From a Ron Paul Supporter, some responses. Believe them or not. Accept them or not:

-------------------------

Corrections

Published: December 27, 2007

Editor's Note

A post in The Medium blog that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/pageoneplus/27correx.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

-------------------------
Ron Paul on the "Defense Of Marriage" Act:

Before the House of Representatives, July 22, 2004.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313), I urge all my colleagues to support this bill. H.R. 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state's laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, which is what the drafters of the Constitution intended.

The practice of judicial activism--legislating from the bench--is now standard procedure for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated and, instead, treat the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the State of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But, rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the ``right to privacy'' to justify imposing the justices' vision on the people of Texas.

Since the Lawrence decision, many Americans have expressed their concern that the Court may next ``discover'' that state laws defining marriage violate the Court's wrongheaded interpretation of the Constitution. After all, some judges may simply view this result as taking the Lawrence decision to its logical conclusion.

One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages, to treat as valid a same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions as valid. This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation.

In 1996, Congress, exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the United States Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act that ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to ``prescribe the effects'' that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitates congressional action to ensure state officials are not forced to recognize another state's same-sex marriage licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation of the full faith and credit clause. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from ``judicial tyranny.''

Since the Marriage Protection Act only requires a majority vote in both houses of Congress and the President's signature to become law, it is a more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the President

[Page: H6610]

supports protecting state marriage laws from judicial tyranny, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot become law this year.

Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, in the name of liberty, leads to centralization and loss of liberty.

While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church, not the day they received their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:4:./temp/~r108SsxXsj:e284805:

----------------------
Civil Rights: From Wikipedia

Voting Rights Act

In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[190] Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[191] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. Many of Texas' Republican representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.[192] The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, and in a letter opposing the bill for this reason, 80 members of Congress including Paul objected to the costly implications of requiring bilingual ballots.[192] In one example cited in the letter, the members detailed how Los Angeles spent $2.1 million for the 2004 election to provide ballots in seven different languages and more than 2,000 translators, although one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and another California district spent $30,000 on translating ballots per election despite receiving only one request for Spanish documents in 16 years. The legislators also noted that printing in foreign languages increases the chances of ballot error, pointing out a specific example of erroneous translated ballots that had been used in Flushing, New York.[193]

[edit] Civil Rights Act of 1964

Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

It "not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."[191]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Voting_Rights_Act