NVR Logo
Home » Opinion » Commentary
Making the case for Ron Paul
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
By KEVIN EGGERS
Republican Presidential hopeful Ron Paul of Texas is campaigning on a platform that is principled on restoring our U.S. Constitution as the law of the land.

Somehow this has become a revolutionary idea in today's government-dependent America, where many Americans have lost sight of the importance of the Constitution and our inalienable rights and individual liberties that it protects.
Rep. Paul, R-Texas, having served 10 terms in Congress, is a politician whose actions are driven by the Constitution, not big business. Because Paul takes his oath to the Constitution very seriously, if a policy is unconstitutional, he doesn't vote for it. Dr. Paul has served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force and Air National Guard, and, as a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, he has delivered more than 4,000 babies in his private practice. Because the majority of the policies that he votes on are unconstitutional, he has been nicknamed "Dr. No" by many of his colleagues in Congress.

Dr. No has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted to raise congressional pay, never taken a government-paid junket, and has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union said, "If every member of Congress voted like Representative Paul, Americans could enjoy much lower taxes and less waste in government."
Dr. Paul chose politics because of his economic concerns. On July 18, Paul went head to head with Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke over Fed policies that have led to the mortgage crisis, the falling value of the dollar worldwide and the "inflation tax." There is a YouTube video of Chicago traders cheering as Paul challenged Bernanke.

From an October 2007 "Middle American News" interview, asked about how Paul could reduce the size and scope of government, "The first thing to do is to focus on overall spending. Bring the troops home from around the globe, stop policing the world, and use the savings to eliminate deficits and tide over those who have become dependent on the welfare state, while allowing younger people to opt out. ... If people continue to expect government to take care of us from cradle to grave, then it will be impossible. But if we spread the message of freedom, tell people that we can eliminate the IRS, keep the fruits of our labor and regain local control, then we can cut the size of government in half."
Dr. Paul is one of the few in Congress that warned against the Iraq war and never voted in support of this "unconstitutional war."

This is an excerpt from Ron Paul's address to the House of Representatives on May 22: "Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. ... It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous, undeclared, no-win wars that are politically inspired."

Dr. Paul also wants to protect our privacy and Constitutional rights by stopping the national ID card and ending the Patriot Act.

He opposes any trade deals or groups that threaten American Independence, such as the UN, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, WTO, SPP, etc. In a Middle American News interview, Paul said "... they are not free trade, they are government-managed trade and they are ultimately bad for American workers."

He wants to secure our borders and end illegal immigration. On June 13, Paul introduced bill H.J. Res. 46 that would end "birthright" citizenship for illegal aliens.

From the MAN article: "First, we need to bring home our border patrol agents we have sent to Iraq and get them back guarding our border. ... Next, we need to immediately end federal mandates compelling states to give state welfare benefits to illegals. Right now, states are required to provide free medical care, education and sometimes even food assistance to illegal immigrants, and this acts as a subsidy for illegal immigration. ... If we cut off the subsidies, a lot of people here illegally would just leave."

On Nov. 5, Paul raised more than $4.2 million through Internet donations by more than 37,000 supporters. This was a single day record. On the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Paul supporters have planned another "money bomb," where they hope to set a new record.

Dr. Paul is gaining support from Republicans and Democrats, the old and the young, and surprisingly, many military personnel. Putting aside their differences, Americans from all walks of Iife have come together in support of his message of limited government and individual freedom. Paul's grassroots Internet support is swelling with more than 1,100 meet-up groups formed in the United States. These supporters are intent on people seeing who Ron Paul is and what he stands for.

(Eggers lives in Napa.)
48 comment(s)

thirty3na3rd wrote on Dec 4, 2007 3:11 AM:

" Well-crafted column, Kevin. It's great to see regional and local journalists doing a more balanced job of discussing the candidates than the national media is doing. Have a great day! "

jwills8606 wrote on Dec 4, 2007 3:20 AM:

" Right on the money! I voted for Bush-the-Lesser - twice (OK, I'm a slow learner.), and thought he was doing an OK job. Then I read Jack Cafferty's "It's Getting Ugly Out There" and Judge Andrew Napolitano's "A Nation of Sheep," and was appalled. I had no idea of the scope of the attacks on the Bill of Rights perpetrated by this administration and its minions in the Justice Department and, especially, Congress. I have never been political, but today I signed up as a volunteer for Ron Paul here in Virginia. Last month I made a small donation to the Paul campaign, but my wife and I are saving the rest for December 16! Jim Wills, MD Farmville, VA "

