UIGEA critic Rep. Ron Paul (TX) joins race for 2008 Republican nomination


Dormant Account
Feb 18, 2005
This is good news. One of the leading critics in Congress of the UIGEA is entering the presidential race (
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
). I'll certainly contribute to his campaign, and I'm not even a Republican.

Below is an excerpt of his speech on the House floor last July opposing the passage of H.R. 4411.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. It is not easy to oppose this legislation because it is assumed that proponents of the bill are on the side of the moral high ground. But there is a higher moral high ground in the sense that protecting liberty is more important than passing a bill that regulates something on the Internet.

The Interstate Commerce Clause originally was intended to make sure there were no barriers between interstate trade. In this case, we are putting barriers up.

I want to make the point that prohibition, as a general principle, is a bad principle because it doesn't work. It doesn't solve the problem because it can't decrease the demand. As a matter of fact, the only thing it does is increase the price. And there are some people who see prohibitions as an enticement, and that it actually increases the demand.

But once you make something illegal, whether it is alcohol or whether it is cigarettes or whether it is gambling on the Internet, it doesn't disappear because of this increased demand. All that happens is, it is turned over to the criminal element. So you won't get rid of it.

Sometimes people say that this prohibition that is proposed is designed to protect other interests because we certainly aren't going to get rid of gambling, so we might get rid of one type of gambling, but actually enhance the other.

But one of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which is a very, very dangerous precedent to set.

full remarks:
Outdated URL (Invalid)
Nice speech, but contributing to his campaign just because he opposes the UIGEA? I'd look to see how he feels about other issues before I go jumping the gun.
"Sometimes people say that this prohibition that is proposed is designed to protect other interests because we certainly aren't going to get rid of gambling, so we might get rid of one type of gambling, but actually enhance the other."

Right on!
Nice speech, but contributing to his campaign just because he opposes the UIGEA? I'd look to see how he feels about other issues before I go jumping the gun.
Fair point. I guess it depends on how strongly one feels about this single issue to be willing to overlook disagreements with his position on other issues.

From what I've read, his politics are that he is a libertarian who believes in limited government.

To be honest, at this stage, maybe it's not that I'm necessary hoping that he is elected president if I contribute to his campaign, but that he brings attention to this issue that I care about. However, I think I will first write him to find out if he will take a position favoring a repeal of the UIGEA.
Ron Paul makes to much sense, he's not electable. LOL

Hypocrisy in the Middle East
By Hon. Dr. Ron Paul
February 26, 2007

Hundreds of thousands of American troops already occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, a number that is rising as the military surge moves forward. The justification, given endlessly since September 11th, is that both support terrorism and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, its obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of regions worst regimes as allies, shows the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East.

Consider Saudi Arabia, the native home of most of the September 11th hijackers. The Saudis, unlike the Iraqis, have proven connections to al Qaeda. Saudi charities have funneled money to Islamic terrorist groups. Yet the administration insists on calling Saudi Arabia a good partner in the war on terror. Why? Because the U.S. has a longstanding relationship with the Saudi royal family, and a long history of commercial interests relating to Saudi oil. So successive administrations continue to treat the Saudis as something they are not: a reliable and honest friend in the Middle East.

The same is true of Pakistan, where General Musharaf seized power by force in a 1999 coup. The Clinton administration quickly accepted his new leadership as legitimate, to the dismay of India and many Muslim Pakistanis. Since 9/11, we have showered Pakistan with millions in foreign aid, ostensibly in exchange for Musharafs allegiance against al Qaeda. Yet has our new ally rewarded our support? Hardly. The Pakistanis almost certainly have harbored bin Laden in their remote mountains, and show little interest in pursuing him or allowing anyone else to pursue him. Pakistan has signed peace agreements with Taliban leaders, and by some accounts bin Laden is a folk hero to many Pakistanis.

Furthermore, more members of al Qaeda probably live within Pakistan than any other country today. North Korea developed its nuclear capability with technology sold to them by the Pakistanis. Yet somehow we remain friends with Pakistan, while Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to bin Laden and no friends in the Islamic fundamentalist world, was made a scapegoat.

The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and its false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Clich or not, the Arab Street really doesnt like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves Americas long-term interests.

A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East. Yes, we need Middle Eastern oil, but we can reduce our need by exploring domestic sources. We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy of the oil-producing countries- as the worlds largest oil consumer, their wealth depends on our business. We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesnt work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.
Link Removed (invalid URL)

The more I find out about Dr. Paul, the more I like him.
Someone from the Neteller Customer Coalition recently met Rep. Paul and posted the following (Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) ):

"I attended a luncheon with Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul,
Rep. out of Texas this past weekend. (Many years ago he ran as
Libertarian). I spoke to him about the UIGEA and the whole Neteller
debacle. He said he is on the committee with Barney Frank and he also
agrees that the UIGEA should be repealed and is working with Barney
Frank. Ron Paul voted against the UIGEA in the first place."

