Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ron Paul on Privacy
Ron Paul's third New Hampshire TV ad is up at Reason.tv. This one addresses an issue I don't think any candidate has in his/her commercials yet: Privacy and the war on terror.
I'm Ron Paul and I'm the only presidential candidate who'll bring our troops home from Iraq immediately and stop wasteful government spending. But here's something else I care about, and I hope you do too. The war on terror and the growth of big government have had a dangerous side effect: The loss of privacy rights for the American people. Both parties have put their pet schemes ahead of our rights. Not me. As president, I won't stand for it. No national ID card, no invasion of privacy. I'm Ron Paul and I approve this message.
If Paul's going to make a surprise showing in New Hampshire,
this is the talk (if not the production quality--this is direct but
dark) that'll do it. Let the rest of the field thrash about
debating Iraq and making fun of Hillary's ankles while he talks to
Free Staters about REAL ID. The Youtube thread has gotten more
civil and contented, too.
More reason on Paul
here.
UPDATE: Pig Mannix points out that Paul's
hit 5 percent in the tricky Rasmussen
tracking poll (which doesn't mention Paul's name when
asking for preference).* That's important, as we're
running into the late debate season when candidates will need to
hit poll thresholds in order to keep getting invited.
*I made a mistake here: Rasmussen DOES include Paul's name in its survey. I was passing on rumors to the contrary, so my apologies.
iowan|11.8.07 @ 3:14PM|#
I've been waiting 30+ years to hear a major party candidate say something along these lines.
|11.8.07 @ 3:18PM|#
It's very short sixstring. Just like: Unlike other candidates, I want out of Iraq and to stop wasteful spending. But hear is something else I care about and I hope you do too. The WOT and growth of big government have had a dangerous side effect, the loss of privacy for the American People...
Tom Walls|11.8.07 @ 3:23PM|#
I don't care for that black background in this or the second
one.
I think his look in the above freeze frame is more of a doctor
telling you that you need to eat healthy.
Unlike many critics, I didn't mind the first ad. Sure their lines
were canned, but it looked like real people.
|11.8.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Your papers, please.
Remember, your SSN was never going to be used as a national ID
number. Never.
The Social Security Number (SSN) was originally devised in 1935 to
keep an accurate record of the earnings of workers covered by the
Social Security Act. The use of the SSN has expanded since then as
government entities and the private sector use it for record
keeping and matching purposes.
Executive Order 9397, issued in 1943, required all Federal
components to use the SSN as an individual identifier.
In 1962, the Internal Revenue Service adopted the use of the
individual's SSN as his/her Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)
when an SSN had been assigned. (26 U.S.C. Section 6109).
The Privacy Act of 1974 (Section 7 of P.L. 93-579) limits
governmental use of the SSN. Federal, State and local governments
are prohibited from withholding a right, benefit or privilege from
a person simply because he/she refuses to provide the SSN, except
under certain circumstances (when required by Federal law, or when
a system of records that includes SSN as an identifier was
maintained by a government entity prior to 1975).
The Tax Reform Act of 1976, (42 USCA 405 (c)(2)(C)(i)) amending the
Social Security Act to lessen the impact of the Privacy Act,
authorizes states to use the SSN in the administration of any tax,
general public assistance, driver's license or motor vehicle
registration law.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 USCA 402 (x)),
requires any Federal, State or local government agency to furnish
to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (upon written request
to enforce the suspension of disability benefits) the name and SSN
of any prisoner convicted of a felony.
The Social Security Act, as amended in 1990 (42 USCA 405), requires
that SSNs and related records obtained or maintained by authorized
persons pursuant to any provision of law enacted on or after
October 1, 1990 be confidential and may not be disclosed.
The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 (42 USCA 666 (a)) requires states to
require the collection of social security numbers: 1) on any
application for a professional license, commercial drivers'
license, occupational license, or marriage license; 2) on divorce
decrees, support orders, paternity determinations or
acknowledgments; and 3) in death records and the death
certificate.
I got that info here.
|11.8.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Warren,
Thanks! Does he say, "I'm Ron Paul, and I'm doing all the talking
in this commercial so of course I freakin' approve of it, but that
horse's patoot McCain wrote the law that forces me to have to say
it anyway!"??
|11.8.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Yo, Rick, they're dissing Elvis Costello down below!
Help me, Conservative New Wave Dude, you're our only hope!
|11.8.07 @ 3:26PM|#
"I'm Ron Paul and I'm the only presidential candidate who'll
bring our troops home from Iraq immediately and stop wasteful
government spending."
Immediately stop wasteful spending? Is he running for President or
dictator? Bush just vetoed a pork filled Corps of Engineers bill
that was 14 billion and 16 billion when it went into conference but
emerged out of conference at 21 billion and guess what happened?
Congress over road a Bush Veto for the first time since he has been
President. The ability to steal money from the treasury is one
thing Congress can be bi-partisan about. I would love to hear how
Paul is going to "immediately stop wasteful spending". Perhaps Paul
might want to actually read the Constitution he is always yammering
about, especially the part in Article I that gives Congress the
power of the purse.
|11.8.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Encouraging news from Rasmussen:
In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Rudy
Giuliani attracts 23% of Likely Republican Primary voters
nationwide. Fred Thompson earns 15% of the vote followed closely by
Mitt Romney at 14%, John McCain at 12%, and Mike Huckabee at 11%
Ron Paul, in the aftermath of a huge fundraising day, jumps to 5%
while no other Republican tops 1%
It ain't much, but it's a start....
|11.8.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Here is the exact wording of this ad:
I'm Ron Paul, and I'm the only presidential candidate who will
bring our troops home from Iraq immediately, and stop wasteful
government spending. But here's something else I care about, and I
hope you do too: The war on terror and the growth of big government
have had a dangerous side effect, the loss of privacy rights for
the American people. Both parties have put their pet schemes ahead
of our rights. Not me. As president, I won't stand for it. No
national ID card. No invasion of privacy. I'm Ron Paul, and I
approve this message.
|11.8.07 @ 3:36PM|#
I think his look in the above freeze frame is more of a
doctor telling you that you need to eat healthy.
I'll take that over a fat-assed socialist shaking me down with a
gleeful sneer.
iih|11.8.07 @ 3:38PM|#
I love the simplicity of the ad. It has Minimum Government all
over it.
It also says, "I am self-reliant". Only RP appears on the ad.
No sophisticated (wasteful) graphics and Fox-News type
sound-effects. It is simply dignified.
In other words, it has the Ron Paul stamp all over it. I love
it.
|11.8.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Pig Mannix,
Thanks for the link. The cool part of this is that they asked
Republicans likely to vote in the primary. Independants can vote
too, and Ron Paul should have more fervent support there than his
rivals.
|11.8.07 @ 3:39PM|#
sixstring,
For the past couple of days I've been hoping in the next debate
Paul says "Sen. McCain over here didn't like having to go around
hat in hand and beg money from special interests six days a week
just to finance his campaign, so he trampled on the Constitution
and wrote a law abridging the American people's freedom of speech
and of the press. Of course it didn't change a thing about the way
politicians finance their campaigns from big money special
interests. But we don't need despotic laws to change that. I won't
accept institutional donations. My campaign is funded solely by
individuals, and I don't have any trouble raising funds. (Though
it's an abomination that individuals are limited in how much they
can give, while the PAC still write big checks. I wonder what
they're buying with all that money?) Maybe it's because people are
more willing to support a candidate when they don't think he's
selling himself."
Tacos mmm...|11.8.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Immediately stop wasteful spending? Is he running for President or dictator?
That's an interesting question. Congress may allocate money to
federal projects, but as the executive, can the president order
that the money not be utilized?
Tom Walls|11.8.07 @ 3:40PM|#
This is interesting and encouraging. I thought the ones in that
age group were all voting for Bobby Kennedy!
Seriously, it's obvious why this differential is there. The
18-to-24s get more of their news from the web than the nightly TV
news, where RP still gets little coverage. And RP is already
President of the Internets.
Lifetime network poll of 1000+ women voters
-- Ron Paul garnered a surprising amount of support from women ages
18-24 (15%), but virtually no support from women polled age 25+
(less than 2%).
iih|11.8.07 @ 3:40PM|#
The radio ads are great too. This one is really smart. RP
actually applies a guilt by association. RP is playing dirty and I
love it, too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU614yBacV4
Jeff|11.8.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Why isn't someone talking about how Rasmussen determines likely Republican voters which is very important in New Hampshire where people can vote either Republican or Democrat no matter their party affiliation.
