Civil Liberties

Would you want to live in a world where everyone knew everything about everyone?

And in case you’re wondering, that’s not where we’re headed. Instead, we’re blindly marching towards a dark future where the government knows everything about you but you know nothing about the government.

Remember the media’s hysterical outcry when Obama’s passport details were illegally accessed during the Democratic primaries in 2008? The fact that the privacy of regular citizens is routinely subjected to much more serious abuse was conveniently ignored.

The “Patriot” Act, which was supposed to fight terrorism, allows the government to snoop on average citizens, obtain nationwide search warrants without local judicial oversight, monitor private Internet usage (that includes our emails and surfing habits), search our homes and offices without our knowledge, and force libraries and bookstores to turn over our reading records.

There is no financial privacy left in this country. Banks have become a one stop shop for overzealous government snoops and other privacy violators, and we’ve been working overtime to impose our paranoid “Know Your Customer” standards on the rest of the world.

Medical privacy has deteriorated in a similar manner. Our medical records are being transcribed in India and insurance companies and other entities have the right to access our medical history any time they choose.

Ron Paul is one of the nation’s foremost defenders of our privacy. He keeps fighting against misguided Know Your Customer rules and the misnamed “Patriot” Act.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution and help us rebuild a nation where our right to be left alone has priority over the government’s desire to know everything.

  • Llana

    We weren’t supposed to write him in? Oops. My ballot was sent off already… absentee. I did write in Ron Paul. I’m sorry about that Ron. I didn’t know. All I knew is that it asked who I wanted for President and I wasn’t about to lie. If I didn’t vote, it would be the first time in my life that I didn’t since I turned 18.


  • JJ

    Ron Paul, you sir are the only hope for this God-forsaken country. Thank you sir for your upright stand, in the future of this nation. We are on the boundary of many unfortunate changes and it is nice to see somebody care in congress.

  • Joe

    Read, and re-read what Calvin said. Make it your mantra.


  • Mathew McIntyre

    Ron Paul is not against gay marriage. He says gov’ts should not even have a say in marriage and that it is a religious function. He is not opposed to any arrangements free people willfully make. google “stossel ron paul” for some good interviews and you can hear it straight from his own mouth.

    Ron Paul is all about freedom and If there is something you feel like you should be allowed to do, that doesn’t hurt anyone or deny anybody’s rights, you can bet Ron Paul has your back.

  • Tim Champion

    Hi All,
    The thing with civil unions, is that they are endorsed by the government, the same as traditional marriages. The officiating priest/rabbi/minister etc. says “..And now, by the power vested in me, by the state of (yours here), I now pronounce you man and wife.” In a civil ceremony, the authority comes from the government, be it state or local. That’s why it’s different from the common law marriage, which is backed by inalienable rights given us by our creator. I believe that Dr. Paul recognizes no government discretion in any capacity is far better than a government sponsored attempt to legitimize something, in the effort to make it “equal”.

  • bridget

    Ron Paul ethically does not believe in gay marriage or civil unions for gays. But he also does not believe that it’s his or the government’s job to make that decision. As a homosexual individual, I find Ron Paul’s answer more calming and sensible than that of our current politics. Let the people decide what they want, and when the people make the wrong decision, which they will do (Civil Rights Movement), that is when the government intervenes. So what would Ron Paul say if it was the government’s turn to step in? Well, I’d hope he’d say let’s follow the Constitution, regardless of what an individual’s bias is.

  • mel

    I was for Ron Paul and read his book until I found out he was against Gay Marrriage and civil unions. That is why I’m glad he is not running. I like his foriegn policy but if I have a job, pay taxes and serve this country and risk my life for this country I should be given the same rights as everyone else. Illegal immigrants get more bennifits and rights than I do. What is wrong with this picture. I’m a US citizen paying taxes and have social security taken out of my pay check but I can’t choose who I want to marry.

    • Chris

      Well i dont think you read his book that throughly or watched him in intervviews as you have stated. Ron has stated, marriage is a religious entity and it is up to the states and religions to decide who gets married, not the federal government, but remember this doesnt mean gay couples dont get the same rights as straight couples, it just means its not up to the federal government to change what marriage is every time a group doesnt like its definition.

  • Karen Hartman

    Ron Paul is against gay marriage, civil unions abortion etc. I think that’s ok but some things are none of the governments business. I mean do you really think they will reverse roe vs wade? I think not. We would have alot of botched back alley abortions. People just need to raise their kids right. I am against stem cell research. And late term abortions. I don’t think we should have them at all but if a woman chooses to do so make them do it early. I’m so torn because I don’t want anyone to do that but it’s not up to me or you. They have to meet their maker and face it one day.

    • Karen Phelan

      I believe Ron Paul doesn’t want the federal government involved with decisions on gay marriage, civil unions, and abortion. He wants to leave that up to each State to decide.

      By the way, I feel the same way you do about the moral issues you mentioned.

  • Karen Hartman

    I still believe in Ron Paul but I really like Barack Obama. I know he can’t do it all but the guy at least wants to and that’s more than McCain. I would not be voting Hillary if she were the candidate. I would write in Ron Paul. Hillary lost my respect when she and McSame both talked more about what Obama was doing rather than what she would do. She had her chance, blew it and now McSame is spinng his wheels and we just hear alot of the same.

  • Karen Hartman

    Ron Paul was my first choice. I was on board a couple of years ago. I have given money to his campaign and was very hopeful for him. f Although,rom what I understand he has asked that we not write his name in so I’m going to respect that but I will not vote McCain! I am going to vote democrat this time. Normally, I would write his name in as I voted for Ross Perot two times when everyone said it was a wasted vote. To me no vote is a wasted vote. I am still glad I voted
    for Ross Perot because I really didn’t like the other candidates.
    What I like about Ron Paul is that he runs a clean campaign, he doesn’t waste my donations on trashing others.
    The only other hopefuls that I liked are Ross and Barack Obama.
    Sorry guys but I have to vote the better choice this time. I do feel we need change in this country and it’s not John McSame.
    Thanks, Karen Hartman, Willingboro, NJ

  • Max Berry

    I’m considering voting for Ron Paul. What is his stance on the abortion issue and stem-cell research?

  • Glenn Snead

    Ron, the simple fact of privacy is this: Our bureaucracy is splintered, inefficient, and prone to social engineering attacks. I know the EFF hates large cross agency databases but so long as we rely upon Privacy Act information in electronic stove pipes (Word, Excel, Access, etc) that can be carried as files on a laptop we will never ensure our privacy. The people I’ve known who became citizens, the hardest problem was keeping the INS from loosing the darn paperwork! Until we clean up the data collection, storage, and access practices in our executive branch we can never truly consider our privacy protected, Privacy Act or not.

  • ron paul

    What is Ron’s stand on gay marriage and committed partner unions?

  • B.Price

    What is Ron’s stand on a Pardons for the hundred of thousands, falsely accused of Drug Possesion or Drug Pharanelia. Many of these charges are from Bad Cops.

  • Michael J. Howard, the bill also gave government the control over personal genetic information. They shouldn’t have the information in the first place.

    Bill names are deceptive also. You have to read the bill, not just the name of the bill.

    Private property rights protect our genetic information. We own ourselves, not the government. Not unless I give them my permission to my genetic information do they have any right to it. The courts are required to protect everyones property rights equally, not just one certain race. Passing anti-discrimination legislation only reinforces the problem of racial discrimination in our society. Law should be blind to discrimination.