JimClark wrote on Dec 4, 2007 4:57 AM:

" Very good write. There needs to be greater media attention on candidates who are not run of the mill RINOs. Although I will put my vote for Fred Thompson, Dr. Paul is also committed to restoring The Constitution of The United States to its rightful place as the law of the land and not be misinterpreted by the "New Age". I remember when liberals would call us rigid and unwilling to change. The people appeared to allow them, via intimidation, to develop a mommy government that spawned "activism" of an extremist left as well as the constant chipping away at the Constitution. It will be a tough road ahead as the democrat, at this point, has the sanction of the mainstream media and a considerable element of academia. Take heart as we traditional conservatives are getting the message out through other media. Our local media is to be commended for providing this apace for open debate on the current crises. The Liberal Intellectual Establishment had referred to us as "anal-retentive" until we advised them what the opposite of that was. It was healthier than smearing their waste all over the place. Adam Smith, The Federalist, Thomas Paine and other arguments for the Constitution is not part of public education anymore than the Flag and Pledge of Allegiance. The motivation of the left at least since 1946 was to deny children access to the rudimentary history of the United States. What were the deeper reasons for the Boston Tea Party, Declaration of Independence and ultimately The Constitution? If The People understood those and other history of America, the democrat party as we know it would have come into existence just long enough to have it laughed out. "

Normbc9 wrote on Dec 4, 2007 6:39 AM:

" The only candidate I deem responsible enough to be a viable candidate for the Presidency is Ron Paul. The remainder are all in the "Wannbe" league and have no real credentials to assume the responsibilities the enormous task requires. This candidate certainly dioes heve the qualifications I look for. I'm surprised the RNC hasn't launched a campaign to smear his reputation yet. He isn't a part of their plans for the future of this great nation. The Democrats are in total disarray too. "

Tess101 wrote on Dec 4, 2007 6:56 AM:

" Kevin Eggers, and The Napa Valley Register: I just want to thank you for this wonderful article on Presidential candidate Ron Paul. I live in Central Valley California, and I wasn't planning to vote in the next Presidential election. I felt the choices we had were very weak until I started reading about Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the only candidate that makes sense. I copied this from your article and this is why I am voting and supporting Ron Paul: From an October 2007 "Middle American News" interview, asked about how Paul could reduce the size and scope of government, "The first thing to do is to focus on overall spending. Bring the troops home from around the globe, stop policing the world, and use the savings to eliminate deficits and tide over those who have become dependent on the welfare state, while allowing younger people to opt out. ... If people continue to expect government to take care of us from cradle to grave, then it will be impossible. But if we spread the message of freedom, tell people that we can eliminate the IRS, keep the fruits of our labor and regain local control, then we can cut the size of government in half." Ron Paul is the only Republican Candidate that wants to bring our troops home now. I am ex-military myself and I know individuals serving our military that want to come home. This war is depleting our country, and our people financially & economically. I have registered as a Republican to vote for Ron Paul since California is a closed Primary State. Thank you for allowing me to comment. look him up at: http://Ronpaul2008.com "

steph wrote on Dec 4, 2007 8:35 AM:

" Is Ron Paul anti-reproductive choice? Also, what will he do to protect the US against terrorism? "

Sickothis wrote on Dec 4, 2007 9:40 AM:

" Ron Paul is a charismatic, nutcase libertarian isolationist. I love his passion, but his policy ideas are insane. "

napaneedlepoint wrote on Dec 4, 2007 11:51 AM:

" I'm a Napa resident who had become so disillusioned with politics that I pretty much go to vote only on propositions and local races. Then I learned about Ron Paul. Not only is he in favor of getting us out of this expensive war, he wants to give us back more of our money and make it worth something again. He wants to lift the burdens which the government continually imposes on us and give us back our freedom. And part of that is allowing states to determine so many things. I get more impressed with Dr, Paul's ideas and his gentlemanly presence each time I see him. In a world where so much political rhetoric is the same old tax-and-spend and the speakers spend the rest of the time being rude, isn't it wonderful to hear and support a man who talks sense, talks ideas, and doesn't run down his oppenents. I urge folks who want to learn more about this wonderful candidate to visit his website( http://www.ronpaul2008.com) or come to an open meeting at thelibrary next week. Hope to see you there! "

petebo wrote on Dec 4, 2007 11:57 AM:

" Ron Paul is the only candidate not to have corporate support for his policies. The corporations are guilty of conspiring with the government and we have become slaves to both. Even Ron is a bit misguided but only because he would not even be involved with politics if he knew the truth. If you choose to keep the existing system then Ron Paul is your man...unless of course you are wealthy. Jim Wills has it right and retired judge Andrew Napolitano tells it like it is. There can be no justice in America the way this system was created. Dr. Ed Rivera has proven that the federal government has limited jurisdiction and operates an as "administrative" court system. That means that we must voluntarily consent to them TELLING us what to do. This way, they don't have to follow the tenants of the US Constitution (which they obviously DO NOT) and are free to rule as they so choose. They are self policing and consider themselves the "rulers" of their domain (courtroom). This is not unconstitutional if we willingly consent. By stating that you are a US citizen, you are effectively stating that I give consent to the government under the rule of law that they (the government employees) have created. We are headed for some BIG changes either way. Hey by the way, how's that housing market??? The local yocal real estater "pros" were saying it was getting better...only that waqs a year ago. It's the first inning and the players are refusing to step up to the plate. What do you expect? "

Denis wrote on Dec 4, 2007 12:11 PM:

" Sickothis: ad hominem remarks do not convince or persuade. It would be more effective if you would explain how Paul's policy ideas are insane, provided you deal with his actual ideas, rather than those which have been attributed to him by his political adversaries. Steph: I believe he personally is against abortion, but his position is that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over the matter, because nothing in the Constitution grants it. His position on terrorism is that specific terrorists should be sought and apprehended, AND that the US should avoid creating more terrorists through invading foreign countries and forcing our ways on those countries. What is most refreshing about the man is that he calls them as he sees them -- not as he thinks others would have him. He seems to be candid, intelligent, and to have at heart the welfare of the country as a whole. "

kevin wrote on Dec 4, 2007 3:03 PM:

" So Ron believes we have to wait for the terrorists to attack and THEN go catch them? Sorry, maybe that worked in the old days, but with today's WMDs we need much more proactive measures... "

skeptic wrote on Dec 4, 2007 4:06 PM:

" i have voted for more democrats than republicans and don't agree with paul on the abortion issue but will still vote for him if mike gravel gets no traction. the democratic party hates him as much as the republicans do ron paul . bill o'reilly and hannity and beck all hate paul too because he wants us to stop illegal wars and torture. ron paul is the only candidate to propose getting rid of private international banks as the controllers of our currency.each war has increased the national debt. if we are really threatened here, we need an army home to protect us. the same prediction was made about them following us home from vietnam but no one did.we would still have reproductive rights in ca. even if paul had his way because he believes it should be up to states.the great majority support those rights in ca. "

thirty3na3rd wrote on Dec 4, 2007 4:35 PM:

" steph: Ron Paul is personally opposed to abortion, but as president his personal opinions about abortion would not matter because respects the fact that the Constitution does not give the federal governemtn juridiction over it at all. It's an issue the States have the right to determine individually. That also goes for same-sex marriage, which he also personally does not approve of but votes consistently against the federal government exercising unconstitutional authority over. Paul sees that we would only need a small fraction of the billions and billions of dollars we waste policing the world to just establish practical, effective security at our own borders. The rest of the savings would be used to honor our obligation to those who paid into Social Security, while allowing younger workers to opt out of the program. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 4, 2007 5:52 PM:

" Well written article, Mr. Eggers. The only Republican candidate that a "Libertarian Independent" like myself would consider voting for is Ron Paul, The rest of the Republicans are hopeless hacks and fakirs. Today it came out that Mr. Tom "Illegal Alien" Tancredo hired undocumented workers to work on his mansion. When any Republican's mouth is moving besides Ron Paul they are lying. ~Ruff "

republicae wrote on Dec 4, 2007 6:08 PM:

" I have to wonder why people consider the ideals and philosophy of Dr. Paul insane, especially when I read his book A Foreign Policy of Freedom. It is what convinced me that not only is he one of the scant few within the House of Representatives with an inordinate amount of common sense, but also one of the few with the foresight and wisdom to use that common sense. After reading that book, it became evident to me that our Congress is far more insane and kooky than anyone ever dreamed, and that Dr. Paul is extremely level headed and rational. The total lack of common sense with the policies they propose and pass should make any concerned citizen take notice and Dr. Paul seems to be the only one pointing out the major contradictions of those policies. He is the only candidate that appears to have a firm grasp on the actual causes of terrorism and has offered, once again, the most common sense solutions. He predicted many of the terrorist attacks long before they happened because he logically concluded that our own foreign policies and the contradictions in the application of those policies were partly to responsible for the growing hatred within the Islamic world for the U.S. Why, Ron Paul asks, does the U.S. arm, finance and supports both sides of these conflicts, support oppressive military dictatorships in the region that are hated by the majority of their people and continue to do plainly stupid things. We don’t listen to our enemies, nor do we consider the possibility that those who we arm, support, finance and train might possibly turn against us in the future. "

republicae wrote on Dec 4, 2007 6:10 PM:

" continued.... For instance, this government backed, trained, financed and supported groups like the MAK and even allowed them to open 30 offices in this country back in the 80s. Later the MAK became al Qaeda and their leader, who was hand picked by the Pakistanis and the CIA, Osama bin Laden turned from an ally to an enemy. Recently, this government has once again been up to its old tricks by supplying training, arms and support to the Palestinian Authority, the problem is that among those being trained are members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigrade. How wise is that? Does that make any sense to anyone reading this? Ron Paul is the only candidate, indeed it appears one of the only politicians, who seems to have a firm grasp on the reality of the situation and he seems to be the only one who offers solutions to these issues. He also recommends that we revamp our military to be more focused, far more directed and strong enough to actually DEFEND THIS NATION FIRST! Like he said, on September 11 other nations around the world were much more protected by our military defense than our own country…he is absolutely correct. He proposes that we take care of this country first, look out for our people first, take care of our land before spending billions overseas or defended other countries who should be defending themselves. It really makes you wonder just who is the crazy ones here…many accuse Ron Paul of being a kook, but when you actually set down and read what he proposes you will quickly realize that not only is he completely rational, but his proposals are exactly what is needed in this country. "

republicae wrote on Dec 4, 2007 6:46 PM:

" Amazing, isn't it...Ron Paul is the only candidate that, once again, called it right. As we now see Iran doesn't have the bomb and stopped its military nuclear program back in 2003... Ron Paul back in April of this year about Iran: "Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had. It’s amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It’s frightening to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq. " "

russ wrote on Dec 4, 2007 7:42 PM:

" steph, interesting phraseology. At what point does anti-reproductive choice become anti-abortion? "

Joanne wrote on Dec 5, 2007 7:15 PM:

" I agree with many of Dr. Paul's positions (such as his view on the Iraq war), but those I don't, regrettably, rule him out as my candidate-of-choice. I, nonetheless, admire his consistency and his firm adherence to his principles in the positions that he takes on policy issues. And I further admire that - even in today's hyper-partisan political environment - the way he views the conduct of his colleagues apparently also remains consistent with and connected to his principles, rather than his party affiliation. Chris Jones, from Meredith, NH, recently asked Dr. Paul the following question: “If you were not running right now for office, is there a current candidate that you would identify with most and who would you vote for yourself?” In partial response to this, Dr. Paul replied: “On the Democratic side, it just happens that Dennis Kucinich is a good friend of mine and his views - and he’s an honest person - and when he, when we were dealing with Kosovo, the Democrats were in charge, but he resisted it, so - but of course the Republicans resisted it strongly. You know, this is interesting, now that you bring that subject up: when the Kosovo war was going on, there was a vote in Congress to delete spending ... and we - those of us who objected - were “not patriotic” and “not supporting the troops” ... all of a sudden, those are the same people who are saying that, if I say that in Iraq, I’m not protecting the troops. The point being though that Dennis has been on both ... he’s been consistent on this and, therefore, I would I would think that he's a a decent candidate, although he is a Democrat right now …” "

steph wrote on Dec 6, 2007 10:51 AM:

" Russ, anyone can be (usually) anti-abortion and pro-reproductive choice. I am. I do not believe it is the government's role to think for women. Most of the time, though abortion is terrible, it is the lesser of two evils. Women are not property and should decide for themselves when and if to have a child. It's sad that some women, for whatever reasons, don't respect their bodies and the awesome power they have to bring life into this world, but sometimes they don't. It's very, very sad to me. I think sometimes the arguments about abortion have clouded this reality. I can't possibly think of all circumstances in which abortion is the least bad choice, but sometimes it is; I can think of a few examples, but the decision would be a very private one, and not everyone would agree with the decision. It's not for me or anyone else to decide. I have voted for anti-choice candidates before, but I like to know their stance. I think it's a shame that in order to (TRY TO) get fiscal responsibility I have to vote for an evangelical, but we don't get a lot of choice in politicians here in America. We seem to be anti-political choice here in America. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 6, 2007 10:52 AM:

" I am wondering if the 'Libertarian Wing of the Republican Party' is going to overcome all the Neocon balderdash being peddled by the likes of Romney, Guiliani, McCain, Tancredo, et al. I would relish voting for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton if I can not get a progressive Democrat on the ballot. How ever the 'purpleheart bandaid' squad will kill Ron Paul's chances and since Ron Paul has said he will not run as a third party nominee, I'll probably never have the opportunity to see Ron Paul's name on the 2008 presidential ballot. More's the pity. ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 6, 2007 10:59 AM:

" I am hoping that the folks who have been hiding under the bed since 9-11 manage to come out from under to notice that we need a new strategy considering that Bushite Republicans have been lying to us since 2003 about the so-called threat of Iran getting nuclear weapons. Just like Iraq was a lie, Iran turns out to be another Bushite Republican lie. I wouldn't trust anything any other Bushite Republican candidate had to say about national security unless Ron Paul agreed with them on every point they made. ~Ruff "

steph wrote on Dec 6, 2007 11:05 AM:

" If a politician says he doesn't believe in the federal government exercising jurisdiction over same-sex marriage, should he say the same for polygamy or heterosexual marriage? Should the federal government be involved in sanctioning the marriage of any adults? I personally don't think so. I don't see why Brittney Spears can marry any low-life she chooses for any length of time, but my neighbors who are responsibly and faithfully committed to each other for years can't be married because they're the same sex. What business is ANY of this to the government? Keep your religion to yourself. I also am opposed to handing out entitlement benefits to polygamists' supposedly unmarried wives, so that you and I can support their outrageously gluttonous lifestyles. I'm all in favor of less government, but I think Ron Paul is a bit flippant with his ideology. We do have economic interests around the world, including in oil, and unless the American people decide we're going to let China have all the Saudi oil (I wish we could, I really, really do) then we can't just pull out of all other countries. During the cold war, were we just going to let the Soviets roll into Western Europe and down through Asia, and up into South America to leave us next? Should we just tell Israel, "Hey, so, good luck with that whole being Jewish thing, but you're on your own, kay?" Ron Paul talks a good talk, and I might vote for him out of disgust for presumptuous, lying, self-serving politicians but I think he's going to find that just pulling all our troops home ain't that easy. The military could NOT have stopped 9/11, but good intelligence, less bureacracy, good immigration policy, and less scaredy-cat PC thinking could have. "

russ wrote on Dec 6, 2007 4:54 PM:

" steph, I agree with you on abortion but do not like disguising it with terms like "woman's right to choose" or "pro-reproductive choice". Liberals seem to exalt abortion with enthusiasm as a God-given right or as guaranteed by the constitution as in the Bill of Rights. Call abortion abortion and recognize that it is the least bad choice. I disagree with turning your nose up at religious people (evangelicals - a word almost never used in this context until the '90's). "

steph wrote on Dec 6, 2007 5:47 PM:

" Oh, Ruff. The NIE report doesn't even pass the smell test. Come on. Iran is not sitting idly by, Iran is NOT not pursuing nuclear weaponry. Even YOU can't believe that report, can you? Your point in an earlier blog about Pakistan being as much or more of a threat than Iran is well-taken, actually. Pakistan is a very radical nation full of radical-thinking citizens (and many moderates, too.) Iran, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, is full of malaise, and people who are sick to death of the out-of-touch but oppressive mullahs. For that reason I do not support an invasion of Iran, and I am deeply suspicious of Bush's motives with regard to his posturing toward Iran. However, I also understand that sometimes tough talk is an effective strategy, and I do believe that our invasion of Iraq did give the Republic of Iran pause, at least for a while. Can't we just be honest, though, and call the bull as we smell it, whether it's from the right or the left? Can't Bush be passing bull even as the lefties in the state department do the same thing? Do you really believe there is no agenda here? Come on, man. "

russ wrote on Dec 6, 2007 8:39 PM:

" Kevin, man, I love you & your posts but Ron Paul is a pinhead. I would be terrified, full-time, if he were president. His world view is scary. Sorry, russ "

steph wrote on Dec 6, 2007 11:19 PM:

" Russ, I don't dislike religious people, but a vocal few often give a bad name to many. I disagree with religion dictating certain public policy, for example in science education. I am opposed to any form of fundamentalism, which I believe is divisive and ignorant. And dangerous. People who claim to speak for or act on behalf of God are capable of really stupid and dangerous things, and often are extreme in their hypocracy. How's that for generalizing? I don't trust fundamentalists. I think they are emotionally and otherwise mentally weak people who are easily manipulated by often evil leaders, as they are incapable of or unwilling to consider multiple points of view. On the other hand, I do recognize that many truly charitable religious organizations minister according to Biblical teachings, to serve the most underserved people in the world, and religious people are also (statistically speaking) the most generous with their money and time. They are sometimes the voice of reason and ask us to think about the consequences of our actions, such as with abortion, euthanasia, death penalties, promiscuity, etc. I have met some profoundly enlightened religious people of whom I am in awe, and others who are shockingly blind. The latter seem to be so vehement and that I find disturbing. "

russ wrote on Dec 7, 2007 6:39 PM:

" steph, you said "I don't dislike religious people". Do you suppose that you could stretch yourself into saying "I like some religious people"? When was the last time you came face-to-face with a stupid, dangerous "fundamentalist" in Napa? Would you agree that there are non-religious people who are stupid and dangerous? Would you agree that the Daily Kos and moveon are populated by many people with extreme and some with dangerous views? Who writes school books, huh? Secular progressive, poor educators. I disagree totally and completely with you on this issue. russ "

steph wrote on Dec 8, 2007 1:57 AM:

" Some of my best friends and family are religious people, Russ! :) I love them and respect them. (Seriously.) There are fundamentalists here in Napa. I have seen them, but not spoken to them. I won't elaborate except to say that we are a very diverse community in many ways. I do agree that atheists and agnostics are capable of alarming stupidity, and I find strident atheists to be so boring and self-important. That's just another religion to me. I agree that the far left are dangerous, but guess what, Russ, many liberals are very religious! It's a myth that they are not. I just bristle anti-gay and anti-choice legislation on the basis of religious beliefs, or challenging science education in schools. In that case, religion impedes the rights of others. Anyway, what I've said is very offensive to a lot of people and for that I am sorry, because, as I mentioned in my previous post, I have a lot of admiration for the good works of most religious people. I do believe in God. As for you, Russ, I'm still a fan of yours. You're kind to disagree so agreeably. "

russ wrote on Dec 8, 2007 12:39 PM:

" Thank you, steph, for your kind and reasonable words. I know (thought) you feel that way about religion and religious people. I bristle at the "holier than thou" athiests who look down their noses at people of faith who believe in God. I am sad for them that they do not have the strength in their souls that spiritualism and belief in God brings. What would the Italians, French, Irish, Germans and other Europeans have done, during the dark and hopeless ages, without the faith and hope that belief in a Supreme Being gave them. russ "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Dec 9, 2007 12:24 PM:

" Deregulation of the savings and loan industry resulted in the need for a huge public bailout (e.g. Silverado). Deregulation of the energy industry led to corporate criminality (e.g. Enron). Now the nation is witnessing the results of deregulation of the home mortgage industry. When will Americans learn that free market prescriptions offered by "free market adherents" like Ron Paul often don't work? There is no free market. Crony capitalism doesn't help the majority of working Americans. The public has a right and duty to reasonably and responsibly regulate the activities of corporations. Ron Paul's principled views regarding the Constitution and our civil rights are worthy of serious consideration. Nevertheless, I find his apparent willingness to take power from elected officials and give power to unelected business leaders quite troubling. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 9, 2007 5:37 PM:

" Russ, the argument can be made that there would not have been the dark ages without the feudal system propped up by the interlocking interests of kings, and clergy in a theocratic state. ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 10, 2007 9:43 AM:

" 'steph', I have been busy of late, and don't drop in to read the blather as much as I had in the past, but it is funny to hear the Bush-enabler chanting on the NIE from somebody who poses as an independent one time and then as a 'Rudy Republican' at another. -- I have a question for you about the NIE that you think smells. Why is it that when the intelligence agencies were saying there were no WMD in Iraq with a 'Q' and the Bushites rolled their own intelligence in the Pentagon, that the Bush-enablers were unable to smell the reek? Why is it that when Cheney outed a CIA covert agent tasked with fighting nuclear proliferation that the Bush-enablers were unable to smell anything but roses? Now that 16 American intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran is not the immediate nuclear threat as chanted by the same folks who bungled the Iraq intelligence... why are you claiming that the NIE won't pass the smell test? I thought being an independent was all about thinking for yourself, not repackaging the same old smelly Cheney bulldroppings. It is nice to hear you grant that Pakistan, a nation in possession of nuclear weapons might be prioritized higher than one that has none. ~Ruff "

steph wrote on Dec 10, 2007 9:58 AM:

