I have received many emails from Ron Paul supporters, including this one from John in response to my column today:
I appreciate your contemplative remarks on this subject (presidential politics), and measured reaction (analytical vs. emotional).
I thought I'd share a brief observation of my own, if you have the time to consider it....
The Iowa straw polling data you refer to that put Huckabee at #2 was taken of the same field of respondents at the same time that 51% indicated they would like to see our troops withdrawn from Iraq within six months. Six months! Add to this the fact that the general public would like to see a general draw down (to the tune of 71% of respondents), and we're talking about a significant contingent of the voting public that holds views quite divergent from the views espoused by all the RP candidates, save one....
It is my humble opinion that there is absolutely no chance for any pro-life candidate to beat Mrs. Clinton, other than possibly Ron Paul. As a pro-lifer myself, he is my "pragmatic" choice, and is receiving all of my support at this time. I wish others in the pro-life movement would consider the practical consequences on the movement itself by insisting on "stay-the-course" foreign policy endeavors against the will of the people. (Like ... how do they think Nixon got elected?)
I have previously heard the sensical theory advanced that Paul could beat Hillary by garnering the conservative as well as anti-war vote.
Add to that the all important cash Paul has on hand, and his odds of winning, according to Newsmeat.com, are certainly First Tier, even better than Romney's (click to enlarge):
But, as I asked John, why hasn't Paul gotten any traction?
[Photo credit: Washington Post]
Because he is only the King of the internet and he dressed like a shoe salesman.Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at October 24, 2007 11:00 AM
He wrote this about Christmas and Religion (back in 2003)Posted by: mk at October 24, 2007 11:43 AM
But, as I asked John, why hasn't Paul gotten any traction?
I'm thinking it's because he's a talking turd.Posted by: Jacqueline at October 24, 2007 11:51 AM
Jacque, LOL!Posted by: heather at October 24, 2007 11:54 AM
"I'm thinking it's because he's a talking turd."
Ouch! I heard he was okay. What don't you like about him?Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 24, 2007 11:56 AM
Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul's commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric. For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005."
Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the evangelicals' pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.)Posted by: mk at October 24, 2007 11:59 AM
Ouch! I heard he was okay. What don't you like about him?
Really, the many reason I don't like him is that he's a weasely little talking turd.
I could come up with some intellegent political rationale (like the fact that he's only marginally pro-life and wants to rip the troops from Iraq pronto and make us a dartboard for terrorism), but really, it all boils down to the fact that the man in a talking turd.Posted by: Jacqueline at October 24, 2007 12:02 PM
The reason the mainstream media has not given Ron Paul the time of day is because he represents a set of values and principles which they consider antiquated. I recently heard him speak at a rally in Nashville, and it was the most passionate, principled, and uplifting political speech I've ever heard in my lifetime.
No matter what your views on foreign policy are, the fact that Congressman Paul bases all his votes and stances upon the American rule of law, The Constitution, no matter how unpopular they may be, says something about his character, namely that he can't be bought.
He is also commited to the cause of life, as is proven by his speech at the National Right to Life Conference in Kansas City last summer. (http://faciamus.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-national-right-to-life.html)
I would encourage everyone to research his positions and prayerfully consider supporting him, I am blown away by how solid the guy is!
hehe, okay I'll take your word for it.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 24, 2007 12:07 PM
He reminds me of the actor John Mahoney from Fraiser.Posted by: mk at October 24, 2007 12:17 PM
I don't know how I feel about him. Just thought I'd throw some stuff out there.
Why do you say he is only marginally pro-life.
(and no turd stuff, cuz I really want to know)
Jacque, as MK indicated, Ron Paul is not "mildly pro-life," as you think. He's the real deal on our issue, as far as I know. He's an ob/gyn by trade, and as a congressman he's introduced inventive legislation to overturn Roe v. Wade.Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 24, 2007 12:32 PM
Thanks for your thoughtful reply once again. I appreciate that you allow your intellect to stay above the "talking turd" level of discourse. Apparently your readers aren't familiar with the Sanctity Of Life Act? Or perhaps they would prefer to become follow the path of the swift politicians for another 40 years with promises of pro-life judges?
I can recall being flustered that Paul's name wasn't even included in polls to begin with. That was six months ago. Three months ago he was at least being included in the polls, though he was receiving 1% or less. Those numbers have doubled and quadrupled in some places.
Watching FOX news, I wouldn't sense any traction myself. (Though I see plenty of evidence of attempts to create bad blood between prcaticing Christians who, on one hand come from the Old Right - Robert Taft - non-interventionist persuasion, and the other camp which supports promulgating democracy around the globe with the edge of the sword). But I am seeing spots on CNN, CSNBC, ABC, and other MSM outlets now that just weren't there a couple months ago. (He's doing the Leno show Oct. 30th.)
The latest nation-wide gallop poll (taken from 10/12 – 10/14) had Paul polling at 5% http://www.ronpaulfan.com/2007/10/16/latest-gallup-poll-ron-paul-5/ when the same poll showed Paul at 1% just a month previous (9/7 - 9/8). And a harris poll conducted 9/21 showed Paul polling at 10% for the age group 18 – 29, (Harris Poll: Ron Paul Polling 10% Among 18-29 Year-Olds) which essentially is what his name recognition figure is currently at.
I sport a Paul for president button on my jacket. Last night at my daughter's swim competititon, a man approached me and told me he just returned from Nevada where he saw Ron Paul signs all over the place. He had never heard of him before that.
It appears to me there is a brush-fire going on beyond bounds of California.
[The Paul campaign is going to spend several million dollars in the next two months. Don't be suprised is Paul takes 1st or 2nd in New Hampshire, 3rd in Iowa, and in the top 3 in both South Carolina and Nevada.]
Ugh. Ron Paul is a fanatic who masquerades as a libertarian in order to suck up people who don't quite do enough research. I can't stand that guy.Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2007 1:48 PM
Thank you, ErinPosted by: hippie at October 24, 2007 1:53 PM
Jacque, as MK indicated, Ron Paul is not "mildly pro-life," as you think. He's the real deal on our issue, as far as I know. He's an ob/gyn by trade, and as a congressman he's introduced inventive legislation to overturn Roe v. Wade.
This is know, but he favors overturning Roe and putting the decision back in the hands of the states. Essentially saying, "I'm not for the SCOTUS dictating abortion-on-demand, but I'm perfectly fine with states allowing the murder of their preborn." Anyone who doesn't support a full-out Human Life Amendment and the rights of the unborn regardless of the whims of state legislatures is only marginally pro-life to me. Unborn babies killed under Roe and those killed under the sanctions of the individual states are equally dead- thus this stance is not very pro-life at all. Beyond that, it's bad constitutional law. The unborn have a right to live based on the 14th amendment, so states deciding to kill them is completely unconstitutional.
I think the desire to turn abortion statues over to the state is a good litmus test of one's understanding of the horror of abortion and one's commitment to keeping the fight for the unborn paramount. Someone suggesting that state sovereignty is a principle that supercedes protecting every unborn life either values politics more than human life or is completely oblivious to how bad abortion truly is. Either way, it demonstrates a lack of understanding or a failure to put the abortion issue in the prominence in rightly deserves. Which is why, since Brownback is no longer in the race, the only choices for me are Hunter or Huckabee.
P.S. The talking turd thing is cheerfully withdrawn. I'll express my disapproval of Ron in more mature ways.Posted by: Jacqueline at October 24, 2007 1:57 PM
Jacqueline, I don't know much about Ron Paul but I can't say that turning it over to the states is necessarily a bad idea. States like mine (Illinois) would keep it legal but I think the more conservative states would not. Even if some states outlawed abortion it's a victory to me, hopefully paving the way for other states in the future.Posted by: Kristen at October 24, 2007 2:23 PM
According to NARAL's own literature, 37 states would outlaw abortion within a year of passage of Sanctity Of Life Act - which would negate the Roe decision immediately. To my mind that would be a decent start to a national prohibition, and could be done with a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress, with the president's signature.
To my knowledge, Ron Paul has never said he would ever be opposed to a Human Life Amendment. But what makes anybody think such a feat is possible when the supposed pro-life party won't attempt to repeal abotion law in MOST states when they had their chance?
The Human Life Amendment is just another carrot, like the Federal Marriage Amendment, that politicians put out there once every election cycle to shore up their Christian activist support, knowing full well that an actual bill will never leave comittee.
You'd think folks would catch on after a decade or two.
- wants to tax the internet!
- is for socialized medicine (supports expanding SCHIPS)
- supports a federal smoking ban
- supports No-Child-Left-Behind
- supported expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs
- he supported voting rights and state benefits for illegal aliens in Arkansas
- he presided over raised state sales tax in Arkansas by 37%, motor fuel tax by 16%, and cigarette tax by 103%
- Arkansas state spending went up 65.3%, and the number of workers on the state payroll went up by 20%
- he supported increases in minimum wages
- proposed granting in-state tuition rates for illegal aliens
Another socialist "compassionate conservative".
Pity my children.
JRPosted by: jr at October 24, 2007 2:41 PM
I said: "To my knowledge, Ron Paul has never said he would ever be opposed to a Human Life Amendment."
I meant: "To my knowledge, Ron Paul has not said he would always be opposed to a Human Life Amendment." (if he's opposed to one now - which I have no knowledge of either.)Posted by: jr at October 24, 2007 2:44 PM
I don't know much about Ron Paul but I can't say that turning it over to the states is necessarily a bad idea.
Would it save lives? Absolutely! But it's conceding that states have the right to allow murder of the pre-born. The pro-life position is that no one has the right to murder the preborn. So why would someone stop before total prohibition unless they were making a political statement about states' rights.
It is not "overturn Roe or nothing." Furthermore, a president only has the power to change the make-up of the court on the limited basis of death or retirement. A president could weild considerable input with a human life amendment. Thus that, as well as making anti-Roe judicial appointments, should be a candidates premier concern.
I'm for overturning Roe, but it doesn't stop there. It won't stop until every unborn child has a right to live in this country.Posted by: Jacqueline at October 24, 2007 3:01 PM
Do politics about economics and immigration supersede life issues?Posted by: Jacqueline at October 24, 2007 3:06 PM
Look at this:
For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005."
Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the evangelicals' pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.)
If he passed that bill life would be constitutionally protected from conception. Wouldn't that mean that the states couldn't touch it?Posted by: mk at October 24, 2007 3:11 PM
honestly, I don't even know why that bill could even be brought up. You can't remove something from the jurisdiction of the supreme court if it is only federal law (as this bill would have been). You would need a full blown amendment, requiring 3/4 of states to pass it. You can't get around the Supreme Court with a bill, at least to my knowledge.
Posted by: Dan
at October 24, 2007 3:22 PM
Not to mention, I'm fairly sure that no lwa can overturn a court deciscion, aside, like I said, an ammendment OR a new court decision. Passing bills such as that doesn't work, that is why the country is arranged the way it is, so congress cannot pass bills along the line of keeping the same congress in office for life, etc.
I guess I stand corrected. This contradicts, though, much of what I've seen.Posted by: Jacqueline at October 24, 2007 3:22 PM
Find the "exception clause" in Art. III sec. 2 of the Constitution. It is clearly the duty of Congress to exempt Supreme Court juridiction wherever they see fit, and they have done it repeatedly over the years.
JRPosted by: jr at October 24, 2007 3:41 PM
Again, after reading your article I'm stunned at the ignorance and blindingly indifference these FRC leaders pay to the one candidate that gets it and that is Ron Paul. I keep hearing from Folger, Farah, Schafley, you name it that Paul doesn't have a chance, doesn't have the money, doesn't have the poll ratings, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Well, since Paul raised a lot more money than Huckabee, always has higher straw poll numbers than Huckabee, has higher internet attention than Huckabee, draws larger crowds than Huckabee, and let's keep going on down the list, what makes these FRC leaders think if Paul doesn't have a chance who in heaven's name think Huckabee has a chance since his numbers are less than Paul's DOH!
Jill, here's where these FRC leaders are going way off track. They all want a constitutional amendment for abortion, they want a constitutional amendment for marriage, what next a constitutional amendment to make everybody go to church on Sunday mornings?
Paul is against gay marriage - he's said so! He's against abortion - he's said so! But he doesn't want the Federal Government involved with it because it is clearly a state issue because the states are sovereign according to the Constitution.
The fear of what FRC wants is when some Devil becomes the leader he/she can start pushing amendments according to their own
moral code. Constitutional amendments are extremely hard to change but you can change state laws a lot easier. Jefferson even said that domestic issues are relegated to the states and this is what Paul has said time and time again.
So if FRC wants Huckabee to raise his right hand to swear to uphold the Constitution then Mike has to change his political philosophy because he governed according to Federal right and not state rights. These people don't get it. You don't swear with your right hand on the Holy Bible to uphold the Constitution then set to enact ammendments that are clearly unconstitutional.
So my next question is how do they expect God's blessings on such contradictory policy - are they trying to establish the millennial reign here on earth? It Ain't Gonna Happen!
Norris and others that are endorsing Huckabee is mainly over their pro military attitudes toward Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, I've got a question for them. How come Paul has received more military donations then all the rest of them? I've personally talked to quite a few soldiers that have returned from Iraq and I've yet to find one that says we should be over there. In fact, they all say why in the H*** did we go over their in the first place because they all say we're not going to change those people.
Paul was right it was a unconstitutional undeclared war. Paul's method is correct just like when Jefferson sent the Marines to fight the Barbary pirates and that was with the policy of "Marquee & Reprisal" which is a constitutionaly approved policy to confront a non state enemy.
Jill, we have not won one, repeat NOT ONE, war since the last declared war which was WW2. We've gotten ourselves so entangled overseas I don't see how we're going to get out of this spaghetti mess we've created except through the bankrupting of our economy which we're doing a great job of doing.
Bottom line, Jill, our problem nationally roots back to our hearts morally, and until FRC gets it we're in for another losing battle. This stuff of 80 million born agains in this country is enough to make me fall off my chair laughing or throwing up. I've been in the ministry for close to 30 years now, and it's the same nonsense all over again. All you have to do is have people google Ron Paul and they almost without exception support Paul after hearing him, and by now I've probably turned 100 and probably more to support Paul, and I'm not even started.
Well, there's my rant for what it's worth.Posted by: Pastor Dan at October 24, 2007 4:11 PM
A friend sent this my way last night. Its a vegan's perspective on Ron Paul (and why she supports him):
(abortion is mentioned)Posted by: Phil at October 24, 2007 4:20 PM
First of all, I want to thank Jill for bringing up Ron Paul. I am a Ron Paul supporter and have become one after being disillusioned by a Republican Party that is increasingly turning to big government solutions and nation building (both campaign promises GW Bush broke). I also support him because of his views on abortion and have been confused as to why the pro-life movement hasn't rallied around him. In fact, I met him and spoke with him at the National Right to Life Convention and was VERY impressed with his position and experience on the issue.
Here is what his stance is in his own words (from www.ronpaul2008.com):
"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called ï¿½population control.ï¿½
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, Iï¿½ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life."
Posted by: Drew
at October 24, 2007 4:27 PM
We need a REAL change in Washington. He's got my vote!
I try to visit WorldNetDaily every day, but I almost never post to the contributor’s blogs. I was reticent to post to Jill’s blog because such things always have the potential for going so many places that it becomes a veritable quagmire. I posted anyway - at her invitation - because her demeanor was warm, friendly, and inviting. She personally acknowledged her misgivings with the thoughts I posited, but did so respectfully, and was obviously appreciative for having received them.
With said reticence noted then, Jacquie’s gracious retraction of her initial dismissal of the topic has given me reason to at least try to explain my rationale for supporting Ron Paul, with the hope of at least parting on terms where we peaceably agree to disagree. [I have nothing to say to anyone in this discussion who is unable to rise above name-calling.]
First, Re: “Do politics about economics and immigration supersede life issues?”
I once gave a half-hour talk on how – in the pursuit of establishing ideal legal protection for unborn children – it is necessary (according do Divine Justice) that all of the inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, property) be legally protected. To condense this into a paragraph:
Human dignity demands that government secure all these inherent rights because they are totally interdependent. [For a look at how life is respected in the absence of property rights, you need look no further into American history than to the era of legalized slavery.] If you think we have a problem now with little people dying unnecessarily, wait until socialized medicine starts having the effect of rationing care – and directing available money to the preventive maintenance of healthy people (what always happens, because it’s the most utilitarian use of the scarce resources). Just wait to see what happens to premature babies, and the critically ill elderly. Expansion of SCHIPS is just another step on the way to Hillary-care.
We once had prominent souls who would view such sorts of future prospects for their posterity and say such uncomfortable sounding things like “Give me Liberty, or give me death.”
Yes, Life is of the highest order of rights, but you can’t divorce economic policy from basic human dignity.
Second, Re: “The unborn have a right to live based on the 14th amendment, so states deciding to kill them is completely unconstitutional.”
Under the doctrine of original intent (paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson) “instead of gleaning from the literal text the preferred interpretation, carry yourself back to the time of adopting the language, and determine what the authors intended”.
The authors of the 14th intended that life, liberty, and property legally treated without difference on the basis of race. Jurisdiction over how that was achieved was still determined by the citizens of the state. That’s why there had been were different laws concerning abortion, and the death penalty for that matter, depending on what state you lived in during previous generations. In a perverse way (that is to say, irreconcilable with Divine Justice)the state does have the ability to fall short in securing rights under the Constitution, as long as they don't have race-based differences, according to the intent of the 14th amendment.
However, there is a logical and constitutional case to be made that the federal government should intervene in the way you suggest. It goes like this: 1) our federal government was instituted as a republic form of government 2) the preamble explains what it is established for … to secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity 3) “our posterity’, by definition, means yet unborn persons 4) the Constitution guarantees a Republican form of government in Art. IV Sec. 4.
If you want to go down that road, I’m with you on constitutional grounds. But here’s what you need to think about:
What does Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy do with the never-before-used-power to do whatever they propose next - based on some emotional plea to a citizenry – (who has been educated primarily in government schools for multiple generations ) as necessary measure to maintain a “republican form of government”?
All of the preceding is quagmire-related (some of which I brought on myself with the introduction of economic issues unrelated to the premise) is a detraction from the original premise that a defender of the Iraq intervention and “stay-the-course” foreign policy candidate cannot beat Hillary.
You can listen to Medved and Hannity all day long, but you would be missing the pulse of mainstreet America.
[I am not a “peacenik”. I favor peace through strength. I am an army veteran. But I was skeptical of the reasons given for the Iraq invasion because our borders were never secured even during the build-up for the invasion. Then I observed that our troops were being amassed in a configuration that would be EXTREMELY vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction. And then I learned more about how centrifuges worked, and that Iraq could not have possibly had them without us knowing about it.
The people that attacked us on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They were mostly trained in Afghanistan. Their sponsors had absolutely no involvement with the Iraqi government, as compared to the Taliban, the leadership of Iran, or the leadership of Sudan.
In short, I have been skeptical of the invasion of Iraq, for the purposes of fighting terrorism from the beginning. I have my own ideas for fighting terrorism against the US, but it would take too long to explain here (as if I haven’t gone on long enough), and cost probably $600 billion less than GWs plan so far. For starters, it includes much more border security and much less nation-building.]
My sons are 10 and 12. No, they’re lives are not worth trying to keep the streets of Baghdad safe. Somehow I don’t get the sense that barbarians torturing one another in Mesopotamia are on the verge of surrounding the continent and imposing Sharia law on Hope, Arkansas.
I am mainstreet America.
Don't nominate a pro-war republican. He can't win.
Paul is okay, except he's pro-life. At least he has principles and would certainly be better than what we have now.
they can remove their appellate jurisdiction, HOWEVER, what one could due is sue the U.S. government, which in turn would go to the Supreme Court, dictated by the same article which you gave me. Thus, the court could still find the law unconstitutional if need be, and they find it a violation of the rights of the citizens.Posted by: Dan at October 24, 2007 9:07 PM
Ron Paul is pro-life and that's great, yes. But his main supporters are 9/11 conspiracy loons, potheads, and anti-Semites. I know we shouldn't judge him by his supporters, but there's a reason why such people like him.
He feels that America is responsible for pretty much every human rights disaster around the world in the last 50 years. He thinks that if we just leave the world alone, the world will leave us alone. That's very dangerous and very ridiculous thinking.
If the election were Ron Paul vs. Any of the Democrats, I'd gladly vote for Paul. However, I'd much rather have Huckabee, Romney, Hunter, or McCain on the ballot.Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 24, 2007 9:30 PM
I totally respect your comments.
As for our sons going to Iraq, we have an all volunteer force.
You may not understand why some men and women want to fight in combat, but they do want to go. Many have joined so that they can go. Many reenlist and go back. It is what they want.
I have two sons that I don't want to go. Right now they are too young, but I think know how you feel.Posted by: hippie at October 24, 2007 9:31 PM
I think you misunderstand where Ron Paul is getting his support.....just in the past few weeks, I've seen a lot of friends change from apathetic (or politically aware, but just indifferent to the politicians out there) to passionate campaigners. I think that a large portion (if not a slight majority) of Ron Paul's base is young people who are so disillusioned with the political system that they are now latching onto the one person who is acknowledging that system is broke.
Take a look at Facebook...while its far from scientific, you can get a pretty good feeling on the youth/college student vibe by checking out the grups. There are 2 1/2 pages of groups for Giuliani, the largest containing just over 3,000 people (the majority having just a few hundred). Romney's largest group is 15,500, with most of the rest numbering in the hundreds (as well as a half dozen anti-Romney groups). Thompson has only a few groups, the largest (by far) containing 5,777. Huckabee only has a group of 4,338, and the next largest is less than 800.
John Edwards's main group has less than 4,000 people. A search for Hillary Clinton brings up four anti-Hillary groups first, with a combined membership of more than 585,000 people (followed by her "ONE MILLION STRONG" group that has only 7,892 members).
What candidate has the most members in their Facebook groups? Obama, with 382,000 people in his "ONE MILLION STRONG" group. The candidate with the second highest number? Ron Paul (his main group has over 32,500.
And if you take a look at the Facebook Elections '08 app, Ron Paul comes in 4th, behind Obama, Giuliani, and Clinton (although he's been gaining on her in the past week).Posted by: Phil at October 24, 2007 10:23 PM
I think you're missing where the USSC has original jurisdiction.
A person (citizen) can't sue the fed for a bad state law. See Joseph Story
Where the feds have original jurisdiction where staes are a party, it pertains to these classes of cases: "in controversies between two or more states; in controversies between a state and citizens of another state; and in controversies between a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects."
I'm absolutely sure that the feds involve themselves where they ought not have jurisdiction.
(What, afterall was the Roe case?)
Through our British heritage (speaking as an American Frenchy) we have a strong tradition of impeaching usurpers of the constituion. I say ... let's bring it on!
JRPosted by: jr at October 24, 2007 10:58 PM
I'll admit right up front that it is hard for me to get inside the heads of youngsters these days.
I've met kids with body piercing and tatoos from here to there that are as pro-life as the typical church-going folk. And yet they have a government school way of wanting the state to tell everybody how to obtain their energy supplies, or regulate geneticly modified vegetables.
Obviously Ron Paul would diverge from their particular world-view of how we ought to maintain our energy supplies and so forth. But that maybe helps to mae my original point ...
The oponents of the war come from divergent viewpoints.
Paul M. Weyrich is a US conservative political activist and commentator, widely considered one of the founders of the American New Right and an important strategist for the social and religious conservative movements. Check out his latest publication at http://www.freecongress.org/
opposed to the iraq intervention.
Another conservative icon Richerd Viguerie: The founding father of direct mail, in December 1999, was cited in the Washington Times as one of thirteen “Conservatives of the Century.” Newt Gingrich once said of Viguerie: “Richard understands the values that help our government and economy serve the interests of the people. And he knows how to put those values into action”.
opposed to the Iraq intervetnion.
After twenty years of political activism, NOW I am finding myself distributing literature during my lunch hour.
Something bonds me and these kids.
And maybe they'll get an education out of it.
At least they'll get a president that stays out of their business.
I do think I know. I took the oath.
We do what we are told, and we do it well ... to the best of our abilities. If we're to police the streets of Baghdad. Or secure Fallujah.
And we have a duty to our fellows in arms.
But we are not without conscience.
There are things we cannot settle. Religious and
ethnic hatred are not manageable by mere whim.
JRPosted by: jr at October 25, 2007 12:18 AM
Re: "his main supporters are 9/11 conspiracy loons, potheads, and anti-Semites."
Good grief! Introduce me to one!
I don't have much patience for 9/11 conspiracy "kooks", but I still probably have more respect for a skeptic of government than someone who buys everything hook, line, and sinker.
Eisenhower wasn't the first to warn against it. See what Alexis de' Tocqueville had to say on the subject. There is always as class clamoring for battle.
I'm afraid that your analysis is missing constituionalists, libertarians, Republicans that oppose the Iraq intervention, Reagan Democrats, and all kinds of new anti-war youngsters (hard to catagorize).
"He feels that America is responsible for pretty much every human rights disaster around the world in the last 50 years."
He says that wacking a beehive is asking to be stung. It's called blowback. You aren't paying attention.
"He thinks that if we just leave the world alone, the world will leave us alone."
He says that meddling in other's affairs breeds resentment. That doesn't mean we shouldn't defend ourselves from imminent harm. And to ignore the stated reasons for attack against us is to not understand our enemy. I suppose you'll also defend having 70,000 troops in Germany?
"If the election were Ron Paul vs. Any of the Democrats, I'd gladly vote for Paul. However, I'd much rather have Huckabee, Romney, Hunter, or McCain on the ballot."
I have an idea. How about supporting the only one that can beat Hillary?
JRPosted by: jr at October 25, 2007 12:49 AM
JR, it also has original jurisdiction if the federal government is a party in a case, which has happened before.
Posted by: Dan
at October 25, 2007 5:14 AM
Roe v Wade was appellate jurisdiction.
I guess I stand corrected. This contradicts, though, much of what I've seen.
Don't misunderstand, Jacquie. I'm not saying I support him. Just that this is the first thing I saw on his pro-life stance. It made me take a second look at him. He stand on war makes me nervous.
But as I've said before, I know nothing about war and how it works. I don't feel qualified to judge when or when not, we should be involved in one. I would soooo stink at foreign policy.
But it sounds a little dangerous to wait to be attacked on our own turf before doing something. Which is what it sounds like Ron Paul is saying.
Maybe that's a smart thing. Maybe not antagonizing other parts of the world would lessen our chance of attack. I don't know. I hate war, and just don't have the kind of mind that thinks in those terms.
Anyway, I don't really "support" anyone yet. Just oppose Mrs. Clinton. On principal. And I'll be reading everybody's opinions very, very carefully.Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 6:16 AM
In the litany of loony supporters, we ought not forget to add the VFW. Veteran's of Foreign Wars endorses Ron Paul? Go figure.
JRPosted by: jr at October 25, 2007 7:25 AM
Application of violence strictly to thwart an imminent attack is part of just war doctrine. This doctrine does not require that one be attacked first, and Paul has never stated anything to the contrary.
JRPosted by: jr at October 25, 2007 7:36 AM
JR, what is RP's stance on foreign policy. What would he do to protect us from another 9/11? I don't know much about him and I'm trying to get information.
Of course I'd like to stay out of war with other countries but I don't want to be a sitting duck either. If Iran developed nuclear weapons and started attacking Isreal or any other country for that matter, would we come to their aid under Paul?Posted by: Kristen at October 25, 2007 8:07 AM
Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law
As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I am steadfastly opposed to abortion. I strongly believe that a fetus is a human life, and that a fetus deserves the same legal protections afforded to all Americans. I also believe that the Roe v. Wade decision will prove to be the most flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. There is no real or imagined "right to abortion" in the Constitution under any serious interpretation of that document. The Supreme Court simply created a nonexistent constitutional right out of thin air to serve the political agenda of the justices.
Thirty years later, the pro-life fight goes on. Well-intentioned pro-life advocates supported a bill in Congress last week called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, believing it represented a step toward restoring respect for unborn life. Unfortunately, the bill does not accord any human or legal status to fetuses, but rather creates a new federal penalty for harming the mother of a fetus. The reasoning is deeply flawed: if there is to be a greater penalty for harming a pregnant woman than an ordinary woman, it must be based on the harm to the unborn child. In other words, the enhanced penalty must be for the second offense to the second human life. Yet the legislation evades this fundamental truth by refusing to recognize the fetus as a human person. So the Act is seriously flawed and will not engender new respect for unborn life.
Worse yet, the Act serves to legitimize and further entrench the Roe v. Wade decision. Like Roe, the Act federalizes law which the Constitution properly leaves to the states. Constitutionally, virtually all crimes are state matters. The only true federal crimes are those listed in Article I (treason, piracy, and counterfeiting); all other crimes are left to the jurisdiction of the states under the 10th Amendment. Yet Congress finds it much easier to federalize every human evil rather than uphold the Constitution and respect states' rights. Impassioned pro-life Americans might want a federal criminal law protecting fetuses, but in truth the federal government is more likely to pass laws favoring abortion rather than outlawing it. Once we allow federal control over abortion, we lose the opportunity for states to enact pro-life legislation. Numerous states already have laws that punish the act of murder against a fetus. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. All abortion foes must understand that the real battle should be fought at the state level, where grassroots respect for life can influence state legislatures.
The tragic irony is that the proposed legislation specifically protects abortionists from prosecution for harming a pregnant mother and her unborn child. An attacker with no knowledge of a woman's pregnancy receives a greater penalty for his deed, while the abortionist with full knowledge of his actions is not charged. So much for increasing respect for life.
Political expediency is never an excuse for ignoring the Constitution. The Supreme Court did so in Roe v. Wade, with tragic consequences. The states are now unable to enact laws to protect the weakest, smallest, and most innocent human lives. A society that does not respect life cannot be expected to respect liberty. Our goal must be to restore respect for the Constitution and states' rights. Only then can states properly restore respect for unborn life by criminalizing the act of abortion.
by Ron Paul, Dr. July 21, 2007
The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007
We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.
I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.
I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.
It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.
I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.
On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.
I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.
Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.
Ron PaulPosted by: mk at October 25, 2007 9:14 AM
Our goal must be to restore respect for the Constitution and states' rights. Only then can states properly restore respect for unborn life by criminalizing the act of abortion.
BOOO! Thanks for proving my point there, Dr. Paul.
Apparently state's rights supersede the right to life to Ron Paul. His first concern is good politics, which he feels lays the groundwork to save babies. My first concern is saving babies. We have a serious conflict, here.
I've heard it said that the civil war to achieve abolition was a wrong approach, because it led to poverty in the reconstruction and tensions between the races. These people argue that slavery was phasing itself out with the industrial revolution and in those countries were slavery was gradually phased out, like Britain, there is not the black/white animosity we have in America. In their opinions, life woudl be so much better for everyone if we just let slavery continue for another decade. After all, it has been legal for hundreds of years, when not another 10?
I respond with "The ends don't justify the means." Continuing the great evil of slavery because it might mean as easier transition is not morally acceptable. It had to stop. It had to stop right then. Abortion has to stop RIGHT NOW.
So I would say to Dr. Paul, continuing abortion at the state level for the purpose of restoring integrity to the constitution and supporting states' rights is a back-asswards approach that does nothing to restore the integrity of human life.
I am 100% in favor of Federal legislation prohibiting abortion. Despite the can of worms I recognizes that this opens, in this case, life should be a constitutional right. States are free to decide penalties, but not free to infringe on this right. Like states cannot execute cruel or unusual punishments, states can not allow people to inflict cruel and unusual deaths on innocent unborn babies.
Pick your priorities, Dr.Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 9:42 AM
He frequently quotes Thomas Jefferson in this regard:
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
If anybody has reason to fear a nuclear Iran, it certainly would be Israel. Fortunately for them, Israel is in possession of a couple hundred nuclear warheads and a first rate military apparatus. They are more than capable of taking care of themselves.
As far as defending the US against terrorism, Paul authored a bill which would have expanded the definition "piracy" in the constitution to include air piracy so that "marque and reprisals" (military action taken against foreign aggressors who are not directly sponsored by any particular nation) could be used in rooting out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
He is also a strong proponent of securing our borders, which is a major security risk right now, and a factor that people generally seem to not be cognizant of.
Which candidate do you think would do more? Which one would support a constitutional amendment?Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 10:15 AM
Huckabee and Hunter, that I know of.
I'm totally for overturning Roe. Then it would fall back to the states. But there will always be liberal states killing babies unless we have a Human Life Amendment.Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 10:24 AM
I don't hold it against him.... that time in "My Favorite Martian"....Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 11:51 AM
My Favorite Martian
JRPosted by: jr at October 25, 2007 12:04 PM
Also, Ron Paul is a pretty hard core racist. Haven't any of you guys seen any of the things he's said?Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 1:03 PM
Do tell.Posted by: Jacqueline at October 25, 2007 1:25 PM
*grins* My best friend supports Ron Paul and we have had SO many arguments about this guy. I have like a whole file on my computer of stuff that he has said that makes him look, as you so eloquently put it, Jacque, like a giant talking turd.
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."
Yeah. That's a totally level headed dude. Ugh.Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 1:37 PM
Yes - let's indulge in some slander. Shall we?
JRPosted by: jr at October 25, 2007 1:38 PM
My contacts in the FBI have provided an unretouched photograph:Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 1:42 PM
Yawl enjoy yourselves now. I've got literature to put out. Bye-bye.
JRPosted by: jr at October 25, 2007 1:55 PM
JR, I don't know if you responded to any of my posts, but I was curious as to the situation whether or not congress could pass such a law.
According to my U.S. Legal teacher, the answer is no. When Marshall set the precedent of judicial review he essentially "created a monster". The right to judicial review of laws is too engrained to be ignored or simply gotten rid of by congress passing a bill (this goes both for the right to life act and the freedom of choice act). Federal laws are subject to their constitutionality, i.e. what the court finds their constitutionaltity of the law to be. Only the courts can decide whether or not a law is constitutional, not the legislature.
Esentially no law can be passed that over rides the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, assuming it is an issue of a right garunteed by the constitution (which the Court found was the case in Roe v. Wade).Posted by: Dan at October 25, 2007 2:03 PM
* Ron Paul Would Let States Murder Children: Ron Paul is explicitly pro-choice state by state. (See his answer below, to a question asked by a KGOV listener, and his answer transcribed by a KGOV staffer). By Paul's principles and legislation, states would be allowed to permit child killing (and even fund abortion with tax dollars). Libertarians, as godless policy makers, are sexually immoral and tolerate murder. Anecodtally, driving to a pro-life event with our general manager Will Duffy on Friday, October 12, we saw a Ron Paul bumper sticker on a car that had a hate bumper sticker, the one that mocks Christianity by usurping the Christian fish symbol to promote Darwinism.
Ron Paul's YouTube interview July 14, 2007:
Question Austin Hines from Tulsa, OK: You say that abortion legislation should be decided on the state level rather than on the federal level. Does this mean that you believe the morality of the issue is not absolute? [Since the constitution defends the right to life, do we not have the right to define when life begins at the federal level?]
Answer from Ron Paul: I deal with the abortion issue like I deal with all acts of violence. I see the fetus as a human being that has legal rights, has legal inheritance rights from the day of conception. I as a physician if I injure the fetus, I have liabilities; if you are in a car accident or someone commits a violent act, and kills fetus, they are liable and responsible. But all acts of violence under our constitution are dealt with at the local level, murder, secondary, third-degree manslaughter; all these things and are done locally, and they are not always easy to sort out, and that is the magnificence of our system, and our constitution, is that the more difficult the issue, the more local it should be for sorting out these difficult issues. So, I would say yes, the states have the right, and the authority, to write the rules, and regulations, and punishments, for acts of violence. I believe strongly that this should be at the local level. Therefore, I would not support Roe vs. Wade, but I certainly am absolutely opposed to the federal government funding abortion. But I cannot protect and fight for personal liberty if I don't fight for the right to life; and if you endorse abortion moments before delivery, or in the third trimester, which is now legal, I as a physician could be paid for [aborting that child], at the same time, we have devised a system here today that if the baby is born, and the teenager or whomever throws the baby away, they're charged with murder. But if you are careless with this attitude, it's more than just a privacy issue; and [if you] say, well, the privacy of the mother is the only concern, but no, it's whether or not a living being is involved. If it were only the privacy issue, I believe our homes are our castles, and that government shouldn't have cameras there; they should never intrude. But I do not say that because our homes are our castles, that we have the right to murder our children. Nobody really endorses that. So, it's very hard intellectually, to distinguish between the killing of an infant a minute before birth, and a minute afterwards. And I think it deserves a lot of attention, but I also recognize that it's difficult for a lot of people to sort this out. That's why we really want the states to sort it out, and not have one answer at the federal level. Because if you depend on the federal level to decide these issues, you end up saying, well, it's in the courts, the Supreme Court should rule; and they legislated through that Roe vs. Wade incident, and they actually got very involved in details of the medical process of when and what abortions could be done. So, I think our system is, that you reject that notion, honor the commitment to the Constitution, and try to solve these difficult problems at the local level. And I am quite sure it will not be solved, and the solutions will not be perfect. We don't live in a perfect world, and we have to accept the political process that gives us the best answers. [End Ron Paul Excerpt]
Ron Paul has long worked with the Libertarian Party, and spoke at it's 2004 national convention, and he has never repudiated that party, even though the Libertarian Party is:
Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of handicapped and sick people, etc.)
Libertarians are immoral, godless quasi-conservatives who therefore have no compass for righteousness in law.
And the above list is far more of a threat to America than is al Qaeda, for this platform is a prescription for how to destroy us from within. Yet Ron Paul does not understand these simple matters of right and wrong and governance.-Bob Enyart, KGOV.com Posted by: Zeke13:19 at October 25, 2007 5:05 PM
Yes - let's indulge in some slander. Shall we?
It's not slander if it's his own words...Posted by: Jacqueline at October 26, 2007 10:34 AM
Ron Paul Would Let States Murder Children
Oh brother, Zeke....
There is practical advocation of what one wishes for, and then there is ranting and raving.
DougPosted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 3:24 PM