Jay D|11.8.07 @ 3:45PM|#
John,
I imagine there is quite a bit of wasteful spending the the
Executive branch is responsible for. As congressman, "he returns
a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S.
treasury every year."
|11.8.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Immediately stop wasteful spending? Is he running for
President or dictator?
One word: Veto
Timothy|11.8.07 @ 3:48PM|#
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Please explain how Rudy's policy on executive authority will be
preferable to that statement from a libertarian perspective. Oh
wait, you can't.
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
|11.8.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Thanks for the link. The cool part of this is that they asked Republicans likely to vote in the primary. Independants can vote too, and Ron Paul should have more fervent support there than his rivals.
Sixstring,
You'd better check with your state elections office regarding that.
In my state the Primary is closed for Republican candidates. This
means you MUST be registered as a Republican to vote for a
Republican candidate in the primary.
TLB|11.8.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Dispatch from sanity:
Ron Paul is never going to be president. And, Ruuuudy stands a good
chance of being the next president; in fact, at this point it looks
like a choice between him and Hill.
And, you say you want to prevent a NationalIDCard.
However, the libertarian position - or at least the one espoused by
Reason - encourages massive illegal activity.
And, Ruuuudy has a way to deal
with the anarchy that Reason enables, involving the predecessor
to a NationalIDCard. And, most Americans will be behind him on
that, due to the fact that it's just ForForeigners.
I don't know whether Reason is living in a fantasy world or whether
they're in on the game, but their positions will lead us to
something that they claim to oppose.
Jim Lesczynski|11.8.07 @ 3:52PM|#
I would love to hear how Paul is going to "immediately stop
wasteful spending".
If a miracle happened and Ron Paul got elected, it would imply a
mandate for dramatic change. At the very least, it would put the
issue of wasteful spending front and center on the table.
Presumably, some small-government types might even ride into
Congress on his coattails.
|11.8.07 @ 3:53PM|#
The president no longer has the line-item veto. So in order to
cut pork, he has to veto the entire statute of the category in the
federal budget and hope that Congress fails to override and is
forced to cut spending.
But the biggest thing a president can do is deliver a budget that's
NOT SO FUCKING BLOATED to begin with. I think Paul would do
that.
|11.8.07 @ 4:05PM|#
Maybe it's because people are more willing to support a
candidate when they don't think he's selling himself.
I think this is about as succinct description of the Ron Paul
phenomenon as I've seen. This is not about personal ambition. Every
other candidate thinks the election is about him or HER. For once,
we have a guy who is not trying to complete his resume with the
ultimate high score -- the Presidency. This is not a lifelong
ambition, but an opportunity to address a wider audience, and from
a podium that carries more weight than his seat in the House.
Simple. Honest. I like it.
|11.8.07 @ 4:06PM|#
Kwix,
i was refering to NH. Here in NY, it is like you describe. I think
the poll was state specific to NH.
|11.8.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Kwix,
You're right, those are national numbers. Paul is at 4% in NH, but
they do indeed have open primaries there, so my assertion that he
may surprise due to independents voting for him is still valid.
|11.8.07 @ 4:09PM|#
he needs to spend some of the money we've been donating on flashier commercials.
|11.8.07 @ 4:10PM|#
I'm Ron Paul and I'm the only presidential candidate who'll
bring our troops home from Iraq immediately and stop wasteful
government spending.
I love that he is repeating this line from the second commercial in
the third. It sets him apart from all of the other candidates
running, in both major parties.
I also love that he's talking about privacy and civil liberties,
but the "no national ID card" line is pretty weak, compared to some
of the civil liberties violations he could be talking about. Maybe
in New Hampshire it's a big deal, but I don't get the sense that
most Americans are all that afraid of a national ID card.
|11.8.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Jamie,
He will if he follows my
The Top 100 Things I'd Do if I Ever Became a Libertarian
President. See number 56. Do you think ten pages is too
long?
|11.8.07 @ 4:14PM|#
The president no longer has the line-item veto.
Funny, I don't think the the president ever had a line-item
veto.
iih|11.8.07 @ 4:17PM|#
he needs to spend some of the money we've been donating on
flashier commercials.
But doesn't "flashier" imply "wasteful spending"? I liked the
simplicity of the commercial. He does what he preaches.
|11.8.07 @ 4:17PM|#
"That's an interesting question. Congress may allocate money to
federal projects, but as the executive, can the president order
that the money not be utilized?"
The President used to be able to impound the money and just refuse
to spend it. Then the post watergate congress passed a law
preventing him from doing that. I think that law is
unconstitutional. The Consitution says "No money shall be drawn
from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by
law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and
expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to
time." It says you can't spend money without Congressional
approval. But where does it say that the President has to spend
money just because it is approved. If I were the President, I would
impound the money and refuse to spend it on every piece of pork I
could find and tell the Congress to pound sand.
|11.8.07 @ 4:19PM|#
This morning on the drive into work, I heard that there will be some new NH Poll results released this weekend and Paul comes in third.
|11.8.07 @ 4:21PM|#
but the "no national ID card" line is pretty weak, compared
to some of the civil liberties violations he could be talking
about. Maybe in New Hampshire it's a big deal,
In New Hampshire, it is:
Granite
State has some Balls!
|11.8.07 @ 4:21PM|#
Isaac,
There was a federal line-item veto, for about a year. Then some
judge declared it unconstitutional.
|11.8.07 @ 4:23PM|#
If I were the President, I would impound the money and
refuse to spend it on every piece of pork I could find and tell the
Congress to pound sand.
And Congress would impeach you.
iih|11.8.07 @ 4:24PM|#
There was a lot of talk regarding the National ID card in NE. In Maine, I think, they outright rejected it but because of financial reasons. I remember that the sentiments up in NH were that it is widely frowned upon.
|11.8.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Tom Walls said "I think his look in the above freeze frame is
more of a doctor telling you that you need to eat healthy."
He didn't mean to sound that way, but he's just concerned about you
and is sick of seeing you on a downward slide.
|11.8.07 @ 4:27PM|#
"And Congress would impeach you."
They could do that and then face the voters and explain that they
impeached a lawfully elected President for the high crime of
keeping them for getting their pork and paying off their buddies.
Please throw me into that breyer patch.
|11.8.07 @ 4:29PM|#
reason: y'all mothafuckaz is gonna get hit by
the FEC any day now. They're going to come up with some bullshit
that this type of "disproportionate" coverage is actually a
verboten in-kind contribution. I hope that in-house
counsel is ready...
Ron Paul: Way to go, homey! But the emphases
should've been reversed. 90% of time on getting out of war and 10%
on privacy.
Everyone who's not called Kristol or Podhoretz or Kagan hates this
immoral, bungled, tragic war. We have GOT to bang that drum.
Remember, most people are paying *very* little attention.
Fluffy|11.8.07 @ 5:02PM|#
Actually, pro, they might.
I think Lew Rockwell had to change the nonprofit status of his site
because he engaged in too much Paul promotion.
|11.8.07 @ 5:16PM|#
Pro Libertate
Was that back in the 90S?
Now that you mention it I recall Congress passing such a law and
Clinton quite happily signing it. If I remember rightly even as it
was being debated the scuttlebutt was that it would not stand
judicial scrutiny.
I think the general consensus is that a constitutional amendment is
needed, n'est-ce pas?
|11.8.07 @ 5:22PM|#
I would love to hear how Paul is going to "immediately stop
wasteful spending".
Well, by getting us out of Iraq/South Korea/Germany/Italy/etc. for
one. As president, he would be the commander in chief. Pork is
actually a very small part of the budget.
|11.8.07 @ 5:40PM|#
RP is starting to scare the establishment a bit. Weekly Standard
site has a piece calling him the "crank-in-chief". Interspersed
with lots of language like: fringe, out of the mainstream, radical,
etc. Compared him to Howard Dean and predicted a comparable flame
out.
He may - but eventually enough people will realize the "mainstream"
is a polluted, noxious mess, and choose to stop swimming in
it.
I've got issues with RP on policy, but I welcome ANY candidate who
really means it when he says the federal government is too big and
is operating well outside it's constitutional boundaries.
|11.8.07 @ 5:51PM|#
Isaac,
I think it was in 1996. It might've been one of the Contract with
America points, though I can't recall for sure. For a brief moment,
I thought the era of big government was over. But that was a damned
lie.
|11.8.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Funny, I don't think the president ever had a line-item
veto.
Clinton had it and used it 12 times. Then the Supreme Court struck
it down (1998).
