The following is a message from Ron Paul to Washington State conservatives. For people concerned about the end of the conservative movement (not the same as the Republican Party) this message makes a very strong case. What is your prediction of Paul in Washingtons Caucus?
Dear Fellow Washingtonians,Posted by tpahl at February 05, 2008 05:18 PM | Email ThisThe presidential primary election is fast approaching. By now, you've heard the moderate pitches from three of the Republican candidates. But there is also a strong conservative in this race. Congressman Ron Paul is a defender of the Constitution, the unborn, and our national sovereignty. He is a devoted follower of Christ, an Air Force Veteran, and has been married to his wife Carol for 51 years. Please take the time to learn about this brilliant statesman - the man Judge Andrew Napolitano calls "The Thomas Jefferson of our day." For more information, including videos, visit http://ronpaul2008.com right now.
Already a supporter? Visit http://RonPaulWA.com to help us win Washington State for Ron Paul. Then, forward this to every conservative you know.
- Life
Ron Paul is an OB/GYN, and has delivered over 4,000 babies. He is endorsed by Norma McCorvey, better known as "Jane Roe" in Roe v Wade. Norma later converted to Christianity, and became a pro-life activist. In her endorsement of Dr. Paul, she said "His voting record truly is impeccable and he undoubtedly understands our constitutional republic and the inalienable right to life for all. Ron Paul is the prime author of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade."- Liberty
Barry Goldwater Jr. is a former U.S. Representative, and the son of Senator Barry Goldwater. While endorsing Ron Paul, Mr. Goldwater made the following statement: "Ron Paul believes in preserving your liberties, your freedom from excessive taxes, your freedom from excessive regulation, your freedom of privacy, and your right to be left alone."- Economy
During ten terms in Congress, Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget or a single tax increase. He refused his government pension, and returns to the treasury any extra money from his office's budget. "Ron Paul is the only candidate of any party with the courage and the insight to address the most fundamental issues of economic liberty - which is fundamental to human liberty." - Don Luskin, Chief Investment Officer, Trend Macrolytics, LLC- Faith
From Ron Paul's statement of faith: "I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator." 2004 Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka says: "The only candidate who comes close to having an American Biblical view of law and government is Congressman Ron Paul."- Defense
Ron Paul has received more campaign contributions from active-duty military personnel and his fellow veterans than any of his opponents. He advocates a strong national defense, while opposing nation-building and undeclared "police actions." Former President Ronald Reagan said that Ron Paul is "one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."- Borders
"A champion of American sovereignty, he believes in borders and our future as a nation state. He will end illegal immigration and birthright citizenship. He is the only candidate who outright opposes any formation of a North American Union." - Jonnie Crivello, National Organizer, March For America
Ron Paul is a libertarian.
But good for you for posting! :)
Posted by: Cydney on February 5, 2008 10:09 PMConservatism and libertarianism are not the same thing. There be elements of libertarianism IN conservativism, but at his core, Ron Paul is a libertarian.
Posted by: Cydney on February 6, 2008 01:46 PMWhat you seem to imply is that a libertarian can not be a conservative. I am sorry for quoting Reagan. Ignore that he said it if makes you feel better. I just liked what he said since it makes the point I wanted to make perfectly and he is a better wordsmith than I am.
Posted by: Lysander on February 6, 2008 08:02 PMIt shows that, dating back to his four years in Congress during the Reagan administration, on through his resignation from the GOP in 1987, continuing in his 1988 Libertarian Party presidential campaign, and still reflected in his 2008 campaign, his foreign policy is in sharp contrast to the conservative Reagan foreign policy.
No substantive response has been made in reply to my post. Again, I refer readers to the Public Blog post entitled "Ron Paul vs. Ronald Reagan."
Of the remaining six presidential candidates, three of them (Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, and Barack Obama) oppose a victory strategy in the war against Islamic fascism.
Posted by: Steve Beren on February 7, 2008 09:54 AMPublicbulldog @ 5:
I'm done with your crap. That was a very rude comment. I respect Ron Paul in that he is what he is, but that doesn't mean I agree with him.
The feeling is mutual I was kicked out of your neo conservative tent long ago.
Pretty much half a dozen of you guys have turned this blog into sound religion.just like the whole state republican party has. Now you guys lose every year and it gets worse and worse.More and more R's leave the tent. I don't like paying 3 bucks a gallon for gas And you neo cons don't seem to mind one bit.You have become immune to the sticker shock!
Well it does matter...The R's stink here in Washington..you are down to initiatives and blogs.
Your intolerant policies are a failure and all the blogging in the world won't change that fact.
Tell me this, Publicbulldog...what are YOU doing about the $3/gallon gas? What are YOU doing with the failings of the Republican party in this state? You left the party instead of sticking around to try and change things, so you have no right to whine about it.
FYI, blogging does a lot. Just take a look at all the blogging Stefan did about the King County elections fraud back in 2004. He was the one exposing the King County Elections office for what it was and what it did. The blogging world is quite influential. Why are you commenting here anyway if you don't like half of what anyone posts?
"Sound religion"? What the heck? Where have I talked about religion in any of my posts? Just because I support Huckabee doesn't automatically mean I'm a fanatical evangelical, and to suggest as much for any other Huckabee supporter is not going to help you.
So your guy is winning at the ballot box? Huckabee has won a total of six states (soon to be more), and Ron Paul has won...zero.
Posted by: Cydney on February 7, 2008 05:43 PMThank you, John. I will pass this along to folks working with biofuels.
Rhonda Hunter
Ecology - Environmental Education Manager
Communication & Education Office
Ph: 360 407-6147
Matter cycles, Energy flows, Life webs and Climate matters. ~paraphrased from Dr. Art Sussman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: john worthington [mailto:worthingtonjw2u@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:01 PM
To: Hunter, Rhonda (ECY)
Subject: The case for industrial hemp
THE CASE FOR INDUSTRIAL HEMP
Our state will not meet the aggressive standards set by the new RCW 80.80 unless industrial hemp is allowed to be used. Any renewable clean energy bill should include the rescheduling of industrial Hemp in the Washington State controlled substances act.
Without industrial hemp there are no sustainable bio fuel sources that can be used to seriously challenge the fossil fuel monopoly, and offer a free market alternative. Businesses are ready to invest in Industrial Hemp Bio Fuel production but are prohibited by law. Washington State can reschedule marijuana in the Washington State controlled substances act and permit the free market production of cannabis hemp products in order to meet the aggressive demands of RCW 80.80. Industrial hemp Fuel can be manufactured locally at 36 cents a gallon and sustained by local farmers. The market for industrial hemp fuels will produce state jobs, clean burning environmentally benign fuel, and allow for gas tax increases. Washington State must not be afraid to stand up to the federal government on this issue. Losing federal grants are the only factors that our state needs to be worried about. However, the industrial cannabis industry will provide 5 times the revenue that we receive from federal grants, while we create jobs, increase revenue, and protect the Washington State environment.
The current schedule of marijuana never should have included industrial hemp. If Hemp were produced at 36 cents a gallon, Investors would be willing to invest in its production, and it would bring the market prices down from a ridicules 3 dollars a gallon.. We should have ratified the Kyoto protocol and converted to industrial Hemp.
HEMP FOR CLEAN FUEL
Corn, tree pulp and hemp are sources for clean-burning alcohol, methanol and methane gas. These 'biofuels' contain no sulfur, the pollutant that causes acid rain. Growing the fuel also produces oxygen, to balance the oxygen consumed during combustion. Engines stay cleaner and the air remains much cleaner.
Hemp is the most profitable and productive fuel crop that can be grown in many areas of Washington. Hemp can produce about 1000 gallons of methanol per acre, four times as much as can be produced from trees. Fuel can be produced locally, reducing transportation costs. The production process, called biomass conversion, is safe and clean. It would create a domestic fuel industry, freeing us from Middle East oil dependency, providing jobs and keeping our currency at home.
Hemp fuel needs no taxpayer subsidies, as oil receives. The Department of Energy estimated that fuel could be produced from hemp for about 36 cents per gallon. In New South Wales, Australia the Minister of Energy told the parliament they should consider burning confiscated hemp to produce electricity. "It burns at extremely high temperature, produces a lot of power and is cheaper (and much cleaner) to burn than coal."
• Growing and harvesting the stuff has much less environmental impact than procuring oil.
• Hemp fuel is biodegradable; so oil spills become fertilizer not eco-catastrophes.
• Hemp fuel does not contribute to sulfur dioxide air poisoning.
• Other noxious emissions like carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are radically slashed by using "biodiesel."
• Hemp fuel is nontoxic and only a mild skin irritant; anybody who's ever cleaned out an old carburetor with gasoline can confirm the same is not true for petrol.
• Growing hemp for fuel would be a tremendous boon for Washington State farmers and the agricultural industry,and would go a long way in replacing the lost timber industry jobs.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html
http://www.equalrights4all.org/bach/Fuel.html
https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/hpqa1/HPS4/Pharmacy/documents/20071213-14.pdf
Posted by: Publicbulldog on February 7, 2008 06:29 PMHello Senator Kastama,
It appears as though my petition was not read correctly. In regards to the reason outlined in (3)(a)
"JARRC does not have jurisdiction to review laws that do not exist":
I challenged the current Washington State scheduling of Marijuana in schedule 1 and tried to repeal that law. The Agency that was petitioned,the Board of Pharmacy, has the authority to change the law.That petition was denied,none of the concerns I raised were addressed. So by law I could appeal to the JARRC Committee.
In accordance with RCW 34.05.30:
"(2) If an agency denies a petition to repeal or amend a rule submitted under subsection (1) of this section, and the petition alleges that the rule is not within the intent of the legislature or was not adopted in accordance with all applicable provisions of law, the person may petition for review of the rule by the joint administrative rules review committee under RCW 34.05.655."
1. I have alleged that the Washington State Controlled substances act current schedule of marijuana in schedule 1 is not the intent of the legislature when they passed SB 6032.
2. The Law does exist and the JARRC Committee does have jurisdiction in RCW 34.05.30
3.The Washington State board of Pharmacy can reschedule marijuana in the Washington State controlled substances act without a legislative process.
4.The Washington State board of Pharmacy has a process for rescheduling Drugs in the Washington State controlled substances act,A petition to adopt, amend, repeal,and the JARRC Committee is part of that process.
5.My petiton does not ask for clarification,it points out a conflict between the new state law,and the old state law and seeks to repeal the old state law.
6.My petition does not seek to correct a conflict between a federal statute and a state statute,I am seeking to stop a conflict between two state laws by petioning the agency with legal authority to end the conflict without legislation by repealing the old state law.
In regards to the reason outlined in (3)(d):
"There is no information provided about pending legal action regarding the statutes involved."
Even though there is potential legal action regarding this issue in the form of my personal lawsuit,it has yet been filed,but is included in the petition..
In closing I feel I was given an incorrect legal interpretation of the JARCC committee's ability to accept this petition,and that my petition does meet the requirements in 34.05.655,and 34.05.655.
There are much better ways to do something about energy indpendence.
Good for you for acting on what you believe in.
Posted by: Cydney on February 7, 2008 07:27 PMReagan thought it would be a good idea to get involved in the middle east. Shortly later 200+marines died in Lebanon. Reagan responded not by a surge but by pulling out immediately. The result? No more dead marines, no more money pit, no more terrorists attacks. Reagans comment after the fact? That it was a mistake to get involved and that you should never undersestimate the irrationality of the region.
Is Ron Paul a replica of Reagan? No. Paul wants even smaller government than Reagan. Dr Paul believes in reagans mantra that government is not the solution but rather the problem more than Reagan in fact. SO yes, he is not reagan, he is better! And certainly far closer to reagan than McCain.
Posted by: Lysander on February 7, 2008 08:28 PMI've seen it all before.
People are also very ready to SMOKE the stuff.
Posted by: Cydney on February 8, 2008 05:40 PMSame species different family. Has little THC.useless as a recreation or medical drug...
Does not belong as a controlled substance.They are taking advantage of abolitionist to eliminate competition for petroleum ,plastics,and cotton.
You are perfect example of why it is on the controlled substances act.You think it is the same plant.
Ronald Reagan, though you're right Cydney, is no god, but who's words are worth considering of Ron Paul:
Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defence. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.
And he has more support from active duty military than any other candidate.
Posted by: Michelle on February 10, 2008 06:47 PM