william

Members
  • Content count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. And your assertion is based on what evidence? I acknowledge that he is wrong on the abortion/woman's right to choose issue. But he is right on so many other crucial issues. He is the only politician in this race who takes the principles enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights seriously. What do you find irrational in that? Wm
  2. Ron Paul received over 1.1 million votes cumulatively in the primaries. Evidently there were voters who did like what they saw and heard. Although their were others who liked him I believe they didn't vote for him only because they thought he didn't have a chance, which was the impression the main stream media wanted to convey. IF the www.DVDs4Delegates.com project is successful and Ron Paul does get the nomination at the nominating convention when McCain does not get the 1191 needed, then Ron Paul will have the attention he deserves and will offer the voters a more rational alternative than McCain or Obama. Wm
  3. I think that both Obama and McCain would be far worse as president. McCain is a loose cannon with no clear principles except his notion that each of us should be willing to give our lives for something greater than our own selfish interest. I don't know what he has in mind but he is totally out of touch with the individualism which this country is supposed to be all about. I agree with you that Ron Paul is wrong about the abortion issue and the stem cell research issue. I don't see him as a pacifist. He does oppose the fact that the US has troops on 826 military bases in 130 countries costing taxpayers close to one trillion dollars each year. Only he would bring most of them home enabling the IRS to be dismantled and the Income Tax to be abolished! You ought to watch his videos on youtube.com or at www.campaignforliberty.com or at www.whoisronpaul.name Watch the John Stossel video interviews. Only Ron Paul would stop the irrational War on Drugs which has destroyed so many lives and incarcerated so many immorally. Only Ron Paul sees the Federal Reserve System for what it is and would abolish it. Only Ron Paul is in favor of gold and/or silver backed currency to compete with the Federal Reserve Notes. Please learn more about him and his issues. I don't care if he thinks evolution is a theory or not. I do care that he wants to have a bill enacted which would consider unborn to be persons with rights! It hasn't passed, probably wouldn't stand up to challenge, but is not enough of a reason not to support him when he is so correct on so many other crucial issues. Obama might beat McCain. Ron Paul would be a superior candidate than McCain whom even Republicans dislike. Ron Paul has been elected to Congress eleven times and has never voted for bills not authorized in the Constitution. I know. I know. But the DVDs from www.dvds4delegates.com are almost ready to send to each and every delegate before the nominating convention and might be sufficiently persuasive so that McCain will not be chosen and Ron Paul might be chosen as the nominee! William
  4. Read this letter to the Republican National Committee and consider signing it. There is an anonymous option! http://www.lettertogop.com/ In addition there is a project to send persuasive DVDs to all the delegates and alternates the the Republican nominating convention. The first DVD is about to begin distribution next week and once it is sent it will be available for you to see on youtube.com The idea naturally is to influence enough delegates so that not only does McCain not get the nod but that it become feasible for Ron Paul to become the nominee of the Republican Party. www.DVDs4Delegates.com Click to donate to this worthy cause! Or if you prefer to petition the government for redress of grievances, a process dating back to the Magna Carta and much valued by our Founding Fathers who mention the failure of King George to respond to their polite petitions, check out the seven petitions served recently to every member of the Congress by the We The People Foundation: www.GiveMeLiberty.org/revolution galtgulch
  5. Ron Paul supporters managed to persuade voters in the Republican caucus in Alaska where 48% of the chosen delegates to the nominating convention are actually Ron Paul supporters! A decision was made to attempt to persuade the delegates at the convention in Minneapolis by sending two successive DVDs which are being professionally created and edited to enlighten the delegates that it is within their rights legally to vote based on the knowledge they may not have had when they were chosen at their caucuses. They can abstain during the first ballot thus freeing themselves from any pledge or bound status and can then vote their own judgment. If you are as displeased by the choices please consider a modest donation to www.dvds4delegates.com which is trying to have Ron Paul become the Republican Party nominee for president. Ron Paul supporters are the most passionate and active in advocating for him, raising funds, enlightening others and they are most knowledgeable about issues not even addressed by the others. Ron Paul would bring home troops from the 826 military bases in 130 countries in the world, cut the budget by close to one trillion dollars each year, abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing! www.dvds4delegates.com and click on donate today. Watch the video on the home page by Griffin. Join us at www.campaignforliberty.com. This movement will continue beyond the election. Wm
  6. There is another thread regarding government paying for legal representation for defendants. I have done a little research because I am aware that in certain states such as Massachusetts citizens may be legally committed by a judge to a psychiatric prison hospital if there is a question of his competency to stand trial, if there is a question of whether the person was criminally responsible at the time of his alleged offense (General Laws Chapter 123 Section 15B), or whether the person can serve his sentence in a penal environment or whether he needs to be treated in a prison hospital(General Laws Chapter 123 Section 18A). A person brought to a court and accused of a crime may be seen by a court psychologist (15A) who may request that the person be sent, committed, to a prison hospital for an evaluation of one kind or another. The person will be seen by a psychiatrist and medication prescribed while awaiting the court ordered evaluation by a forensic evaluator, who is usually a psychologist or a psychiatrist specially trained and certified to perform the evaluation and to submit a written report and who might submit a petition for further hospitalization, usually up to six months at first, with recommitment possible for up to one year each time. The other thread seemed to deal with issues of how to pay the lawyers who might be court appointed public defenders. I know that this payment was a result of legislation proposed by representatives of those public defenders who once performed the service pro bono. There endeavor was successful and periodically the lobby pleads for an increase in payments. Historically patients who had served time for certain sexual offenses were evaluated at the Treatment Center. If they were deemed to still be dangerous they were committed to a sentence of "one day to life!" Evidently Governor Weld thought too many were being released upon hearings by a judge. So Governor Weld sought legislation for there to be hearings with a jury present and the perhaps surprising consequence was that even more were released than with a judge alone deciding. My question has to do with the rights of a citizen to a trial by jury before he is committed for a period of up to six months rather than a hearing in a courtroom by a judge alone. Doesn't the Bill of Rights guarantee every citizen a right to a trial by jury of one's peers under the Sixth and Seventh Amendments? The person is not being tried for his offense rather is being committed for psychiatric treatment to restore him to "competency." I should thing that the reference in the Bill of Rights to cases of common law where the value involved exceeds twenty dollars is a condition that is met by the value of the freedom of the individual who loses sixth months of his liberty. I am unable to find any case law on the subject. I cannot imagine that no person ever subjected to this has never requested a jury trial rather than a hearing before a judge alone. I know they can have their appointed attorney request an independent medical evaluator who can see the person and may choose to testify on their behalf at the hearing but only before a judge not a jury. Reading the Bill of Rights leads one to believe that anyone has a right to a speedy trial by jury if he is charged with a crime or in a civil case where twenty dollars is the value at stake. Shouldn't that include the potential loss of six months of one's liberty? If a person were to request a trial or hearing by jury I suspect that motion would be denied but I just wonder why and what the reason would be, and why the Bill of Rights doesn't apply? Appreciate any thoughts or questions.