FYI, here is his presidential campaign website:
On the surface, a lot of what he's saying sounds good. I am not a one issue voter or contributor, so I dug deeper. As a strong liberal, there's no way in hell I could vote for this guy with a clean conscience.
However, for anti-Bush social conservatives, he's a godsend.
Thanks for the updates on this thread. I am one of those social conservative who is so fed up with Washington that I ache watching most of the smug, self-aggrandizing nutjobs who "lead" this country. I wonder if they all start out this smarmy or do they go into the job with high ideals and then just get beat down by the special interests, corruption and greed? I went to Mr. Pauls site and after reading a bit I joined up offering myself as a volunteer in the Albuquerque area. I also donated $25. I think he has a snowball in hell chance of winning the primary but sometimes it just feels good to put your money where you mouth is.
April 9, 2007

Congressman Ron Paul will be interviewed on CNN's Lou Dobbs program tonight between 5:30 - 6:00 pm CT.

This Wednesday, Congressman Paul will make his first campaign trip to Iowa. Here is the schedule of public events as posted by the Republican Party of Iowa:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Well, I know where I won't be.

I'll wait for Kucinich. Terrific liberal with a high learning curve.
Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card.
Internet Gambling Bill: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit credit card companies and other financial institutions from processing Internet gambling transactions. Exempt from the ban would be state regulated or licensed transactions.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Spencer, R-AL; Bill HR 2143 ; vote number 2003-255 on Jun 10, 2003
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
April 9, 2007

Congressman Ron Paul will be interviewed on CNN's Lou Dobbs program tonight between 5:30 - 6:00 pm CT.

This Wednesday, Congressman Paul will make his first campaign trip to Iowa. Here is the schedule of public events as posted by the Republican Party of Iowa:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

From the calender...
In addition, Dr. Paul will appear live on KGAN-TV, Channel 2 in Cedar Rapids at 12:15 p.m. on Wednesday, April 11th, and will be Jan Mickelson's in-studio guest on WHO Radio from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 12th.

Let me tell ya just a little about WHO Radio and Jan Mickelson. WHO used to be THE great news radio station of the midwest. FOX likes to say it's fair and balanced (cough cough)....WHO actually was fair and balanced once upon a time. My first taste of good political discussion was from WHO. Every afternoon, 2 hours of the right, and 2 hours of the left. No more. Now it's a Clear Channel FOX affiliate. The afternoon drive time guy is a former sportscaster and flaming bigot, who wants everyone to know that the US is a Fundamentalist Christian country, period...and that everyone else should feel lucky to be allowed to live here. He made a name for himself criticizing a Jewish Major Leaguer for not playing on a Saturday, and that he needed to accept Jesus as his Saviour or leave baseball. Jan Mickelson? Well, you're OK by him...as long as you're white, male, straight, neocon, and a Fundie.
The fact that Ron Paul would use such an outlet to further his campaign tells me once and for all that I don't want him anywhere near the White House, anti-UIGEA or no. He's the same ilk as Chimpy McFlightsuit...and haven't we and the rest of the world had enough of THAT?

Ron Paul's voting record
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

...at a glance, somewhat OK, but look really closely. Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition, 0% by NARAL, etc.

However, proving there's always at least a little good in everyone, rated A by VOTE-HEMP.
This has f all to do with me being in the UK n all, but I hope you don't mind me chiming in to say that I agree with the sentiment that you shouldn't vote for someone purely because they are pro-gambling. There are way more important issues at stake like green issues, war, etc. And when it comes to presidency, someone who could command respect beyond the boundaries of the US is even more of an issue.

I guess you could argue that the issue is "freedom of choice" which is perhaps more pertinent, but still...perspective :)
Dr. Ron Paul on Privacy and Personal Liberty

Privacy and Personal Liberty

The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens personal matters.

We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new drivers licenses embedded with standard identifier data a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means were heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.

To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress
that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it.

We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, youre vulnerable. Under so-called "medical privacy protection" rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information.

Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 in your local bank will generate a suspicious activity report to the federal government.

And then theres the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed,

* Expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight;
* Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;
* Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage;
* Authorized sneak and peek warrants enabling federal authorities to search a persons home, office, or personal property without that persons knowledge; and
* Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons.