" My dear MJH, I'll take my free market over your corrupt government influence any day. Your utopian centrally-planned society doesn't exist, either, and never has. Your idea, if history is to be our teacher, leads to broken economies and general societal stagnation. But some people never learn. Try reading a book that challenges your ideas. "

opiniagirl wrote on Dec 10, 2007 10:27 AM:

" This morning I received a touching email from a 19 year old friend of our daughters. He is currently "serving his country" in Iraq. This morning his convoy was attacked. He was in the front vehicle and amazingly he survived. He emailed to thank us for our prayers (which he believes is protecting him from the death he is facing EVERY DAY). My brother is off to serve a second tour next month. I'm voting for whoever brings these kids home the fastest. As far as believing in God; Satan also believes in God - although I wouldn't characterize Satan as a "believer". Wouldn't you say Satan’s actions reflect his belief system? Belief systems characterize a person. I can’t imagine a world where God doesn’t exist in everything I do and every decision I make as a parent, wife, friend and Christian woman. I feel sad and pray for the people in this world who don’t embrace and find comfort in the Lord. If that makes me self-righteous so be it. I do have what some people don’t and I am pained by that fact, in fact it drives me to my knees every day! As a Christian, I don’t depend on the Government in any way to fill a spiritual criterion; however it DOES affect the way I vote. "

russ wrote on Dec 10, 2007 5:38 PM:

" MJH, do you believe that the oil/energy industry and mortgage/banking business should be nationalized (owned by the government)? "

steph wrote on Dec 10, 2007 6:58 PM:

" Ruff, I hope you're right. I hope the three liberal State Department ex-officials who authored the NIE report on the basis of one unnamed Iranian "defector's" alleged testimony are correct, that Iran WAS pursuing nuclear weapons, but now, for some reason, they're not. I hope that there WAS a good reason why the Iranians in 2003 (is there something about 2003?) suddenly stopped enriching uranium for nuclear weapons, and, in that infamously oil-rich country, are enriching uranium with P2 centrifuges smuggled from Pakistan for much-needed (?) energy. I really hope you're right. I hope that it WILL be 2010 before the Iranians will be able to have a nuclear bomb to go on the new Ashura missile (or the next generation.) I do. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Dec 11, 2007 3:38 PM:

" "steph", we are in no danger from Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, because we are not in range of any of their missiles, and Israel is not the 51st state. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and the US has thousands. If Iran had few hundred nuclear weapons they would find them as useless as an offensive weapon as the US does. Nobody uses them because of 'Mutual Assured Destruction' in the retaliation. All the folks who are cowering under their sheets shaking about Iran getting a few nuclear weapons forget that the godless commies in the USSR had thousands of em and we beat em. Quiet resolve wins and saber-rattling usually just makes things worse. How's Rudy Guiliani and his 'Mistress Protection Program' looking to you now for 2008? ~Ruff "

kevin wrote on Dec 11, 2007 6:02 PM:

" The concern is that Iran would sell/give nuclear weapons to third parties who might not be so concerned about retaliation from Israel or the US. It's also a little disconcerting when Amadinjad starts talking about Armageddon and how great the afterlife is going to be... "

Reality Check wrote on Dec 11, 2007 9:08 PM:

" ..."Nobody uses them because of 'Mutual Assured Destruction' in the retaliation. ....Dear Ruff, Even in this one statement you proclaim your total lack of understanding of what we're up against in the Middle East. How ethnocentric can one person be? Do you think the leadership of Islamic countries cares how many of their own must die in the process of killing you? Iran's leadership has already committed half of their population to the destruction of Israel. "

Reality Check wrote on Dec 12, 2007 6:44 AM:

" Were we in range of Middle Eastern missles on 9/11? ...or did they figure out another way to deliver high explosives. WAKE UP! To say we are in no danger of nukes from the Middle East because their missles can't reach us is the epitome of suicidal arrogance. Chanting the mantra "I hate Bush" over and over may make some feel better, but it does nothing to protect us. "

JimClark wrote on Dec 12, 2007 8:37 AM:

