to look more closely at this principled American and Christian. Ron Paul displays a level of integrity that is unrivaled in our national politics, and he joins to that integrity a sincere faith in God and love for his fellow man. Even those who disagree with him on many of his positions still respect his openness, honesty and consistency. With Ron Paul, what you see and hear is what you get. Take the time to look into his platform at RonPaul2008.com, and please consider supporting his candidacy in whatever way you can, including:

1 – Voting for him in the primary election. In PA, you will need to be registered Republican at least 30 days before the May election in order to vote in the Republican primary. Some states have open primaries. Find out your state’s requirements. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination we can look forward to the most exciting presidential election since 1860!

2 – Supporting his campaign financially. Donations to his campaign should be considered an investment in religious, economic and personal freedom for the next generation.

3 – Volunteering your time. Register as a volunteer at RonPaul2008.com to keep abreast of the campaign. Tell everyone you know what is at stake in this election. Feel free to forward all or parts of this letter to others. Joining a meetup group takes only a few moments online, and will enable you to meet other freedom-loving Americans and to contribute whatever time you feel is merited to restoring liberty in this country.

Thank you so much for taking the time necessary to hear from us. Please do not hesitate to call us with any questions or comments. We would be happy to discuss or send you more information on these or other issues relating to Dr. Paul.

Sincerely,

Patrick

You Drink It Raw?

Here is a letter I wrote in response to the Senate Ag Committee hearing on the question of raw milk sales. Currently, in PA, only certain permit-holding farmers are allowed to sell raw milk under stringent regulations. I would encourage any interested parties to drop Senator Brubaker a note of their own.

The Honorable Senator Mike Brubaker
Senate Box 203036 Harrisburg, PA 17120-3036

September 19, 2007

Dear Senator Brubaker:

As a constituent of yours and a citizen of this Commonwealth, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your fellow members of the Ag Committee for the hearing you held yesterday on the issue of raw milk sales. As you know, this issue is important to many people from all walks of life. I sincerely appreciate the invitation to communicate with you further on the subject of yesterday’s hearing.

Much of the testimony yesterday missed the point by focusing exclusively on the question of safety. I would respectfully suggest that the most important aspect of this debate is not food safety, but rather individual freedom and responsibility. While the state legislature, through the PDA and other agencies, does have a role to play in ensuring the safety of the food supply, your jurisdiction in this matter does not extend to interfering in the direct relationships of individual citizens. I recognize that this concept is directly in opposition to the beliefs and ideas that have governed our approach to public safety in PA for the last few decades, but I believe it is crucial to understanding how the question of raw milk sales fits into the larger questions of freedom vs. safety that we face today. Please allow me to explain further.

As elected officials, your authority is derived from the collective authority of the electorate. It is the fashion to conclude from this that elected officials have a duty to follow the will of the majority, but in reality, the source of government’s power places certain inherent limits on the just exercise of that power. If, as the founders believed, all men are created equal, then it follows that no man has the authority to use force against his fellow man except in the defense of his own rights. More to the point, as he is not vested with such authority himself, he cannot delegate it to another to exercise for him. This principle, stated so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, is acknowledged in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and in Article I, Sections 1 and 2 of the PA Constitution. It is best summed up in the words of Frederic Bastiat a century and a half ago:

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. What, then, is law? It is the collective exercise of the individual right to self defense. … If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right.”(emphasis mine)

During one of the public meetings on this issue, I pointed out to Rep. Cutler and the other legislators in attendance that laws create crime. From a lawmaker’s point of view, it is naturally tempting to look for legislative solutions to the real or perceived problems that may come to your attention. However, most problems faced by our society do not rise to a level which calls for solving them at gunpoint. While some may take issue with such a blunt characterization of the matter, the outstanding arrest warrant for Mark Nolt illustrates perfectly the true nature of law. Government is force, and every conflict with government is ultimately resolved, directly or indirectly, by force.

I do not intend to imply that government is inherently bad; I do, however, believe that the difference between unjust use of force by an individual (violent crime) and unjust use of force by government (the representative of the individual) lies only in the extent of the damage caused. In other words, government abuse of power is simply violent crime on steroids - organized crime, if you will.

With this in mind, the question before you is not whether raw milk is as safe as commercially processed milk, nor is it whether five cows is a more reasonable exemption than one. The question is whether the real or perceived risks of direct farmer-to-consumer sales of raw milk are so great as to constitute a violation of the consumer’s natural rights. If raw milk is indeed a deadly poison being marketed as a food to unsuspecting customers, then you have a duty to prohibit such marketing. If, however, it is simply a matter of preference, such as ordering a rare steak or smoking a cigar, then the fact that there are risks associated with one’s decision does not authorize you to interfere in that decision.

Understanding this concept will immediately clarify the troubling questions of liability and testing standards. Since no one but the individual has the right to decide what to eat, no one but the individual is responsible for the consequences of that decision. The farmer should be held liable only for clear negligence that endangers the health of others, such as selling milk produced in evidently unsanitary conditions, but not for risks that are inherent in our existence on this planet or in the conscious decision of the consumer. And, just as an individual may act in self-defense only when he is confronted by an immediate threat, the action of the state against a negligent farmer should be a response to actual danger, not a preventative measure based on fear.

The gentleman from the State Veterinary Medical Association attempted to justify state intervention by pointing out that children likely consume more milk than adults and that they need assistance in determining what is best for them. This obviously true statement sidesteps the question of who is responsible for rendering that assistance. Some in our society are of the opinion that it takes a village, but the fact is that children are given by their Creator, not to villages, but to parents. State intervention between a parent and child is even less excusable than between adults – it is only justified in the face of serious negligence or harm to the child. If we deny the right of a parent to make basic nutritional decisions for their own child, how can we justly arrogate such a right to ourselves through our elected officials?

You asked several times whether a distinction ought to be made between private farms and corporate farms. While on the surface the answer is yes, the proper distinction lies in the actual situation. The family farm may be a member of a corporation for tax purposes, but the individual, acting as an individual, still ought to have the right to sell directly to others without interference from the state, because that activity, for all practical purposes, is unaffected by the legal status of the farm.

Lastly, I strongly urge you to keep in mind that the statistics presented by Mr. Huff of the Department of Health were underwhelming, to say the least, and I ask you to keep part V of Mr. Snyder’s testimony in mind when considering them. Also, as elected officials, you are put in a no-win situation when unelected bureaucrats ask you to determine what number of annual deaths or hospitalizations are acceptable. The only possible responses are bound to implicate you either in apparent disregard for human life or in philanthropic tyranny of the most oppressive kind. This sort of false dilemma can be avoided by keeping the proper role of government in view, and recognizing that it is neither your responsibility nor your right to make such determinations.

Thank you so much for your consideration of this issue and for taking the time to hear from me. I would be more than happy to meet with you for more discussion. May God bless you.

Sincerely,


...

Cc: Senator Waugh
Senator O’Pake
Senator Scarnati
Senator Eichelberger
Senator Folmer
Senator Madigan
Senator Punt
Senator Kitchen
Senator Logan
Senator Wozniak