Statement Introducing the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007
Ron Paul Speech to Congress
October 15, 2007

American Freedom Agenda Act Complete Text - 3 pages.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a comprehensive piece of legislation to restore the American Constitution and to restore the liberties that have been sadly eroded over the past several years.

This legislation seeks to restore the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers to prevent abuse of Americans by their government. This proposed legislation would repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and re-establish the traditional practice that military commissions may be used to try war crimes in places of active hostility where a rapid trial is necessary to preserve evidence or prevent chaos.

The legislation clarifies that no information shall be admitted as evidence if it is obtained from the defendant through the use of torture or coercion. It codifies the FISA process as the means by which foreign intelligence may be obtained and it gives members of the Senate and the House of Representatives standing in court to challenge presidential signing statements that declares the president's intent to disregard certain aspects of a law passed in the U.S. Congress. It prohibits kidnapping and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to foreign countries on the president's unilateral determination that the suspect is an enemy combatant. It defends the first amendment by clarifying that journalists are not to be prevented from publishing information received from the legislative or executive branch unless such publication would cause immediate, direct, and irreparable harm to the United States.

Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of secret evidence to designate an individual or organization with a United States presence to be a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization.

I invite my colleagues to join my efforts to restore the U.S. Constitution by enacting the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007.

http://dailypaul.com/node/3760

I like what I read. Go Ron Paul! I will ask my Representative to be a co-sponsor.

I can't help but wonder if the Bill of Rights would have a difficult time passing this Congress...suspect Bush would veto it.

Anything that a pusillanimous cretin like t/o might like has to be bad for the rest of the country.

If I was a chick, I'd be all over Ron Paul. He is awesome.

If I was a chick, I'd be all over Ron Paul. He is awesome.Here you go, Borg.

(There's a hidden message just for you!)


http://kaligulawired.com/rp.jpg

Here you go, Borg.

(There's a hidden message just for you!)


http://kaligulawired.com/rp.jpg
I've been seeing those all over Atlanta these days. Go Paul!

If I was a chick, I'd be all over Ron Paul. He is awesome.
Hell yes. And he's a gynecologist too. So he knows his way around down there I guess.

:D

PS - Thanks for that lovely image, sedan.

I done a little reading up on Ron Paul.
As a Republican he dosent seem to tow the party line very well,tries to put his country before his party,a rare thing these days.

I have to admit I'm very impressed. I agree with Congressman Paul on all counts here. I'm glad he included the measure to get standing in the courts to challenge presidential signing statements. Presidents of both parties have abused this dubious practice and it will only get worse if it isn't stopped altogether. If a president doesn't agree with a bill he/she should send it back to Congress, not sign it with a proviso that only the parts agreed to will become law.

You guys seem to give your President a lot of room to manouver.

This I am surprised at.

I'm torn. Ron Paul or Stephen Colbert? Tough choice. Maybe they should run as a ticket.

I am not a fan of Ron Paul, but I like and support this effort on his part.

Ron Paul is a principled person, something rare in Congress today. I do not agree with his libertarian position on everything (he's voted against SCHIP for instance) and could never support him for President. But his American Freedom Agenda Act is right on. Any one in Congress who took their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution should co-sponsor this needed legislation.

Paul ain't going nowhere as the poll indicates. His negatives are about as bad as it gets.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

Don't be so sure, Waldo.

Ron Paul Now a Top Tier Candidate (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=128737)

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has broken through to the top tier of Republican candidates running for president. He knows it, GOP voters know it, and as previously reported; media outlets are grudgingly admitting it.

Fox News, to their credit, has already started giving Paul more air coverage than before. Paul was a guest on Fox Business News yesterday.

Ron Paul commented on the issue in a message to supporters, “The blackout is ending; our campaign is starting to get mainstream media attention, thanks to growing donations and volunteers.”

Ron Paul continued in his message to supporters:

“All over America, our support is wide and deep and growing, and young people are joining like never before. After the Dearborn debate, I went to the University of Michigan for a rally. 2,000 students turned out, something that has happened to no other candidate this year.”

There are an awful lot of people who only support Ron Paul because they know he is an anti-war Republican but they don't know anything else about him.

Once people learn about his libertarian beliefs, most people recoil from him.

What evidence do you have for that, dharma? Everyone that I've told about him gets more interested the more they hear.

What evidence do you have for that, dharma? Everyone that I've told about him gets more interested the more they hear.

Personal experience from all the volunteering and political organizing I have been doing.

What evidence do you have for that, dharma? Everyone that I've told about him gets more interested the more they hear.
I can't imagine that too many people are warm to the idea of eliminating things like federal welfare and the FBI.

Don't be so sure, Waldo.

Ron Paul Now a Top Tier Candidate (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=128737)

I'm sure. What's his standing in the polls? 2%? And his negatives are the equal of clintons. He's going nowhere, fast.

From Rasmussen:
For the seven days ending October 14, 2007 show that Rudy Giuliani earns 29% of the vote while Fred Thompson attracts 19%. Mitt Romney has slipped a point and is supported by 14%. John McCain is now the favorite for just 10% and Mike Huckabee is at 7%. Sam Brownback is at 2%, Ron Paul at 1%, and two other candidates each round up to 1%. Sixteen percent (16%) are undecided (review history of weekly results).



http://robertsteely.townhall.com/g/f77a22e8-5581-4c7c-be6f-41623df419ee

Ron Paul is polling 1% in Iowa, 3% in New Hampshire, and 2% in South Carolina. En Fuego!

Ron Paul - 3% in New Jersey. There is good news in this poll however. Ron Paul is up 1 percentage point in the past six weeks in this same poll. Smokin!

'negatives are the equal of clintons'-what does that mean?

There are an awful lot of people who only support Ron Paul because they know he is an anti-war Republican but they don't know anything else about him.

Once people learn about his libertarian beliefs, most people recoil from him. And when they find out he is a racist and a christian reconstructionist. But keep on truckin' Ron you make the other republicans look bad and maybe not as many republicans will get out and vote. :thumbs:

I done a little reading up on Ron Paul.
As a Republican he dosent seem to tow the party line very well,tries to put his country before his party,a rare thing these days.

ROTFL.

For a Republican to 'put the country before the Party' is not only "not toeing the party line", it is antithetical to being a Republican.

But then, the same is true of almost every Democrat.

They are ALL in complete thrall to the Corporatists. Period.

___________________________________

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
------ U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

And when they find out he is a racist and a christian reconstructionist.
What? No he's not.

I'm sure. What's his standing in the polls? 2%? And his negatives are the equal of clintons. He's going nowhere, fast.

From Rasmussen:


http://robertsteely.townhall.com/g/f77a22e8-5581-4c7c-be6f-41623df419ee

Ron Paul is polling 1% in Iowa, 3% in New Hampshire, and 2% in South Carolina. En Fuego!

Ron Paul - 3% in New Jersey. There is good news in this poll however. Ron Paul is up 1 percentage point in the past six weeks in this same poll. Smokin!

so is Paul the new Perot?

He doesn't have enough pull to accomplish that.

What we need is a balls-to-the-wall, highly proficient businessman in office.

What we need is a balls-to-the-wall, highly proficient businessman in office.

No, what we need is a capable leader who knows how to govern, not just make a profit.

There is too much corporate influence corrupting Washington already.

I was flipping through the channels and I saw the aftermath of the latest GOP debate, Fox News had a poll up asking who won the debate and Paul was at 37%.

Also, http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

Yep...goin' nowhere fast.

On one hand, while the government could definitely benefit from being run more like a business, dharma is right about the corporate influence. If there were a competent businessman who could give the government's efficiency a jump start but NOT give precedent to his friends in the big corporations, that would be good. Seems a little too much to ask though.

I have long been suspicious of the "run government like a business," line of thought. They seem to me to be two very different kinds of human organization, and too much done to get the best of both worlds could well end up having the worst of both. If I had the decision on what to be done to improve our political system, I would say implement changes to our campaign financing, either by making them more transparent, or by eliminating donations altogether and using strictly public funding.

I have long been suspicious of the "run government like a business," line of thought. They seem to me to be two very different kinds of human organization, and too much done to get the best of both worlds could well end up having the worst of both. If I had the decision on what to be done to improve our political system, I would say implement changes to our campaign financing, either by making them more transparent, or by eliminating donations altogether and using strictly public funding.
Also good points. However, you don't think that the government could maybe use a little more efficiency? Frugality? Maybe it could worry a little more about going into debt? That's all I mean when I say "business-like".

I think more efficiency and less debt could be a good thing, but reorganizing the government to force efficiency improvements, what "run like a business" means, is a dubious goal. Business is the art of generating wealth by providing service. Government is the practice of overseeing human activity, promoting general welfare, and protecting liberty. Government was never designed to be efficient, and a certain amount of inefficiency is desirable, to keep rogue elements from taking undue advantage of the raw power of a bureaucracy.

If you want less waste and more efficiency, you could just say that, instead of the loaded phrase, "run government like a business."

The problem with the idea of "running government like a business" is that businesses and government exist for completely different purposes. Businesses measure "efficiency" in how well they externalize cost and internalize profit, whereas government efficiency is measured in how well they provide services which are, by nature, not profitable, such as police and fire services.
Businesses are considered more efficient when they can reduce their workforce but the purpose of government is to keep people working at full employment, which means at a certain point a government being too efficient is damaging to the society being governed.

If you want less waste and more efficiency, you could just say that, instead of the loaded phrase, "run government like a business."
I was not aware that the phrase is "loaded". And of course a certain amount of reorganization would probably be needed to "force" more efficiency.

And of course, Nappy and Dharma, I know about the dangers of too much business-like efficiency. However, I hardly think that it's too much to ask that we have less debt than we now have - what is it now, $9 trillion or something like that?

One more post, then I have to get to the gym.

I don't think our national debt means as much as it's made out to be. I think the problem comes in the security concern. Having that much debt in the hands of a foreign power like the Chinese gives them a very huge lever to move our policy with. We should set policies on who we allow to buy our securities. But when you get right down to it, the most important aspect of a nation is the economy, and we need to stimulate it, not depress it in an attempt to pay off debt. We can grow our way out of the debt. But we can also spend as much money reorganizing the government for efficiency improvements as we would be saving. It's a crap shoot. Some initiatives could work, some won't. But encouraging new economic growth will promote prosperity no matter what.

We need capable and creative leadership, not hard-nosed money pinchers.

I saw the aftermath of the latest GOP debate, Fox News had a poll up asking who won the debate and Paul was at 37%.

Yep...goin' nowhere fast.YEP the Ron Bots were working overtime last night texting RP as the winner Funny How they had a room of 30 people and when ask how many thought Ron Paul won the debate he scored a whopping 0 thats right zero those call in polls are worthless when Ron Bots are fixing the numbers.OH by the way Ron Paul was the only candidate that got booed not once but several times RON PAUL IS A JOKE

YEP the Ron Bots were working overtime last night texting RP as the winner Funny How they had a room of 30 people and when ask how many thought Ron Paul won the debate he scored a whopping 0 thats right zero those call in polls are worthless when Ron Bots are fixing the numbers.OH by the way Ron Paul was the only candidate that got booed not once but several times RON PAUL IS A JOKE
Touch defensive that Duncan Hunter is absolutely lousy in the polls, eh?

What we need is a balls-to-the-wall, highly proficient businessman in office.

Gee.

I guess that's what the 56 million+ willfully blind cretins who trudged down to the polls to vote for Gee Dubbya were wanting, thinking that's what he would provide.

:rolleyes:

YEP the Ron Bots were working overtime last night texting RP as the winner.....those call in polls are worthless when Ron Bots are fixing the numbers.

Really?

What is the source for that allegation?

Really?

What is the source for that allegation?
He's a Freeper, FT. You won't get one.

He's a Freeper, FT. You won't get one.

Yeah, I know that. :-)

I just enjoy taunting rightwing imbeciles.

(apologizing in advance for using the oxymoron)

I was not aware that the phrase is "loaded". And of course a certain amount of reorganization would probably be needed to "force" more efficiency.

And of course, Nappy and Dharma, I know about the dangers of too much business-like efficiency. However, I hardly think that it's too much to ask that we have less debt than we now have - what is it now, $9 trillion or something like that?

I have to agree with Napster. That phrase "run government like business" is loaded with a lot more meaning than just "less debt" and a lot of that implied meaning is counter-productive for government.

I agree with Nappy that if you mean you think government should be run with less debt then you should just say that, because you are saying more than you intend when you say you want government run like a business.

Yeah, I know that. :-)

I just enjoy taunting rightwing imbeciles.

(apologizing in advance for using the oxymoron)
don't you mean redundancy?:confused:

I have to agree with Napster. That phrase "run government like business" is loaded with a lot more meaning than just "less debt" and a lot of that inplied meaning is counter-productive for government.

I agree with Nappy that if you mean you think government should be run with less debt then you should just say that, because you are saying more than you intend when you say you want government run like a business.
Okay, fine, I guess that's what I'll say from now on. I don't see why this is such a big deal.

don't you mean redundancy?:confused:

If you are --as you indicate-- confused, the only thing I have to recommend is that you look up the term *oxymoron*.

Okay, fine, I guess that's what I'll say from now on. I don't see why this is such a big deal.

It isn't really a big deal. Its just that the phrase you used implies a lot more than you intended it to.

If you referring to "right-wing imbeciles," FT, mike is correct. An oxymoron is a contradiction. If not, then you have not made the context clear on what you were referring to.

If you are --as you indicate-- confused, the only thing I have to recommend is that you look up the term *oxymoron*.
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.


right wing imbecile? that's more of a redundancy that an oxymoron.

right wing imbecile? that's more of a redundancy that an oxymoron.

:confused:

Duh! Look's like it was me who was confused after all.

I stand corrected.

You're right. Good catch.

I was flipping through the channels and I saw the aftermath of the latest GOP debate, Fox News had a poll up asking who won the debate and Paul was at 37%.

Also, http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

Yep...goin' nowhere fast.

Here's a bet for you. Paul will finish in the bottom third of every state primary.

Gee.

I guess that's what the 56 million+ willfully blind cretins who trudged down to the polls to vote for Gee Dubbya were wanting, thinking that's what he would provide.

:rolleyes:
Not at all, he's a failed businessman - we all know that. OTOH, he's not a pussy, and that goes a long way with me (and to be completely honest, it should when your country is attacked, regardless of whether or not you were personally cheering for Al Qaeda in 2001 - it doesn't matter). Now, unfortunately, times have changed - we need a president in office who has business experience, understands the bottom line, and is committed to cutting back needless expenditures.

Oh, and BTW, Nap - that was an excellent distinction you made. Kudos to you for doing so, but before we get mired down in the minutia of how I'd like to see our government "run like a business" (which, admittedly, is anathema to socialist swine like Dharma and FT), I'd like you to understand something you touched on briefly (to bolster your point, if I'm not mistaken); "inefficiency" is NEVER a good thing - I don't care how you wanna justify it.

If you want less waste and more efficiency, you could just say that, instead of the loaded phrase, "run government like a business."
Semantics aside, the two phrases are inextricably linked. Feel free to argue the gray area now....

Semantics aside, the two phrases are inextricably linked.

More like peripherally related, at best.