    This is what Ron Paul writes about discrimination by race:
    “In the long run, the only way racism can be overcome is through the philosophy of individualism, which I have promoted throughout my life. Our rights come to us not because we belong to some group, but our rights come to us as individuals. And it is as individuals that we should judge one another. Racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby individuals are treated not on their merits but on the basis of group identity. Nothing in my political philosophy, which is the exact opposite of racial totalitarianism of the twentieth century, gives aid or comfort to such thinking. To the contrary, my philosophy of individualism is the most radical intellectual challenge to racism ever posed.” — Ron Paul

  • Michael, You have to understand that if Ron Paul thinks something should be decided at the state level rather than the federal level, he will vote no. If we allow the federal government to vote on everything we centralize power, rather than doing what the constitution intended, allowing us, the people, and our local elected governments, govern certain aspects of like and law that should not be decided by the federal government.

    He is not necessarily voting against the idea, he is voting against federal government choosing rather than the local govt.

  • Calvin L

    Ron Paul’s reasoning for his nay vote:
    “Because of the federal government’s poor record in protecting privacy, I do not believe the best way to address concerns about the misuse of genetic information is through intrusive federal legislation,”

    The only reason why Ron Paul votes against the entire House for anything, it is against the Constitution of the United States!

  • RedPhalanx

    Also, in order to enforce this law correctly, the Federal government would have to keep an record of everyone’s genetic makeup. There are serious privacy issues that arise from that.

  • Mark

    Perceived high-risk genetics are not the fault of a person subjected to them, but they’re not my fault either, so why should I pay for other people’s supposedly higher risk through increased insurance rates?

    We might as well do away with risk analysis and have everyone pay the same rates no matter how likely they are to fall ill, thereby eliminating all financial incentives for proactive prevention because if you have problems of any kind your (by then probably nationalized) insurance company will take care of you for the rest of your life without increasing your rates.

    On the other hand, I do believe that genetic factors are overrated and that they give people a false sense of security or doom. At the same time, I don’t believe that insurance companies should be forced by the government to take or not to take certain factors into consideration.

    That’s just my opinion. I don’t know Ron Paul’s reasoning in this case, but it has probably do something with the Constitution, or his insights as a medical doctor into the problem.

  • Michael J. Howard

    I was very much a Ron Paul supporter, even though I knew that average Americans simply could not bring themselves to vote for such a “progressive” (albeit in reality closer to the founding fathers’ dreams than any modern politician), until I found out that he was the ONLY vote against a bill meant to protect people from being discriminated against based on their genetics. I can’t find a single word as to why he would make such a Bush-like error, but it is making me think that perhaps it is a good thing that my primary vote for him didn’t help him after all. Can ANYONE defend his nay vote? I doubt it!!! (By the way, I joined his campaign and did whatever I could to get people to actually listen to his words and look at his record, rather than blindly believing whatever the media tells them to believe!)

    • Matthew Blackmon

      It probably had parts in it that were unconstitutional, and therefore he voted it down.

    • Keeno

      I am unfamiliar with the legislation in question but I would surmise that it was because (and I am assuming this is for hiring practices etc) a private business owner has the right to discriminate against a percieved business risk as unfortunate as that is to the other person.

      I’m a minority. If a (private single owner) bar opened up an establishment that said none of my kind allowed then so be it. It makes that person a jerk but it’s his money to invest. I don’t have a “right” to patronize that place. It’s no different than discriminating who comes into my house. My house=my rules. I’ll vote that bar out with my wallet. A person who takes all the financial risk (meaning no public funds) in an enterprise shouldn’t be subject to other people’s ethics on who they can or can’t hire, fire, serve, cater to or discriminate against.

      So again my guess is that he voted no because of how it relates to free market forces rather than him supporting active discrimination against people.

      • Byron

        You nailed it. Principles, principles, principles, they work if applied.

        • Lindsey Brutus

          In government employment, I can understand laws making discrimination illegal. However, private business is different. Yes, principles work when applied!

    • someone

      Would you mind letting me know what bill you are referring to? I would like to look it up for myself, and I’m sure many others reading your post would like to do the same.

      Thank you.

    • Sammy T

      Blah, Blah, Blah…