Brian Defferding|11.8.07 @ 6:00PM|#
Great ad! Hopefully this works in New Hampshire. I wish Ron would campaign more there. It's gonna take more than TV and radio ads, he needs to cover New Hampshire really well, unfortunately I think he's visited there on average once/twice a month.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 6:13PM|#
I have a question about the Ron Paul polling numbers (and remember, I am somewhat skeptical about his ability to get past even the first couple of states). Do the numbers actually reflect who will vote in Iowa or NH? Or just those who have traditionally voted Republican?
|11.8.07 @ 6:19PM|#
For a brief moment, I thought the era of big government was over.
It was a beautiful dream, though, no? too bad we had to wake
up.
Clinton had it and used it 12 times. Then the Supreme Court struck it down (1998).
Thanks, Jamie. I have been firmly chastened and corrected. I am
humbled. :)
What can I say? I'm not so young anymore and the neurons don't fire
like they used to.
Dan Warner|11.8.07 @ 7:26PM|#
The rising poll number is VERY important as FOX News made a move
to exclude Ron Paul from the next debate. They set a 5% threshold
thinking that Ron would not make it and therefore get no spot in
the debate. Ya gotta love this stuff. I used to watch Fox and ONLY
Fox when I was a brain dead Bushie. Now I have turned them off and
will probably cancel my DirecTv and go with Dish network instead
(newscorp which owns fox also owns directv).
I can't help but laugh about how they tried to set a threshold to
keep him out and he just passed that threshold. FAUX YOU Fox
News!
|11.8.07 @ 7:30PM|#
Clinton had it and used it 12 times. Then the Supreme Court
struck it down (1998).
And in a rare display of principle, a republican congress gave it
to him.
|11.8.07 @ 9:21PM|#
The American Freedom Agenda, an organization of conservatives
founded last March 20 to restore checks and balances and
protections against government abuses, requested all presidential
aspirants, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, to sign an
American Freedom Pledge.
They were asked to renounce the following powers if elected:
torture; presidential signing statements; indefinite detentions of
American citizens as enemy combatants; military commissions that
combine judge, jury and prosecutor; spying on American citizens in
contravention of federal statutes on the president's say-so alone;
kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing suspected terrorists abroad;
executive privilege to shield the executive branch from
Congressional oversight; prosecuting journalists under the
Espionage Act for exposing national security abuses; listing
organizations as terrorist groups based on secret evidence;
suspending the writ of habeas corpus during the conflict with
international terrorism; and invoking the state secrets privilege
to deny victims of constitutional wrongdoing any judicial remedy.
Senator Clinton has balked at signing the pledge, as have all other
candidates except Representative Ron Paul.
Bruce Fein
Chairman, American Freedom Agenda
Washington, Oct. 24, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/l28clinton.html?ex=1351224000&en=e5625021e0f23fac&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg
|11.9.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Is this the same Ron Paul who once put "right to privacy" in
snide quotes, and stated "there clearly is no right to privacy nor
sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution"?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
|11.9.07 @ 5:45PM|#
There should be a Constitutional Amendment giving the President
a line-item veto even though Sen. Byrd thinks that is
"dangerous".
I would also propose an amendment limiting both the President and
Vice-President to a six year term of office and forbidding
re-election to either office. I wonder if Mr. Paul would sign for
either amendment.
|11.9.07 @ 11:07PM|#
You "RON PAUL" will have my vote and i wont take the real ID CARD. If George Washington and crew were here today there would be a cleaning of the house the old fashion way, if you know what I mean. WE NEED RON PAUL NOW BEFORE IT IS TOOOOO LATE. WE NEED TO GET THIS COUNTRY BACK ON THE RIGHT TRACK BEFORE THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION TAKES HOLD AND WE LOOSE ALL ARE RIGHTS AND THERE IS NO MORE USA AND THIS IS NO JOKE PEOPLE.
undergroundrailroad|11.11.07 @ 1:46AM|#
The issue with choosing Ron Paul in the Rasmussen poll is more
complicated. For some time, you had to go deeper in the phone tree
to choose him as your preference. It's possible this may have
changed, but there was a clear delineation between the results of
the first batch of candidates (Romney, Giuliani, Thomspon, McCain,
Huckabee) and the "others" you had to navigate further for. The
link below has a first-hand account -
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=19899
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245