Republican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President
Accused of racist remarks in 1980s newsletters
It's the biggest setback to hit Ron Paul's candidacy for president: publicity about racially charged statements and other controversial comments in newsletters published in Mr. Paul's name in the 1980s and 1990s.
Paul responded by calling the newsletter statements "terrible" but insisting that he wasn't the one who wrote them. He added that the offensive comments totaled about "about eight or 10 sentences."
Some journalists who have researched the newsletters say it was a lot more than 10 sentences. The controversial statements that have surfaced stem largely from the period 1985 to 1994. Some samples: A Dec. 1989 newsletter predicted "Racial
Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.' " Paul said he had "some moral responsibility" for the words [since the words appeared in his newsletters].
Source: Mark Trumbull in Christian Science Monitor, "Timeline"
, Dec 29, 2011
Freedom is based on tolerance and non-violence
PERRY: Congressman Paul got me really intrigued with the whole federal reserve. Paul got me most interested in a subject that is at the root of a lot of the problems that we have.
PAUL: I have learned that you should never give up on your opposition.
Because if you're persistent, and you present your case, they will come your way. So Rick, I appreciate it. You're open to the federal reserve. That's wonderful. But I work from the assumption that freedom brings people together.
And if you understand freedom, it's based on tolerance and nonviolence. So if it's tolerance, it should be bringing all kinds of people together and that's following our Constitution.
And we shouldn't be fighting among ourselves. Where does the fight come from? Somebody is messing up somewhere. So I say that with persistence, I think that we can all prevail and come up with the right answers.
Routinely skips presidential speeches as "a bunch of fluff"
Ron Paul skipped President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress [on the American Jobs Act], joining a handful of other Republicans, including Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Jim DeMint of
South Carolina, who did not attend the president's speech.
Ron Paul has routinely skipped many similar events, including State of the Union addresses by presidents of both parties, dismissing such orations as "a bunch of fluff".
Source: www.ronpaul.com, response to 2011 Jobs Speech
, Sep 8, 2011
Congress should never prohibit Christian faith in public
Q: What is your definition of the separation of church & state?
PAWLENTY: The protections between the separation of church & state were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith.
Q: How will that affect
SANTORUM: I approach issues using faith and reason. And if your faith is pure and your reason is right, they'll end up in the same place.
Q: Does faith have a role in public issues?
PAUL: I think faith has something to do with
the character of the people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. We shouldn't expect us to try to change morality. You can't teach people how to be moral. But the Constitution addresses this by saying--
literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn't talk about church & state. The most important thing is the First Amendment. Congress shall write no laws--which means Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.
Government today threatens the American dream itself
The threat of government today, all over the world, may well present a greater danger than anything that occurred in the 20th century. We are policed everywhere we go: work, shopping, home, & church. Nothing is private anymore: not property, not family,
not even our houses of worship. We are encouraged to spy on each other and to stand passively as government agents scan us, harass us, and put us in our place day after day. If you object, you are put on a hit list. If you fight to reveal the truth, as
WikiLeaks or other websites have done, you are targeted. What is at stake is the American dream itself, which in turn is wrapped up with our standard of living. Too often, we underestimate what the phrase "standard of living" really means. It deals
directly with all issues that affect our material well-being, and therefore affects our outlook on life itself. The phrase "standard of living" comprises nearly all we expect out of life on this earth. It is, simply, how we are able to define our lives.
Patriotism means NOT being blindly obedient to the state
To be an American patriot means to love liberty. That's not the definition used today however. It's amazing and discouraging to see what is argued for in the name of patriotism. If you do not support funding for undeclared and illegal wars, you're
frequently called unpatriotic. If you do not support a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, you're said to be unpatriotic. Not being blindly obedient to the state or simply to challenge the power of the state is considered unpatriotic.
It is readily assumed that unquestioned loyalty to the government is synonymous with patriotism. Others, though, believe that a good patriot is one who is willing to stand up to his or her government when the rights of the people are being abused and whe
the government pursues bad policies. Great danger is imminent when any criticism of the government is considered unpatriotic. Patriotism never demands obedience to the state but rather obedience to the principles of liberty.
2008 "money bomb": $4M and $6M donations in one day
The 2008 election taught us some lessons about political money. One of the most impressive fundraisers of the entire presidential race was Republican Congressman Ron Paul. His quixotic campaign showed the power of a coherent, free-market,
anti-establishment message. One day in November, for instance, in an event organized by supporters rather than the campaign, Paul took in more than $4 million in donations. A month later, in a second "money bomb," Paul enjoyed a $6 million day.
Source: Obamanomics, by Tim Carney; foreword by Ron Paul, p.243
, Nov 30, 2009
1971 dropping of gold standard prompted first run for office
The monetary events that prompted me to enter politics occurred on Aug. 15, 1971. That Sunday evening, Nixon announced the US government would default on its pledge to deliver gold to any foreign government holding US dollars at the rate of one ounce of
gold for each $35.
In addition, wage and price controls were put in place. Instead of the markets collapsing, as I thought they would, the move was immediately praised by the Chamber of Commerce, and the stock market soared. The problems came a little
bit later and lasted for a decade.
It was the consequences of this event in 1971 that prompted me to decide on a lark in late 1973 to run for Congress in 1974. Texas was still a Democratic state. The district I was running in had never been held by a
Republican. My first victory didn't come until a special election in the spring of 1976. At the time, I was just anxious to have a forum in which to talk about monetary policy and its relationship to the inexorable growth of our federal government.
Just about everything Congress does is unconstitutional
[After swearing tp uphold support the Constitution in the oath of office], I rarely heard the Constitution spoken of again--not when considering legislation, not when considering any new government program. It was never used as justification for
legislation because there was little we did that fit within the limited powers of the federal government specified by the Constitution. Congressman Ron Paul from Texas, a physician and former presidential candidate, was known as "Dr. No" because he voted
no on almost every piece of legislation. He argued that just about everything Congress did was unconstitutional. He was usually right.
It doesn't take a legal scholar to see that the main purpose of the Constitution is to limit the role, scope, and
power of the federal government. It does this by dividing and specifying the duties and powers of the federal government and by reserving all other powers to individuals or the states.
You can see the growing influence of the faux-cons in the 2008 election cycle from the so-called Ron Paul Revolution to the economics-only conservatism reflected by some of the supporters of Mitt Romney and
Rudy Giuliani (even if not entirely by the candidates themselves).
Don't get me wrong--libertarianism is a perfectly legitimate political persuasion and worldview as long as it is honest about what it is.
Either out of ignorance or indifference, many of those who are true libertarians call themselves Republicans or conservatives. But, in fact, there are distinct differences. Before I get singed by hot and angry mail from Ron Paul disciples,
I want to be emphatic in stating my sincere respect for Congressman Paul. I was convinced that at least had some genuine convictions and was willing to stand by them and on them no matter the audience.
OpEd: Faux-con libertarians like Paul worship Ayn Rand
I call the new breed of political animal, which carries an attitude of supreme superiority for its "purity," the "faux-cons." Their passion for their viewpoint goes beyond "loud and proud" and just substitutes volume for veracity. Faux-cons use
dismissive language to accuse those who disagree as being anything from RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), socialists, big-government Republicans, or religious nuts. (They tarred me with nearly all of those labels).
The irony of the faux-cons is that
while they are marked by their disdain and sometimes outright contempt of religious people, they are, however, devotees of a religion, albeit one that is pagan in nature. In the case of libertarians (the faux-cons), the god of choice is personal power
and wealth. If there is a Muhammad-like prophet for them, it might be Ayn Rand, but this philosophy has many disciples, and most of them don't even realize they are devotees of a worldview that's as much a religion as an economic system.
The Republican leadership urged these freshmen congressmen to focus on a toothless, soporific agenda called the Contract with America that was boldly touted as a major overhaul of the federal government.
Nothing could have been further from the truth. The Brookings Institution in effect said that if this is what conservatives consider revolutionary, they have conceded defeat.
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 3
, Apr 1, 2008
11/5/07: Set fundraising record of $4 million in single day
I was a reluctant candidate, not at all convinced that a sizable enough national constituency existed for a campaign based on liberty and the Constitution rather than on special interest pandering and the distribution of loot. Was I ever wrong.
On November 5, 2007, we set a record when we raised over $4 million online in a single day. Not only is the freedom message popular, it is more intensely popular than any other political message.
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 4
, Apr 1, 2008
We lost because we’re neither compassionate nor conservative
The old Reagan days when we used to say to get rid of the Department of Education! That’s what we ought to be doing. So when we got our chance, what did we do? We doubled the size of the Department of Education. We put No Child Left Behind. We’ve
lost credibility, and now we’re losing House seats. We’ve lost control of the House and Senate, and right now it looks like we’re going to lose even more. It’s not because we are not compassionate; it’s because we’re not CONSERVATIVE that we’re losing.
Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference
, Feb 7, 2008
Liberty promotes peace, and peace promotes prosperity
If you follow the Constitution, you will defend freedom. Freedom brings people together. It allows people to run their lives as they choose, it allows them to practice religion as they choose, it is not confrontational & not antagonistic. The welfare
state, the warfare state, & the socialist state, is exactly the opposite. It divides us, because they take away our wealth, they control it in Washington. What is happening today? Millions of dollars of campaign funds & PAC money, and lobbying efforts to
control the money that gravitates to Washington, DC. The pie is shrinking, and the people are getting angry, and we have forgotten what a free country is all about. We’ve lost our confidence, because we have to have safety nets here and safety nets here
and do all of these things. It’s coming to an end and there’s a wonderful, beautiful answer. It comes in our traditions and it comes in the principles of liberty. If you promote liberty, liberty promotes peace. And peace promotes prosperity.
Tyranny and inflation are ancient, Bill of Rights isn’t
Somewhere along the way in the campaign they coined the term “Ron Paul Revolution.” It has nothing to do with Ron Paul Revolution. It has to do with the continuation of the grand revolution that we have been blessed with and that we have benefited by.
But there’s no reason why we should give up on it. Some say, “You want to go back to old times, hundreds of years ago.” Well, age has nothing to do with that. The principle of habeas corpus is a lot older than that and we shouldn’t be giving up on that.
But going back & picking up on the principles in the Bill of Rights is not going back to ancient times. What is ancient, is the inflationary system. It has been known for thousands of years how that debased currency. But also, tyranny is what is ancient.
And now we’re getting total control of our lives and loss of our privacy and loss of our freedoms and loss of our economic benefits. That is old-fashioned. What is new today is something that is just restoration of what we had.
A: I wouldn’t have appointed her, because I would have looked for somebody that I would have seen as a much stricter constitutionalist.
Source: 2008 Republican debate at Reagan Library in Simi Valley
, Jan 30, 2008
The Republicans don’t act like Republicans anymore
My biggest concern is they won’t stick to the party principles that Republicans stood for so long: balanced budgets and limited government and individual freedom. The Republican Party has a problem because we don’t act like Republicans. We’re spending
money that we don’t have, we’ve run up these deficits. In the old days we used to be against the Department of Education; now we’ve doubled the size of it. No child Left behind. Even the Democrats are running against some of the things that we do.
They used to love that kind of stuff. It used to be that we stop the wars. We stopped the Korean War. We were supposed to stop the Vietnam War the Democrats started. Here we’re starting these wars. That’s why we’ve lost our way. So I don’t think it’s
a matter of me leaving the Republican Party. Yet they say: Oh, you’re too strict on the Constitution. Why should us who believe strictly in the Constitution, the rule of law, be excluded? That’s what the Republican Party used to stand for.
Reagan ran on limited government, but increased its size
Q: On your Web site, you make this claim: “Principled Leadership. Ron was also one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president against Gerald Ford in 1976.” And yet you divorced yourself from Ronald Reagan. You spoke of him
as a traitor leading the country into debt & conflicts around the world, saying, “I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration.”
A: I’ll bet you any money I didn’t use the word ‘traitor.’ So I think that’s misleading. But a
failure, yes, in many ways. The government didn’t shrink. Ultimately, after he got in office, he said, “All I want to do is reduce the rate of increase in size of government.” That’s not my goal. My goal is to reduce our government to a constitutional
Q: But if he’s a total failure, why are you using, using his picture in your brochure?
A: Well, because he ran on a good program, and his idea was a limited government. Get rid of the Department of Education, a strong national defense.
Q: George Herbert Walker Bush, according to the Nov. 1996 Ron Paul Political Report: “Bush is a bum.” And asked about the current President Bush, whether you voted for him in 2004: “Paul says no: ‘He misled us in 2000.’” Asked if you voted for Bush in
2000: “No, I didn’t vote for him then, either. I wasn’t convinced he was a conservative.” And actually, in 1987, you submitted a letter of resignation to the Republican Party: If Reagan’s a failure, Bush 41 is a bum, you didn’t vote for Bush 43, and you
resigned from the Republican Party, why you running as a Republican candidate for president?
A: Because I represent what Republicanism used to be--that part of the Republican Party that used to be non-interventionists overseas; when the Republicans
defended individual liberty and the Constitution and decreased spending. So the reason the Republican Party is shrinking, why the base is so small, is because they don’t stand for these ideals any more. So I stand for the ideals of the Republican Party.
99% no intention to run as independent if he loses GOP race
Q: If you do not win the Republican nomination for president, will you run as an independent in 2008?
A: I have no intention to do that.
Q: Absolute promise?
A: I have no intention of doing that.
Q: Well, but “no intention” is a wiggle word.
A: Well, I deserve one wiggle now and then.
Q: So no Shermanesque statement like “I will not run as an independent.”
A: I have no intention, no plans of doing it, and that’s about 99.9%. I don’t like those absolutists terms in politics.
But the door’s open a little bit.
A: Not very much. We have February 5th coming up. We have a campaign to run. How many other candidates have you asked, “Are you going to run as a third party candidate if you don’t win?”
Have you asked John McCain that?
Q: Well, if someone has a history of running as a third party candidate, sure. You ran in ‘88 as a Libertarian. It’s a logical question.
Breaks one-day fundraising record: $6M at “Boston Tea Party”
Ron Paul raised an astounding $6 million & change Sunday. The campaign announced they had eclipsed the $5.7 million that John Kerry raised the day after he locked up the 2004 Democratic nomination--arguably the largest single-day fundraising haul in US
Paul, whose campaign has been embraced by a zealous community of online supporters, raised $4.2 million on Nov. 5, [corresponding with Guy Fawkes Day]. The current fundraising effort was timed for the 234th anniversary of the Boston
Tea Party, a day meant to resonate with the Libertarian sensibilities of his supporters.
The man who engineered it-- Trevor Lyman, a 37-year-old music promoter--has no official ties to the campaign and had no political experience before he engineered
the innovative model for Nov. 5. He set up a website that solicited pledges for contributions to be made directly to the Paul campaign on that day--a technique that became known as a “money bomb,” which he used again to such great effect Sunday.
Source: USA Today
, Dec 17, 2007
All political action’s goal should be to preserve liberty
The goal of all political action should be to preserve liberty. We need more freedom in this country, and look to ourselves in what we are doing. The Constitution was written to restrain our government. Yet we turned around, and the Constitution now is
used to restrain the people. If we don’t restrain the government in undermining our personal liberties, controlling our economic well-being, and using it as an excuse to police the world, this country is going to suffer a very serious economic crisis.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate
, Dec 12, 2007
The term “revolution” was coined by the supporters
The term “revolution” wasn’t my word, and it didn’t come up on our web page. It was coined by the supporters. In a way, it is revolutionary to go back to the Constitution, and we’d like to continue the old revolution.
Freedom is unifying; we bring a lot of people together. People then are free to choose what they would like to do with their lives, free to choose how they would spend their money, and all of a sudden, we would be telling other countries how to live.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate
, Dec 12, 2007
Broke fundraising records by spontaneous support on Internet
Q: The latest poll in Iowa has you at 7%, the same number as John McCain, behind Huckabee, Romney, & Giuliani. As far as fund-raising is concerned though--and this is significant--in the last quarter that ended, you had raised $5 million.
But there is some suggestion in this final quarter of 2007, you could raise more money than any of the other Republican presidential candidates, given the enormous amount you have raised online. So, in this quarter, what, $8 million, $9 million?
Yesterday it went over $10.5 million. Our goal was to raise $12 million by the end of the quarter. And there is going to be another super day sponsored by our supporters, spontaneously, like they did on 11/5, when they raised $4.3 million.
And they say this one is going to be bigger, and that’s December 16th. So, something big is going on. The people are really annoyed with conventional politics, and we’re spending this money in Iowa. So I think those polls are going to continue to shift.
Blogosphere hails Paul/Gravel ticket with cross-party appeal
Mike Gravel declares, in his “National Initiative for Democracy”, in language to set many a progressive heart beating: “The central power of government in a democracy is lawmaking--not voting. Governments throughout history have been tools of oppression;
they need not be.” He then, however, adds this caveat: “American citizens can gain control of their government by becoming lawmakers and turning its purpose to public benefit, and stemming government growth--the people are the more conservative than
their elected officials regardless of political party.“ It’s this kind of rhetoric that is winning Gravel fans among libertarians, who have helped make him an unlikely favorite on user-generated news sites like Digg.com (where some are hailing a ticket
of ”Mike Gravel/Ron Paul“ --or vice versa).
The idea of direct democracy might have broad appeal to an electorate sick of a political system mired in soft money, corporate cronyism, and partisan gridlock.
Only support GOP nominee if they end war & reduce spending
Q: Do you promise to support the nominee of the Republican Party next year?
PAUL: Not right now I don’t, not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home, not unless they’re willing to look at excessive spending.
MCCAIN: You don’t want me then, pal.
PAUL: No, I’m not going to support them if they continue down the path which has taken our party down the tubes.
I mean, we’ve lost credibility because of all our spending, because we have violated the civil liberties of all the American people, and we have adopted the Democrats’ foreign policy.
Why don’t we run on George Bush’s foreign policy of a humble foreign policy and no nation building and don’t police the world? Then I’ll support them.
Washington shouldn’t dictate to us our personal behavior
We have resorted to going to Washington for everything. We cannot go to Washington to dictate to us how we improve our personal behavior. You don’t dictate, you don’t legislate virtue.
In a free society, you do that from people, from your family, your friends, and your neighbors, but not in the federal government.
GOP will continue losing elections with current Iraq policy
PAUL: [to Huckabee] A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives, hijacked our foreign policy. They’re responsible, not the American people.
HUCKABEE: We are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to
be one nation, under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America.
PAUL: No, when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their
representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake.
HUCKABEE: And that’s what we do on the floor of the Senate.
PAUL: No, we’ve dug a hole for ourselves and we’ve dug a hole for our party. We’re losing elections and we’re going down
next year if we don’t change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy and we have to wake up to this fact.
HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important than [electoral gains for] the Republican Party
I’m Ron Paul. I’m a congressman from Texas, serving in my 10th term. I am the champion of the Constitution.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College
, Jun 5, 2007
Congress should write fewer laws regarding church & state
Q: You ran for president once before as a Libertarian. What do you say about this whole issue of church and state and these issues that are coming forward right now?
A: I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, “Congress shall write no
law.” And we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn’t be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials--we just don’t need more laws determining religious things or prayer in school.
We should allow people at the local level. That’s what the Constitution tells us. We don’t need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do, because we don’t have perfect knowledge.
And that’s the magnificence of our Constitution and our republic. We sort out the difficult problems at local levels and we don’t have one case fit all. That’s why we shouldn’t have it at a central level.
In Congress, Paul has earned the nickname “Dr. No” for voting against any bill he believes violates the Constitution. Ron Paul is not your typical Republican. He strongly opposes the war in Iraq. He voted against the Patriot Act, and warns that
President Bush is going down a dangerous path toward war with Iran. Paul ran as the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee in 1988. But now he wants to change the Republican Party from within by running for President.
Source: Jill Morrison on KUHF, Houston Public Radio
, Jan 17, 2007
Neocons believe in secrecy, deceit, & imperialism
Here is a brief summary of what neocons believe:
They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution
They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East
They believe in preemptive war to achieve their desired ends
They accept the notion that
the ends justify the means
They express no opposition to the welfare state
The endorse an American empire
They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive
They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit
They believe pertinent facts should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it
They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised
They believe imperialism is appropriate
Using American might
to force American ideals on others is acceptable
9/11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many
They dislike libertarians and all constitutionalists
They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as the Patriot Act
Appears that American republic is in its waning days
Two hundred years ago the United States Constitution was written as a guide for America’s unique experiment in freedom. Today the free society that the Founders envisaged is barely identifiable.
The feeling of frustration prevalent in the country today is certainly understandable. Government is so big and the bureaucracy so cumbersome that the average person has little to say about his economic destiny.
Not surprisingly, half of the people don’t register to vote and less than half of those who do rarely vote.
Something certainly has gone wrong. The role of government and the people’s attitude toward government have changed dramatically since
1787, with most of the changes occurring in the 20th century. It appears that we are in the waning days of the Republic.
The Adherents.com website is an independent project and is not supported by or affiliated with any organization (academic, religious, or otherwise).
What’s an adherent?
The most common definition used in broad compilations of statistical data is somebody who claims to belong to or worship in a religion. This is the self-identification method of determining who is an adherent of what religion, and it is the method used in most national surveys and polls.
Such factors as religious service attendance, belief, practice, familiarity with doctrine, belief in certain creeds, etc., may be important to sociologists, religious leaders, and others. But these are measures of religiosity and are usually not used academically to define a person’s membership in a particular religion. It is important to recognize there are various levels of adherence, or membership within religious traditions or religious bodies. There’s no single definition, and sources of adherent statistics do not always make it clear what definition they are using.
Source: Adherents.com web site 00-ADH10 on Nov 7, 2000
Member of the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Paul is the chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus:
What is the RLC?
The Republican Liberty Caucus is a grassroots, nationwide organization affiliated with the Republican Party (GOP). The goal of the RLC is to elect pro-liberty individuals to office. The RLC was founded in 1990, and now has members in every state.
What does the RLC do?
We are expanding our nationwide base of pro-liberty Republicans. We publish a national newsletter and some state chapters publish newsletters as well.
What is the RLC’s platform?
The RLC doesn’t have an official platform like the major parties, because it is a political club and only affiliated with a major party. There is, however, an official list of RLC positions that emphasizes limited government across the board. The document was adopted at the 1996 RLC convention. Individual RLC members do not necessarily concur with every position, and it is not a requirement of membership to endorse it. It does seem to reflect the general views of the members.
Why don’t you just join the Libertarian Party?
Many in our group have been LP members, some still are. Our past chairman, Rep. Ron Paul, was the LP presidential candidate in 1988. Our Past Treasurer, Mike Holmes, was a founding member of the LP.
Everyone in the RLC joined for their own reasons, but it can be presumed that they all would agree that in many races the GOP is the best way to go in order to actually get a libertarian elected. It can also be said that the LP runs educational campaigns, where the goal is not actually electing someone, but educating the public about the libertarian philosophy. We are interested in getting someone who holds the libertarian philosophy elected.
Will the RLC support an LP candidate?
The RLC does not support LP candidates in a race where there is a GOP candidate. This does not mean that individual RLC members are party line voters. A person’s individual choice with regards to voting is not a litmus test for participation in the RLC.
Source: Republican Liberty Caucus web site 00-RLC0 on Dec 8, 2000
Rated 17% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation.
Paul scores 17% by the AU on church-state separation
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 AU scores as follows:
0%- 20%: opposition to church-state separation (approx. 232 members)
21%- 79%: mixed record on church-state separation (approx. 79 members)
80%-100%: support of church-state separation (approx. 153 members)
About the AU (from their website, www.au.org):
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
AU is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.
Americans United is a national organization with members in all 50 states. We are headquartered in Washington, D.C., and led by the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director. AU has more than 75,000 members from all over the country. They include people from all walks of life and from various faith communities, as well as those who profess no particular faith. We are funded by donations from our members and others who support church-state separation. We do not seek, nor would we accept, government funding.