I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
I happened to watch the Republican Presidential candidates debate on Thursday, which included Ron Paul. It was good to see one person on the stage who stood up for personal liberty. Although he didn't specifically mention his opposition to the UIGEA, he did signal such a view in his answer on regulating the Internet:
Moderator: Congressman Paul, Carrie from Connecticut asks: Do you trust the mainstream media?

Paul: Some of them. But I trust the Internet a lot more, and I trust the freedom of expression. And that's why we should never interfere with the Internet. That's why I've never voted to regulate the Internet. Even when there's the temptation to put bad things on the Internet, regulation of bad and good on the Internet should be done differently.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I live in Texas and I wish Ron Paul was a Texas Legislator.

But instead he is representing Citizens of the State of Texas.in the U.S. Congress. I recently took an online "test" where you answer a list of questions, your responses then indicates where you stand politically. I have always voted Republican, with few exceptions. But, in the past 10 years I have grown tired of Government interference in personal lives of citizens, and unjust laws. I actually do not trust the Government or the Legal System in this Country.

As I suspected, the test indicated that I lean more toward Libertarian ideology. I am however not in agreement with all of the Libertarian Parties Platform. Since it would be virtually impossible for a Libertarian Canidate to be elected, those politians with many of the Libertarian views run on the Republican ticket. They are Republican-Libertarians and have an organization supporting their views(you can google it).

Ron Paul's views seem to coincide with mine. He does not vote party-lines when he disagrees with the legislation, he votes in the best interest of our rights and freedoms as all legislators should do, but clearly don't.

Before critisizing him, please take a look at how he has voted on issues important to you. And then look at how the other canidates voted on those issues(if they were a member of Congress at the time).


Electing Ron Paul would be the closest thing we could do to derail the Republican and Democratic Party control of Government. Having a President that is not TOTALLY CONTROLLED by his Party Ties would be very refreshing.

Having a President working to RESTORE our lost civil liberities is what this Country needs. Getting the Federal Government out of every aspect of our lives would be a relief to say the least. Restoring the Federal Government to what it is suppose to be would be the best thing we could do for the future of the Citizens of this Country, and probably the Citizens of other Countries as well.

As I suspected, the Democrats are using their current control of Congress to point fingers at the past Republican Party and the President. Well I hate to tell them, but I didn't see them voting against the Safe Port Act or demanding the Gambling provision be removed prior to voting. They need to stop pointing fingers and get down to business. Apparently they too were trying to pass legislation by attaching unrelated items to the War Funding Legislation that the President Veto'ed. The President is a hypocrite because he veto'ed the Bill for that reason, yet didn't veto the Safe Port Act. I would think that funding the WAR and troops is just as important, if not more important at this moment than the Safe Port ACT was.

Americans, need to speak out now regarding these hypocrisies!!!!!

I will not vote for a Politician who is in their Party's "backpocket". I want a President who understands what the role of the Federal Government is and should be and puts the welfare and quality of life of the Citizens above the issues of Political Parties, Lobbyist and self-interest.

Also, one who assures are income tax is spent wisely and items that improve our quality of life, feeding our poor first, making higher education affordable, increasing jobs, improving our ecomony, assuring all citizens have affordable access to health care. I just don't see enough of our Taxes being spent on these things. I see alot of wasted spending that could have sent a student to college or bought a family a home, or bought needed medical equipment, or paid for a persons liver transplant, or improved the quality of life for senior citizens worked supporting this country for their entire lives, or improving the quality of Medical treatment and benefits for Veterans who fought for this Country!!!!!!!
Wow, check out these results from MSNBC.com's interactive survey on the Republican debate. Clearly Ron Paul made a favorable impression on many Internet users.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Who stood out from the pack? * 60583 responses
Sam Brownback 2.5%
Jim Gilmore 1.3%
Rudy Giuliani 16%
Mike Huckabee 3.7%
Duncan Hunter 1.8%
John McCain 7.8%
Ron Paul 38%
Mitt Romney 22%
Tom Tancredo 2.8%
Tommy Thompson 3.4%

Who showed the most leadership qualities? * 59793 responses
Sam Brownback 2.4%
Jim Gilmore 1.9%
Rudy Giuliani 17%
Mike Huckabee 3.6%
Duncan Hunter 2.1%
John McCain 12%
Ron Paul 33%
Mitt Romney 21%
Tom Tancredo 2.7%
Tommy Thompson 3.6%

Who was the most convincing candidate? * 59548 responses
Sam Brownback 2.9%
Jim Gilmore 1.8%
Rudy Giuliani 15%
Mike Huckabee 4.4%
Duncan Hunter 2.1%
John McCain 9.8%
Ron Paul 36%
Mitt Romney 21%
Tom Tancredo 3%
Tommy Thompson 3.7%

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings