And Another Thing

Looking to Lower Crime? Add More Guns!

2008-03-09T16:49:00.001-06:00

Thinking about gun control causes me to wonder about the mental capacity of the average liberal. Research has shown that when law abiding citizens are armed – violent crime is reduced.

Over 30 States now have some type of “shall issue” concealed carry law in place. While this is good news – it’s not nearly enough. Consider the following deficiencies:

· Many of the States with “shall issue” concealed carry laws forbid the carrying of handguns in places where violent crimes are likely to happen (i.e. college campuses).

· Some States have “may issue” concealed carry laws but these are at the discretion of political figures. Unfortunately, those “political figures” don’t know when and where an individual might need self defense.

· A great number of States don’t have concealed carry laws at all – continuing to wage war against the law abiding citizen.

Want to voice your opinion about concealed carry gun rights? Take a look at this Squidoo lens.

Ron Paul's Giant Blunder

2008-01-11T18:53:00.000-06:00

During the Republican debate in South Carolina - Ron Paul suggested the United States was over-reacting to the Iranian speed boat threat.

Ron Paul has no clue how to defend the United States of America.

Hello!!?? Has Ron Paul ever heard of the USS Cole? One "tiny little boat" almost sank the Cole and ended the lives of 17 U.S. sailors.

It's one thing to be against war but quite another to be ignorant of potential threats to the United States.

And Another Thing

Ron Paul on Lower Gas Prices

2007-09-16T20:40:00.001-06:00

Interesting article about Ron Paul and the steps he believes are necessary to lower oil and gas prices. Check out Ron Paul - How to Lower Gas Prices.

Gun Holsters

Ron Paul - 5 Myths Article

2007-09-15T21:39:00.000-06:00

This is an interesting article about Ron Paul. It lists 5 myths about him and goes on to show the facts that make the myth wrong. Take a look at 5 Myths About Ron Paul.

Ron Paul – 4 Reasons Why He CAN Win This Election

2007-09-13T16:51:00.000-06:00

With the mainstream media ignoring him and other people saying he’s not a viable presidential candidate – I would like to offer 4 SOLID reasons why Ron Paul can be elected president.

1) Ron Paul is one of the few presidential candidates with a straight forward political platform. He has a consistent voting record to back up his political positions. What you see is what you get with Ron Paul. Unlike many of the other presidential candidates – Ron Paul does not “flip flop” on his positions. Actually, it’s rare to find a politician today who doesn’t have a list of “flip flop” decisions. When people actually find out about Ron Paul – they’ll like him.

2) Most people don’t even know who Ron Paul is – YET. While the mainstream media has been largely ignoring Dr. Paul to date – daily internet users (you and I) have created a tremendous amount of productive energy for his campaign. This energy cannot be ignored by the mainstream media forever. Unlike the old days when people only had three television stations from which to choose – the internet cannot be bought and sold – the mainstream media cannot keep Dr. Paul down much longer. They’ll be forced to give him air time or risk being left out of the story.

3) There are no other viable candidates to choose from. Think about it, the United States is not ready for a “Hillary Clinton” presidency. Barack Obama – most folks don’t even take him seriously as a senator. John McCain - his time was in 2000 – he has no shot this time around. Rudy Giuliani – conservative voters won’t come out and support him like they did President Bush. Rudy is much too socially liberal to get the votes from socially conservative voters. Do I really need to explain the others?

4) The Ron Paul Revolution? When the general public find out about Ron Paul - we’ll see the Ron Paul Revolution to the exponent of ten.

E Lawrence Welch

Pyle Mountain Holsters

Gun Holsters Blog

Ron Paul – 3 Political Positions Voters Must Understand

2007-09-11T08:56:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul is the most widely followed presidential candidate on the internet – yet many of his political positions are poorly understood. Ron Paul calls himself a “constitutionalist”. To properly understand Ron Paul as a political candidate – one must examine his political positions in the context of his underlying constitutionalist philosophies. Using this foundation – we’ll take a look at his political positions on the Iraq War, abortion (Roe v. Wade) and gun control.

When Ron Paul calls himself a constitutionalist – he’s saying he follows a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. A constitutionalist favors a small federal government, the rights of individual states, and a very limited role of the federal government in the lives of voters. Take a look at his political posisions on these three issues:

1) The Iraq War:

Ron Paul opposes the Iraq War because his political views assert that only the United States Congress has the power to declare war and the acts of President Bush were illegal. Consider what Ron Paul said in this document - Ron Paul files lawsuit against "illegal" war:

"The president has violated the law and must be taken to task," said Paul. "It is a shame that Congress has not done more to stop the president from this
destructive course. So it is therefore incumbent on us to resort to the courts
to force Mr. Clinton to follow his Oath of Office and uphold the Constitution
and laws of the United States."

What Ron Paul is saying is that the Iraq War was an illegal ward, a war not declared by the United States Congress. Ron Paul is not an “anti war” candidate. He simply wants to see the United States Constitution followed when the United States does go to war.

2) Abortion & Roe v. Wade:

Ron Paul is a pro life candidate – but he does not believe the federal government should make abortion illegal. If you’re looking for a candidate who will seek to appoint Supreme Court justices to make abortion illegal – Ron Paul is not the answer. Consider what Ron Paul says from this document – Federalizing Social Policy:

Ron Paul Speaking:

“Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue.”

Ron Paul's political position on abortion doesn’t concern his personal pro life views – again, he simply wants the United States Constitution to be followed and let each individual state decide on the issue of abortion.

3) Gun Rights & The 2nd Amendment:

Ron Paul’s constitutionalist positions can further be seen in his political views on gun rights. Personally, he is an avid gun rights supporter. He believes that ALL federal gun laws are illegal. The states should decide on gun rights issues. Examine what he says in this document – Gun Rights vs. Centralization:

Ron Paul Speaking:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a firm believer in the Second amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the
Second Amendment Restoration Act (HR 153), which repeals misguided federal gun
control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe the
Second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties.”

In summary, it’s easy to become attracted to or repelled by a presidential candidate simply because you learn he is a pro life candidate or a gun rights candidate. However, it’s critically important for voters to take a look behind the curtains – examining those “popular labels” in the context of the candidate’s political philosophies. You might find a few surprises.

E Lawrence Welch

And Another Thing Political Blog

Pyle Mountain Holsters

Financial Pizza Blog

Ron Paul & Roe v. Wade

2007-09-10T16:24:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul is a hot topic these days for daily internet users. He calls himself a “constitutionalist” – in other words – his political policies adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution. Foremost in these policies is that the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion.

Using this as a backdrop, Ron Paul asserts that he’s a pro life presidential candidate. From this perspective, it’s important to understand what a Ron Paul presidency might mean to Roe v. Wade. Reading The Partial Birth Abortion Ban – strong language about Roe v. Wade offers insight:

Ron Paul Speaking:

“Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people,the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.”

Ron Paul is basically saying that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional – that Roe v. Wade is not legal, and should have never happened. Additional insight into Ron Paul’s views of Roe v. Wade and abortion can be seen in Federalizing Social Policy:

Ron Paul Speaking:

“Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.”

Here, Ron Paul again asserts that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because it’s not a “constitutional issue”. This leads us to an important question – who does have jurisdiction over abortion? Who should decide if abortion is wrong or right? Who determines if pro life, or pro choice voters are supported? Additional examination of the same document reveals more insight:

Ron Paul Speaking:

“Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.”

With little doubt, Ron Paul is asserting that the 50 states would individually determine the issue of abortion. Thus, one would assume that Ron Paul would not take a solid pro life (anti-abortion) stance – nor would he take a pro choice (pro abortion) stance either.

What does this mean for Roe v. Wade under a Ron Paul presidency? United States Presidents have only indirect power of such issues which are reflected in the United States Supreme Court Justices he appoints. In a Ron Paul presidency, it could be assumed he would appoint “constitutionalists” such as himself – building further support for overturning Roe v. Wade within the High Court.

E Lawrence Welch

And Another Thing Political Blog

2nd Amendment Watch

Pyle Mountain Holsters

Ron Paul - a Gun Rights Voter’s Dream Come True?

2007-09-10T09:32:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul is probably the most widely supported presidential candidate by daily internet users. He calls himself a “Constitutionalist” which basically means his policies will adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution. He’s for a small federal government – deferring most authority to state governments. One of his more bold political stances is his view of the 2nd Amendment (i.e. gun rights). Look at the follow quote from this document - Gun Rights vs. Centralization:

Ron Paul Speaking:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a firm believer in the Second amendment and
an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation,
the Second Amendment Restoration Act (HR 153), which repeals misguided
federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban.
I believe the Second amendment is one of the foundations of our
constitutional liberties.”

Think about this for a moment – he’s an opponent of ALL federal gun laws? I wonder how his “Constitutionalist” stance would hold up with state gun laws? He continues in the same document:

Ron Paul Speaking:

“I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional
federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same
powers will be used to restrict our gun rights.”

Here, Ron Paul seems to be urging other representatives to leave individual states alone. This continues to make me wonder how he would react to those state restrictions placed on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.

The following quote from Restore the Second Amendment might provide additional insight into the way Ron Paul would react to restriction of gun rights by individual states:

Ron Paul Speaking:

“Thomas Jefferson said "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all
power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all
times armed." Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the
proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding
Americans from exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my
colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders' vision for a free society by
cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.”

Notice the Thomas Jefferson quote Ron Paul used regarding gun rights – this is some of the strongest language you’ll find in support of gun rights. Jefferson actually says “it’s their (a citizens) right and duty to be armed.” While you never truly know how a person will act once elected to the office of the presidency – it seems to be a safe assumption that Ron Paul will work hard to protect your gun rights. If gun rights are very important to you – you might consider supporting Ron Paul for president.

E Lawrence Welch

And Another Thing Political Blog

2nd Amendment Watch

Pyle Mountain Holsters

2007-01-31T14:19:00.001-06:00

Technorati Profile