" This issue has raised a lot of legitimate questions; and, of course, some typical ones. Kevin Eggers’ offerings are always incisive and demand consideration. I’m particularly interested in those who seem to disagree with him. I have addressed mine in an earlier entry. Our old friend Ruff cites some obscure article regarding Tom Tancredo. Even if it’s true what is the difference? Politics is the low end of Ethical/Moral philosophy. Most of America’s problems come from the outrageous control government has assumed without The People’s authority. Congress clearly has no authority to violate the Constitution; the Constitution they all swear to protect and preserve. Well? Treason is a very nasty word; one that has not been asserted as yet. Unlawful abuse of authority should be the operative phrase here. I read about religion, partner choices, abortion, and “rights” that have no place in politics and entitlements to which no person should be “entitled”. The Internal Revenue has the power to extract your income. That is unconstitutional. The extracted monies fall into the hands of agencies and bureaucrats who have little interest in solving the “problem”. Why should they? Unemployment comes to mind. I hate to be the object of reality but Ron Paul, in this time is unelectable. He will vanish into the history of the moment. We all need to get behind one candidate, support him and, most important keep his feet to the fire. Political correctness put aside; Merry CHRISTMAS to all. "

steph wrote on Dec 12, 2007 9:56 AM:

" First off, let me just say, Rudy in '08. Ta ha! Second, I second what Kevin and Reality Check said. Ah...it's nice to know there are so many reasonable voices here. I know, Ruff, that you want me to want Bush to invade Iran, but I don't. However, that doesn't mean I turn my b.s. meter off. The liberal Bush-haters are at it again, and they want us to swallow the NIE report just like that. Oh, and, Ruff, ever hear of Hezbollah? You think the cold war idea of mutually assured destruction occupies one second of their time? I guess I don't. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Dec 13, 2007 5:43 PM:

" Regulation is not nationalization. The United States is a nation of laws. "We the People" have a right and obligation to regulate business in order to protect our communities. Child labor laws, food and drug laws, environmental laws and workplace discrimination laws are just a few examples of our ability and willingness to protect each other from unscrupulous business interests. Ron Paul's libertarian views are faith based, and free market models have repeatedly been proven to be horribly flawed. Laissez faire capitalism is anti-democracy. Middle class and working class voters ought to vote for candidates that vow to protect communities from autocratic, anti-democratic corporate interests. "

russ wrote on Dec 13, 2007 7:09 PM:

" The United States is a nation of freedom. We have achieved greatness by the energy and brilliance of our people, hard work, and the motive of profit. More regulation dampens all of these qualities. The least amount of regulation necessary is best. Regulations should level the playing field for all, not to search and punish the guilty. "

kevin wrote on Dec 15, 2007 1:11 PM:

" I think you have it backwards MJH, that is why the United States is a Republic with a Representative form of government. As Thomas Jefferson said, Democracies are inherently unstable and self destructive. Someone once said (Churchill?) that Capitalism is a horrible, inefficient system. But it is far better than anything else we have tried... "

petebo wrote on Dec 28, 2007 2:28 PM:

" Ron Paul obviously has a HUGE internet audience so why doesn't the Register have an online poll or publish the results of other polls? All the online polls concur that Ron Paul is the overwhelming candidate of choice so why isn't more print given to this popular man? Honestly, the majority of people that realize what is happening to us want massive change and Ron Paul offers salvation to the average American while the other candidates are ultimately loyal to the wealthy donors that fund their campaigns. Watch what happens to Dr. Paul as we come closer to the primaries...the smear campaign will begin. The established political power can't have a Ron Paul as a president, ever. If the people have any say (which of course they don't), the government will be forced to shrink in size and cut entitlements. Just as the corporations have done to the employed masses that feed their greed, the government must face the people and submit to our demands...not the other way around. The moment of truth is very near so prepare for the revolt and arm yourself with knowledge. Never admit to anything that you yourself can't prove and make freedom and liberty your top priority. The SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership) is a signed treaty with the US, Canada and Mexico. The borders will be eliminated along with the US Constitution. Things are gonna get REAL bad. Poverty and unemployment will reign. Chaos in the streets will be the norm rather than the exception. Revolts. Riots. Death. Police state. End game. "

esanoche wrote on Dec 30, 2007 7:39 AM:

" Anyone ignorant enough to deny biological evolution is not fit to be the leader of anything, let alone the United States of America. "

Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Back to top
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley
Copyright © 2008 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy