Liberals terrified: Paul “most conservative in modern history”
Liberal columnist Bob Cesca can’t say enough disgusting things about Ron Paul, but amid the type of rabid, off-color comments we might expect from a leftist—such as calling the Congressman’s presidential campaign “political masturbation”—a striking, stalwart, stone-cold fact arises like the Washington monument. Ron Paul is measurably “the most conservative member of Congress in modern history.”
To a liberal this is a deathly insult, of course, but to conservatives it is a credential.
It is also a myth-buster for many people. While Rick Santorum, Dick Morris and others claim that Paul is “to the left of Obama,” the facts prove quite otherwise:
Based on statistics culled from the American Journal of Political Science and Common Space Score calculations from 1937 to 2002, Ron Paul has the most conservative record out of the entire roster of more than 3,000 Congress members from both chambers during that considerably long span of time. Put another way, Ron Paul is the most conservative member of Congress in modern history. Think of the most right-wing legislator you can come up with. Ron Paul is to that person’s right. Michele Bachmann, Steve King, Rick Santorum, Louie Gohmert — Ron Paul has them beat by miles.
Go ahead, check out who is the most conservative Congressman period since at least 1937 based on all the actual roll call votes taken in Congress during that time: you’ll have to scroll to the very bottom of this list of 3,320 names (because the top of the list is the most liberal). Facts don’t lie.
So Cesca asks the obvious question: “what about all of that aforementioned ‘horrendous libertarian baggage?’” He then lists Paul’s positions on cutting the size of government: to hear a liberal tell it, it sounds like a conservative paradise. The section is too long to quote here fairly, so the interested reader should click through to read it all if they want. But the leftist’s horror is evident throughout:
He wants to eliminate many cabinet level departments including the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service.
This alone should be a deal breaker for progressives. But there are many, many more.
Indeed, the list includes cutting cabinet positions, departments, taxes, the budget back to 2000 levels at least, and supporting tax cuts for everyone including the rich and businesses, as supporting constitutional letters of marque and reprisal. And Cesca is especially horrified that
Paul is staunchly pro-life and supports the criminalization of abortion — calling for the arrest of abortion doctors, presumably for murder.
Paul is quoted on his website: “There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist.” . . .
[And] he supported the Defense of Marriage Act. He also co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which beefed up DOMA and stopped judges from overturning the rule.
The list goes on. So why is Cesca worried that Paul is “no friend to” and “should be a deal breaker for progressives”?
Simple. Paul is doing something no other Republican has done in a long, long time: converting Democrats into Republicans. This would mean bad news for Obama: “progressives have been abandoning support for the president (many of them were never supporters in the first place, going back to the chaotic 2008 primaries) and shifting their support to Ron Paul.”
Indeed, many of these people were not true progressive Democrats anyway and are just learning what freedom really means. And such liberation has establishment members on both the left and the right fighting to marginalize Paul’s message.
Continue Reading on www.huffingtonpost.com
The "most conservative in modern history" ain't saying much. Anything (including Paul who wouldn't even admit that Yahweh views sodomy a sin – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE) left of Yahweh's morality as found in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9) is left, liberal, and ungodly. Man's center is arbitrary, thus what he calls left and right is arbitrary as well. Yahweh's morality is our only ironclad standard by which everything must be judged.
See "Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/law-kingdom.php.
You sir are an idiot. Government and religion have no place together.
Jesus is Lord, Kevin. And not just over spiritual or religious matters. He's Lord over ALL matters, even government. Read Psalm 2, paying particular attention to the end of it. That's God's view of the matter; and if you think Ted R. Weiland is an idiot, you must also think God's position on the issue to be idiotic as well. I don't necessarily agree with Ted's conclusion on Ron Paul in this case, but he's far from an idiot. He's making a very honest attempt at adopting God's perspective on life. You would be wise to do the same.
Thank you and well-said, Sam!
Kevin, in addition to Sam's response, the fact is there is no separating religion from government; in fact:
"There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.
"People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?"
For more, see "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YHWH" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….
Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to Yahweh's moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Take our Constitution Survey at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/constitutionsurvey… and receive a free copy of the "Primer" (an 85 page book, normally $7 plus shipping) of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."
I wouldn't read the Huffington Post even if it were the only paper published.
No one, WITH a brain, does….
If I need a good laugh from feeling low I read the Huffington Post. It's hilarious to read what they write and they actually believe what they print. Some point of view, incredible but funny.
I got tossed off of the post about 5 years ago because I commented on the North American Union, then got in a fight with the editor over the issue. He claimed there was no such thing. Any idiot can google the "NAU/NWO" and there are floor speeches on the issue in addition to all kinds of other information on the subject. The Huffington Post lost all respect from me since they are obviously in bed with the very people that would erase our borders. They are a prime example of 'monitored' media.
Romney, Santorum & Gingrich (socialist governor & voting records) or Dr. Paul (anti-socialist voting record)? I choose Dr. No!
LMAO! RP, ??????
This is a joke, right? Perhaps on some things, fiscally, perhaps….but foreign policy? This guys is farther left than even onumbnutz!
Can't be a serious article…..entertaining though…..but, he ain't gonna win!
Liberals fear Dr. Dementia? LMAO. If this fraud ever got the nomination, Obama and the DNC would roll on the floor dying of laughter. That would be the only positive to come out of it.
I know! He's so crazy! Can you believe he actually wants the government to stop spending money?! What a nut! And he thinks the United States should keep their nose out of everyone else's business?! What a weirdo! He thinks liberty and freedom are more important than nanny state politics?! What the fuck?! And get this, he actually thinks we should follow the constitution, instead of wiping our ass with it!!! This Paul guy is clearly crazy and dangerous!!!
Millicent,
Ron Paul is rock solid on the Constitution by every measure taken
Ron Paul has NEVER voted for a single earmark – Twist all you want but that is an undisputable fact
Ron Paul is the only politician who consistently speaks for and votes for LIBERTY
Ron Paul voted for real national security in a world filled with nuclear armed nations – SDI
Ron Paul believes the government should be accountable by not keeping secrets from voters (Bradley Manning)
Ron Paul believes in freedom of speech, ESPECIALLY in regards to secret actions of our government (Bradley Manning)
Ron Paul believes the government works for us, not the other way around
Ron Paul has had no criminal record.
Ron Paul has had no ethical problems.
Ron Paul has been a great family man.
Ron Paul has been an accomplished doctor.
Ron Paul has had a sterling record in Congress in support of the American people.
Ron Paul has been humble and caring.
Ron Paul has served our nation's military honorably.
Ron Paul has consistently shown a Christian morality
Millipede scent, how is Ron Paul a fraud?
I could see liberal being concerned about Paul from their perspective. The liberal sheep will be the first led to slaughter because they so easily buy into the bullshit. Liberals like to prosper as long a someone else is paying for it. They believe you can win any conflict with good intentions.
You obviously know nothing about America's Military History or how we came about sending our youth to die in these endless, illegal, no win wars. Ron Paul is the only one on the Hill with a clue and the only one on the Hill that could bring Peace to our Nation. You people that condemn him on his Foreign Policy should explore the facts before passing Judgement. You might just find Dr. Paul is absolutely correct in his views.
Ron Paul might have supported DOMA, but would not sign the pledge on marriage and was he only candidate other than Huntsman who would not.
Paul is too old, radical and a threat to our national security.
You need to go to Ron's webpage with an open mind and really read his thoughts and beliefs about foreign policy instead of listening to the media and the Republican elite.
And you dont no what you are talking about wake up dummy before we loose everything
At Last!!! At last, A True American! The U.S. has been hijacked by liberals for too long! Ron Paul is needed to get America back to being a patriotic country! The Republican part is disfunctional with communist tendencys, and the Demoncrat party is majority communist! We need someone like Ron Paul to get the U.S. back on track to being a patriotic, God fearing country! God bless America!!!
Take another hit on your bong. Ron Paul is a Progressive/Leftist RINO LIBERTARIAN. He has the mind of an early Alzheimer's patient. Have you heard him being interviewed by Huckabee? He was absolutely pathetic and sounded like the doddering old fool he is. RON PAUL TOTAL FRAUD
More from you?! You are a fucking moron. You probably side with people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Millicent,
Ron Paul is rock solid on the Constitution by every measure taken
Ron Paul has NEVER voted for a single earmark – Twist all you want but that is an undisputable fact
Ron Paul is the only politician who consistently speaks for and votes for LIBERTY
Ron Paul voted for real national security in a world filled with nuclear armed nations – SDI
Ron Paul believes the government should be accountable by not keeping secrets from voters (Bradley Manning)
Ron Paul believes in freedom of speech, ESPECIALLY in regards to secret actions of our government (Bradley Manning)
Ron Paul believes the government works for us, not the other way around
Ron Paul has had no criminal record.
Ron Paul has had no ethical problems.
Ron Paul has been a great family man.
Ron Paul has been an accomplished doctor.
Ron Paul has had a sterling record in Congress in support of the American people.
Ron Paul has been humble and caring.
Ron Paul has served our nation's military honorably.
Ron Paul has consistently shown a Christian morality
Millipede scent, how can you say Ron Paul a total fraud?
We need Ron Paul and we needed him yesterday!! It is going to take someone with guts and a proven record to stand up to the out of control liberals and Obama. He is the only one who promises to turn our country around with facts and figures that cover a grocery list of wrongs.
Ron Paul does not have a record. Anyone in Congress who authored over 600 bills and only passed one (1) of them is not regarded as serious and does not have a record to run on.
This has to be the silliest statement I have read to date. Not because I believe it is the normal garbage trashing going around by trolls, but because I sense Nancy really believes this would disqualify Paul. Sad day indeed.
There you have it folks, read it and weep. Ron Paul is the most conservative politician in a 65 year span from the late '30s to the early '00s. That should shut everyone else up.
SO, to you, a RP site, tells you that RP is the new messiah, and you believe it?
Let me ask you…have you ever heard the man speak? Have you listened to his foreign policy? What the hell are you thinking?
Oh yes, you are a bot….as bad as a liberal lemming….
If you stopped long enough to really LISTEN to Dr. Paul, Strasburger, you'd probably be a 'bot' too. Ron Paul is the only Candidate on either side of the Isle that is actually in the race to try to save our Nation from the NAU/NWO and bring her back to her Sovereign roots. How dense do you have to be not to see the truth?
Hold your horses there, burger boy. This was not sourced from a RP site, it was from a mathematic report back in 2004, now check yourself before you wreck yourself.
His foreign policy is also rock solid, and the most righteous foreign policy this country has seen in decades.
When you're ready, you can pull your foot out of your mouth.
Since when is war-mongering with peaceful nations a "conservative" position?
When people call me to subscribe to the Huffington Post, NY Times, NY Post, or Washington Times, I simply tell them "Sorry, I don't have a canary."
Sometimes they get it.
Ha, I love it! Reminds me of the show SLEDGE HAMMER that was on in the 80's for a little while. The star of the show, Sledge Hammer, was asked if he had read the morning paper. He replied, "I prefer to get my news from more reliable sources, such as rumor. . .small children. . ."
Sorry I didn't get it. Is that a private joke?
A canary is a yellow bird that people keep in cages as house pets. The bottoms of bird cages are usually lined with old newspapers, magazines, or just paper garbage to absorb all the bird droppings.
"I don't have a canary." In other words, your newspaper is only good for catching bird crap, but since I don't have a bird, I don't need a subscription.
Why should any biblical Christian identify with the "autonomous individual" libertarian values of Ron Paul? Nostalgia for a extreme small-central-government construction of the Constitution that even the Jeffersonians could not practice once they came to power in 1801? It is sad to see Joel McDurmon join with the John Birch Society in the pretence that the only correct understanding of the Constitution is an extreme states-rights, Antifederalist view, not that of The Federalist Papers and the decisively top three vote-getters in the first election for President, Washington, Adams, and Jay. By the time John Quincy Adams developed the Monroe Doctrine during the Monroe administration it had become obvious that the American interpretation was not in favor of a timorous, isolationist foreign policy. The fact that James Madison converted to Jeffersonianism after his Federalist role at the Philadelphia Convention and in the first session of the First Congress does not change the nature of the original conception of the Republic; the Tenth Amendment clarified and emphasized that conception and did not nullify it. Ron Paul professes to be a Baptist, but his social ethics tell a different tale. Biblical Christians should find his social policy of moral relativism and autonomous individualism repugnant.
Ron Paul's ideology is FAR, FAR more Biblical than ANY of the other candidates, period. The other front-runners claim to be the Christian candidate, and they may even believe their own words, but that does not make what they say true. What I SEE, from what they do and say, tells a different story. Christianity is not just being pro-life and anti-homosexuality. We can give the give the other candidates high marks for what they have been SAYING (at least lately) about that. But there are more issues in life than just those two. There is a Biblical position for every issue. All the other candidates who use religion as a means to get the votes of the religious crowds are full of talk, some of which is contradicted by their actions.
For Ron Paul's views on homosexuality see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE.
There's not a Biblically qualified candidate among the bunch. For a list of Biblical qualifications and a description of Yahweh's means of selecting leaders, see "Article 2: Executive Usurpation" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….
Well then what is the point of all this you've been saying as if it's only Dr. Paul that's not qualified?
In the absence of a candidate that meets your standards, how about supporting the one that's actually running and is closest to it?
Renick, Ron Paul does not have an isolationist policy, his policy is very close to that of our founding fathers–that is of open trade strengthens bonds and secures peace, and as a non-interventionist to not butt our noses into other country's affairs. It's as wholesome and righteous as anything America has had in decades if not the entire previous century.
Would it be of any assistance for you to research what the founders thought of "these states united" and how the correct understanding can be nothing but states rights? Or do you really worship Abraham Lincoln that much?
So, I guess your voting for the Muslim again…right?
You need to do something more than just making assertions and calling names.
Why should Christians find his positions repugnant? Which of Dr Paul's positions contradict a political policy mandated by the Bible? Then name one genuine Biblical exegete that holds that the text mandates that position. While you are at it, go ahead and list all of the political positions mandated by the Bible?
Likewise, please explain how libertarian values (property rights) and non-interventionist convictions are inconsistent with Christianity?
That's what they want you to think. Libby's love Paul and they would just love to saddle us with him as our candidate.
Conservatives are terrified of Ron Paul so I guess that's the first time in history that us and the libs have agreed on anything, other than getting rid of Jimmie Carter.
In my opinion Ron Paul is a joke period. He is the conservative version of Ralph Nadar. If he some how miraculously becomes the GOP nominee we will be guaranteed another four years of O'mistake. So if you want another four years of Obastard than go ahead and vote for the fool Ron Paul, it plays right into the hands of the socio-commie liberals. If they can convince enough conservative Americans to vote for the fool thus siphoning off votes for the actual GOP candidate than Obunghole will easily win by a landslide. So think about that before you vote for Ron Paul. As distasteful as Romney might be to some of us we need to vote together to oust the current White House occupier or we'll all be living in a police state. For Pete's sake people use the brain that God gave you and think!
Your comment is so fact based and well-composed that it deserves an equally tactful response…..
Your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries.
Romney is as UN-Constitutionally minded as BO. A vote for Romney is a vote for the same "hope and change" offered by our current administration.
The reason that the "only correct understanding of the Constitution is an extreme states-rights, Antifederalist view, not that of The Federalist Papers" is such an unbearably silly statement (nice lesson in the straw man form of fallacy though, and your guilt by association fallacy using the JBS shows you to be a master of the cheap debating trick. The use of the "isolationism" straw man was so 'National Review talking points' that I'm sure Sean Hannity will label you a national hero! Nice to see you thinking for yourself.) is because what you claim is the position of Hamilton, Madison and Jay in the FP isn't their position at all. At least not their PUBLIC positions. The fact that is that Madison and Hamilton failed in their attempts to create a nationalist government at Philadelphia and wrote the FP's (along with Jay) as a propaganda campaign to convince New Yorkers (mostly anti-federalist) that they had nothing to worry about. State sovereignty remained intact. But Hamilton had already figured out that all that needed to be done was to pack the courts with Federalists and the Constitution could be amended by legal construction (what Jefferson referred to as making the Constitution a blank paper by construction).
I recently worked on a side-by-side comparison of the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers as a research project. In nearly every case the Anti-federalists proved themselves to be the better thinkers, predicting the complete mess the federal government has become as it brushed aside state and local authority in favor of federal tyranny. Try reading the AFP's some time. You might try starting with Brutus on the federal judiciary. The man seems to have had an operational crystal ball to see into the future 220 years.
You keep supporting those big-government, statist Republican "conservatives" and using logical fallacy to convince yourself and others that your utterly bankrupt and repeatedly failed policy (economic, regulatory, foreign, domestic, etc.) positions are the only viable ones.
Oh, yeah. And since you harkened back to Washington, you might want to read his Farewell Address to get a clue on foreign policy. Ron Paul's is far and away the closest to both the Federalist AND Anti-federalist FP positions. That is, trade and diplomacy for all, aggression toward none but those who DIRECTLY threaten our nation. The Federalist Congress would have impeached every one of the people you look to as foreign policy "experts" as anti-thetical to constitutional limits on military abuse by the executive branch. You are, sir, an imperialist; exactly what both Federalists and Anti-federalists had just won a war to end.
You are absolutely right, Camp Director, and I thank you so much for doing such a fine job introducing the truth of the matter here. I hope it incites others to study thoroughly and to study well.
"Convinced the Constitution would fail to secure and protect liberty, Patrick Henry voiced his concerns to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788:
'…I say our privileges and rights are in danger. …the new form of Government … will … effectually … oppress and ruin the people…. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts, absolutely taken away…. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? …And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce: they are out of the sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences…. I see great jeopardy in this new Government.'
"In contrast to the federalists’ failed predictions, this and nearly everything the anti-federalists forecast about the Constitution has come true…."
For more, see "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YHWH" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….
Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to Yahweh's moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Take our Constitution Survey at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/constitutionsurvey… and receive a free copy of the "Primer" (an 85 page book, normally $7 plus shipping) of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."
It may be significant that, by the mid-1790s Patrick Henry had become a Federalist, being defeated for his congressional seat by Jefferson's attack-dog, John Randolph of Roanoke. By the way, using the Name Yahweh apart from the Old Covenant is anachronistic, since the New Covenant is (among much else) the revelation that the Lord Jesus IS Yahweh (Philippians 2:9-11; cf. Isaiah 45:21-25). Like Paul the Apostle, all who worship the Lord Jesus are no longer under the Law of Moses but under the Law of Christ (I Corinthians 9:21-22).
John, thank you for your thoughts.
It's tragic that Henry capitulated to the Federalists.
Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, which is the Greek transliteration of Christ's given Hebrew name Yeshua, which means Yah saves (a description of what Yahweh was doing at the time of the New Covenant). It was this Hebrew name by which Christ introduced Himself to Paul in Acts 26:14-15. Consequently, Yah or Yahweh is actually used every time we say the Savior's name. Additionally, one cannot read the Old Testament as inspired without using Yahweh in nearly 7,000 locations, unlawfully removed and replaced with "the LORD" and "GOD," when found all in caps. One cannot use the term "hallelu Yah" without also using the shortened form of the principle name of God. For more, see "The Third Commandment" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/3rdcom-pt1.php.
I completely agree with you and more importantly with the Bible that under the New Covenant, we who have come to Yahweh via the blood atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ, are no longer *under* the law of Moses, meaning that there is no justification for anyone in keeping the law. However:
"That Christians are not under the law has been perverted to mean that Yahweh’s laws have been abolished. If this were true, Jesus would have put an end to Yahweh’s morality, which would mean an end to Yahweh. What a horrific concept!… The antithesis of Yahweh’s law is not grace, but lawlessness and, therefore, sin. Yahweh’s laws are meant to keep us from sinning; grace is the solution after we have sinned. Puritan minister Samuel Bolton (1606-1654) wrote, 'The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to frame our way of life.'" For more, see "Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/law-kingdom.php.
Ron Paul's view of Israel and his anti-semitism as stated in his letters (you know those he did not read nor sign, but had his name and signature on them) is enough to turn away any God-fearing Christian and nation-loving American.
The Jews themselves admit they are not genetic descendants of the Biblical Israelites in their Encyclopedias and Almanacs (The Jewish Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Judaica, The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, and the 1980 Jewish Almanac). For example, the first chapter of the latter is entitled "Identity Crisis." The very first sentence reads, "Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an 'Israelite' or a 'Hebrew.'” Don't take my word for it, you can read it from the "Jewish Almanac" for yourself at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/id-crisis-pics.php.
Thanks for your intelligent response, even though it was disappointingly presumptuous and overheated. I notice that you did not attempt to rebut my central point, that of the non-Christian ethical stance of Ron Paul. I'm glad you are acquainted with the Anti-federalist literature as well as the Federalists. I am similarly knowledgeable, having taught on Constitutional issues at the secondary and college levels for over forty years. You are certainly right that the Anti-federalists anticipated many weaknesses that have plagued the American system since. You assume that I referred to the John Birch Society as a"guilt-by-association" tactic. In fact, I have admired and benefited from the JBS, and defended them at length and repeatedly in printed since the early 1960s, when my father was a leader in both their Repeal the Income Tax and Impeach Earl Warren campaigns. Their critique of Newt Gingrich is very helpful. But I consider them, like Paul, wrong on foreign policy and extreme on state's rights. You seem to be possessed by a black-white demon, considering anyone who differs with you a "big government" person. That's sad. I am a strict constitutionalist. I'd be happy to send you the five lectures on the Constitution I presented to the regional Tea Party last spring, and you can judge for yourself.
There is an excellent Teaching Company "Great Courses" set of CDs that expalin the Federalist VS Anti Federalists, Titled "Great Debate: The American Constitution". The Anto-Federalist were correct in every warning they put forward in the dangers of a too powerful federal government. We are seeing now exactly what they warned about at the time The Constitution was being debated.
What do we call a person who says, "Personally, I am against abortion, but I believe it is a woman's choice." ?
We call that person pro-choice.
So, what is the difference between a person who says, "Personally, I am against abortion, but I believe it is a state's choice." ?
That is still pro-choice, only on a larger scale. That is what Ron Paul says, so he is pro-choice.
Again, nice try. Utterly alogical, but nice try. The definition of murder is (besides being pre-defined by God) constitutionally left to the states (see article I and Amendment 10). If you want to argue that the federal government should interpose in favor of protection of the right to life then fine. But what you're arguing for is the federalization of the definition of life, personhood and humanity. That is a fool's game. It's logical endpoint is death camps for "sub-human non-persons"). Thanks. We've seen that already. Recently. No, return the authority to punish murder back to the states then sanction them if they fail to provide equal protection. Federalizing these definitions means whoever is at the federal helm makes the policy. A recipe for disaster, as we've already experienced with Roe V. Wade.
I never said anything about giving feds the job of punishment. But the protection of life as a responsibility of government is clear in the Declaration and and the Declaration is a Federal Document. So to leave the protection of life completely to the states is a pro-choice position.
Ad hominem logical fallacy. Anti-federalist does not equal anti-life.
The Constitution and other founding documents do not indicate when life begins, or when the office of personhood is created, it was not an issue to them. Thus, the 10th amendment leaves it to the states.
Duh. Ron Paul knows that it is the States place to make laws about that issue, not the place of the federal government. That does not mean that he is in favor of abortion at all. The control needs to be in the hands of States. The federal government is too intrusive and makes laws where they have no right to make laws. It is NOT that a law doesn't need to be on the books, it is that it is the STATES that need to make the laws for themselves, and not the federal government. That way, if your tax dollars in your state are being used to fund abortions (Heaven forbid), and you can't successfully change that in your state, you can move to another state!!!!!!! We don't HAVE that privilege now, because the FEDS control everything (and illegitimatey). You are NUTS if you think that Ron Paul's position on this is one that advocates abortion.
Yes continue to lie and pretend not to hear what he's saying. He's saying that abortion is a criminal act and criminal acts are state issues…not federal issues. He's not pro-choice and you know it. And if the pro-life movement, among whom I count myself, followed this tactic abortion would be a criminal act in several states already. The real reason so-called conservatives hate Ron Paul is that the he actually exposes the hypocrisy of these big-government Republicans. Oh and yes his opposition to invading foreign countries in violation of Just War Theory principles.
Didn't anybody notice that Ron Paul advocates repealing unconstitutional laws and says he would shut down many federal programs that are wasteful in every way? Have you noticed that he gets reelected every two years. He is definitely qualified to be the President of a Free Republic. But if you are part of the political left and are afraid to be free, vote for a socialist. There are many of those who lie and steal and want your vote.
Didn't anybody notice that Ron Paul advocates repealing unconstitutional laws? Did you notice that he advocates scrapping several federal programs that are unconstitutional? Did you notice that he gets reelected every two years? How can you say he is not qualified? Our Constitution is hanging by a thread and most of our elected representatives are chopping away at it until it looks like it could go any day now. Better wake up folks before destruction comes.
If notice how he's for abortion, prostitution and all manner of perversion?
State issues, not federal, case closed. Educate yourself, learn what a person actually said before you slander them.
The only reason Ron Paul continues to be re-elected is because he is King of Earmarks. Only one that comes close to him in the candidate field is Rick Santorum.
Vote Rick Perry as he has a great record and is a decent Christian man.
Really, Nancy? When Rick Perry was trying to force teenage girls in Texas to receive mandatory vaccinations against cervical cancer, was this part of his great record as a 'Christian'? Implying that they were all floozies, and making sure they and their parents had no rights?
Or when he stood against the Minutemen project (for votes no doubt) while offering no better solution to curb illegal immigration?
I lived in Texas, we lived under him, he was no leader.
Rick Perry would FORCE Ron Paul to take earmarks if Ron Paul refused to take them.
Ron Paul's congressional district is in the Houston area. Oil production from Ron Paul's district is a heavy part of Rick Perry's claim to be a "great governor of Texas". If these necessary earmarks were not in place in Ron Paul's district, then the intercoastal waterway which oil tankers depend upon and use would not be maintained and this entire country would falter without the oil refineries in Houston being operational and producing gasoline for the entire nation. The oil companies cannot maintain the intercoastal waterways. They do not own the right-of-way. The intercoastal crosses State lines from Texas to Louisiana — it is a federal responsibility.
If it makes the Political Establishment angry, then I'm satisfied. And this should make all those other imposters running for President angry enough, including all the members of the Big Government party (the Demopublicans).
Yes! I agree. Have you noticed that the establishment always hates the truly good guys (those who are more conservative than they are neoconservative [liberal])? The RNC HATED letting Ronald Reagan become their candidate (they thought he was too conservative). They opposed him at every turn, fiercely, but in the end, they had no choice because of the tremendous power of his grassroots support. Since Reagan, because of some of the restrictions placed on campaigns by the McCain-Feingold bill, the establishment thought gleefully that there could never be another Ronald Reagan. The McCain-Feingold bill took care of that, they thought. But they forgot one thing–the internet. Ron Paul beecame known to the public largely due to the internet. Just as they did Ronald Reagan, the Republican establishment would HATE having to make Ron Paul become their candidate, but they may have no choice due to the internet circumventing the intents of that McCain-Feingold bill. Notice now how the federal government is wanting to take away our freedom of speech on the internet.
Peddle that crap somewhere else !
Ron Paul is a progressive, liberal, Libertarian !
Yes he is!!
No, Deb. Based on statistics from the American Journal of Political Science and Common Space Score calculations from 1937 to 2002, Ron Paul has mathematically the most conservative record out of a roster of 3,320 Congress members.
Can you read? Do you know what those terms mean? Progressive and liberal are defined by their love of the state, just list most Republican politicians. Libertarians are just intellectually consistent conservatives (limited gov't, property rights).
Ron Paul is not a conservative. He's a libertarian and it is NOT the same thing. He's for no restrictions on drugs and porn, for "gay marriage", and being "personally against" abortion but saying it's a "state's right" to decided, is not good enough for me. While agree with massive cuts in out bloated government, I don't trust Ron Paul to be the one to do it. His stance on Israel and foreign affairs is extremely naiive and questionable. In my opinion, his criticism of Newt went too far. NO. Ron Paul is not presidential material. No. We don't need to replace on crazy with another.
Amen
No, Louise. Anti-federalist does not equal pro-drugs. pro-porn, or pro-gay. It only means Anti-federal, giving rightful power back to the states as intended to let states decide as set forth by our founding fathers.
Based on statistics from the American Journal of Political Science and Common Space Score calculations from 1937 to 2002, Ron Paul has mathematically the most conservative record out of a roster of 3,320 Congress members.
I get sooo sick of seeing the same LIES repeated over and over. Does anybody educate themselves anymore? Stop listening to and spreading ugly and untruthful RUMORS based upon false ASSUMPTIONS. Go to Ron Paul's official campaign website at http://www.RonPaul2012.com to learn the TRUTH of where he stands on the important issues. Start by defining what a "conservative" actually is – someone who actively conserves the integrity of the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul is NOT "for NO restrictions on drugs and porn, or for the redefinition of marriage to include sodomites. He is a TRUE Conservative (if you understand what the word means) in that he wants honor the Constitution by ending FEDERAL involvement in drug use, porn, marriage and all the other areas the FEDERAL government has not Constitutional authority to meddle. The STATES are the ones to restrict drugs, porn, murder (including abortion), rape, theft, etc.
"The heart of conservatism is libertarianism." – Ronald Reagan
Louise, you've been tricked by the socialists that have taken over the Republican Party. Really I am sad for you, because you are conservative, you just don't know why. You don't understand his positions and how consistent and thoroughly conservative they are. Sadly, Dr. Paul is the only conservative in the race….by far. BTW…he does not support gay marriage and is pro-life,. So please stop spreading misinformation.
In twenty-three years, Ron Paul has sponsored or co-sponsored over 600 bills, and only ONE was ever passed, and it was a non-essentialbill involving (I believe) teh construction of some givernment building. After obver two decades in office, this is all he has ever accomplished. amd people consider him executive, presidential material?
DUH. His ideas do not have enough support in Congress because Congress is a bunch of loser socialists. No one can get anything done with those loser socialists without compromising with them. But compromising with them and their destructive ideas is not an option. They all need to go away and be replaced.
I think this speaks to the credentials of all other members of congress, rather than Ron Paul.
That could be because Ron Paul could not get much support his fiscally conservative perspectives and might just make the point of this article. Ron Paul has predicted and warned against everything that has happened to this economy. Just check the facts of history and his voting record, while you're at it. Ron Paul's 20+ years of consistency and a totally consistent voting record tells it all.
MORE government does not a better politician make.
His voting record of 'No' for expanding government unconstitutionally is superb, it's how he gets re-elected every time.
Even if it were true, only passing one bill in 23 years is enough to earn the vote of our founding fathers.
Criticising Ron Paul for not getting bills passed is like criticizing the police for not filling their pockets while the bank was being robbed. He's there to stop the robbers, not become one.
Criticising Ron Paul for not getting bills passed is like criticising a nun in a whorehouse for not turning tricks. He's there to stop the whoring, not become one.
Democrat, Republican, it does not matter, we are all Americans, and RP os the only PAUL-i-tician that is honest, ethical, unwavering, and constitutional. That is a real American Patriot for you.
He will kick the the Communists arse , but good in 2012. . .
Lets all get behind him people!
For sure, Ron Paul is the only real game changer!
Paul is Not the man for the white house as his views are all wet ,You cannot islate this country an proper it is impossible ,you cannot make pot an heroine legal with out a bunch of addictts I our Kids An He is too old as he could kick the bucket anty day.
It looks like a large portion of the american visioners never learned what conservatisim is. From the sound of these comments, being a conservative is just being anti-liberal. Conservatism is not defined by liberalism, it doesn't matter which talking head told you otherwise. Conservatism means you, more often than not, choose not to enlarge the role and power of the government outside the powers the Constitution restricts it to. Ron Paul is the personification of that, true, definition.
Excelent post, Mitzip. They've all lost sight of it in thinking it just mean anti-liberal. That's why Republican and Conservative are not synonymous terms.
Ron Paul is so far right on some issues that he comes out hyper leftist in my book, which is why I will not vote for him even though fiscally he's on the money. Leftist…."strike In God We Trust" as our national motto / legalize prostitution / legalize illegal drugs / let Iran make as many nukes as they want, it's their right and none of our business. What an idiot!!!!!!! He has NO sense of history when it comes to radical Muslim actions. All you have to do is look back to 9-11 and there's the proof. DORK.
Anti-federalist does not mean pro-drugs, pro-abortion, pro-gay. It simply means anti-federal in letting the states decide what was rightfully given to them by the 10th amendment and our founding fathers.
His non-interventionist foreign policy is the most wholesome and righteous policies that America has seen in decades, if not the entire past century.
Islam is a religion. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia are countries. Make up your mind which one you want to talk about before trying to make a point.
You are genius.
Dr.Ron Paul 2012 for the Only Proven Honest(for Well Over 30 Years)Patriot Running for President,PERIOD !!!
The election of Ron Paul will require Banks, corporations, politicians, mainstream media, the elite, and other assorted scumbags to earn their money the hard way.
He will save your child from death, injury, and emotional illness because they won't be sent to war.
He will insure that you get to spend the fruits of your labor instead of giving it to the tax man.
He will eliminate the Federal reserve as it exists for printing worthless money, and will back the money with gold.
Gone will be all the over paid czars.
Your children will not be taught deviant sexual practices instead of learning the academics they should be learning.
The Constitution is king, not obummer. Ron Paul will see to it that it is followed.
All you have to do is elect him. Simple as that.
No He Won"t Send them to War As They Will Be Full legal Drugs As not being able to fight as being hospitalized to recover from drug additiction,,,,,,
Is that what happened to you, and yours?
Speaking from experience?
Ron Paul is not a Conservative. He is a liberal. A liberal is one who attempts to make the Constitution say whatever he wants it to say or to entirely ignore the Constitution. Defense is one of the primary tasks laid upon the Federal government, but Paul seems to think that, if we all just try to get along, those who wish us ill will decide to play nice with us—such as Iran. Furthermore, the regulation of interstate commerce is also a tasks with which the Federal government is empowered, but Paul advocates the legalization of drugs which are known to be detrimental to society. So, all you Paul supporters, light up your reefer, take a toke, and mellow out.
Defense is indeed a primary task of the federal government which Ron Paul takes from more seriously than any other candidate. He is the only candidate who will not "wag the dog" with the lives of our children in the military with endless incursions where we don't have authority to be. Instead, he will go to Congress, make a case for going to war, and should Congress grant him a Constitutional declaration of war, then Ron Paul would engage in the war with the full faith and support of the American people AND HE WOULD WIN THE WAR! No more disasterous Koreas Vietnams or Gulf Wars. And in making his case for war to Congress, Ron Paul would be honest. He will not be making up fake lies like Iraqis taking baby incubators or Iraq having WMDs OR Iran having nuclear weapons in order to sell his boutique war.
Dr. Paul's position is that the President must get a declaration of war to go to war. Seems to me that's in the constitution. I don't however see where an internationalist agenda is mandated.
Gee whiz, Joel, from all your prior articles I thought you hated and despised Ron Paul and that he as the worst thing to ever occupy the GOP.
Personally, the more I read about him and what he believes and stands for the more I like him. He seems to be right on every issue, and the subject of Liberty, PERSONAL LIBERTY, is a big one on his agenda, which I also agree with.
There can be no Freedom, nor free conscience unless men are left FREE to make their own determinations and decisions, and being compelled by the law (man's law) does not a moral person make. God's Laws are written upon our hearts, and it is up to each one of us to decide whether we shall obey them or not. A truly moral society operates voluntarily, not by compulsory force.