More on Ron Paul
I occasionally read comments about Ron Paul's view of things.....some of which I believe are misunderstood.....I recently read a comment on Home Where They Belong's blog that articulately answers some of the questions that people have asked or made in regards to him. I am unable to get in contact with the writer of these comments....but am giving links to her/his comment on the blog as well as copying it here.
"A concern early on in this blog was raised about the apparent lack of any overt mention of Christianity on Ron Paul's site.
Hearing or reading Paul answer these questions himself far exceeds my attempt to answer for him (www.ronpaul2008.com; www.ronpaullibrary.org; www.lewrockwell.com; www.ronpaullibrary.com), but I'll try my best.
(1. He doesn’t mention faith or being a Christian anywhere on his issues page).
Somebody has already posted his statement of faith on this blog. (Kay inserting here: here is the comment that is being referenced "t has been questioned whether Ron Paul is Christian and according to him he is. Here is a quote from Ron Paul, "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." This can be found at:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/87/statement-of-faith/
Keep in mind that he's not running for pastor - he's running for President. The President swears to uphold and defend the Constitution - which means making sure you have the right to worship anyway you want to. As long as he follows this, his faith is irrelevant. (Even an atheist could defend my right to follow Jesus if s/he was a Constitutionalist). Paul even said Romney should not have had to address his Mormonism - unless he plans on forcing his beliefs on us, it's irrelevant.
Again, that's not to say Paul believes his faith is irrelevant. But it's reflected in the way he lives his life rather than verbally having to tell you (our works prove our faith, not the other way around).
He believes we walk a slippery slope when we start using our Christianity as a way to 'get votes.' Especially since the President represents all the people.
Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas said recently that he doesn't rule based on his faith (or his gender or race). He rules based on what he believes is Constitutional. But his faith validates what he does.
And ruling based on the Constitution sometimes means not following how one 'feels.' (The church could learn something if we applied following God's Word as written rather than how we 'feel' about it)
(2. He says he’s pro-life).
As a baby doctor, Paul has delivered 4,000 babies in his life, and has never seen a need to perform an abortion. He is 100% pro-life.
You may not know that Congress has the ability to override rulings of the Supreme Court. (I think it's more complicated than that, but that's the essence of it) More than once, Paul has introduced legislation that would overturn Roe vs. Wade, establish the fact that the Fed Govt recognizes life begins at conception, and remove the Fed Govt from the debate (sending it back to states to decide). This would also eliminate use of all funding of abortions with Fed tax money (our money).
My understanding is that at least 40% of the states would almost immediately put restrictions on abortion - something they can't do now because Roe vs. Wade was a Federal decision.
If you've never heard of Paul's legislation, it's because it never makes it out of committee. None of the so-called pro-life Congressmen nor President Bush have seen fit to support this legislation.
And we see how much progress has happened in terms of getting an amendment banning abortion. An amendment is not going to happen - it's just convinient for candidates to say that they support one..
(3. He doesn’t even talk about gay marriage at all. That’s a bad sign if you ask me!)
He has talked about this. In fact, when asked about a constitutional amendment defining what marriage is, he doesn't see a need for it - because marriage is already defined as a man and a woman. The fact that people want to redefine it doesn't legitimize it.
He believes marriage should return to the jurisdiction of the churches, completely out of the hands of the government. The fact that the govt is involved right now is a big reason why gay marriage is becoming 'acceptable' - the govt is redefining it.
Paul also believes the Fed Govt doesn't have a right to be a moral judge and jury - again, this issue also goes back to the states.
One other note about amendments. Paul has stated we need to approach amending the Constitution very carefully. When the government starts telling others what they can't do, the same principle applies in that they can also start telling us what we can't do as well.
(4. He wants to withdraw all troops from the Middle East immediately. He’s trying to repeat the disaster that happened in Vietnam and wipe out everything we’ve worked for in the Middle East. He wants to leave the terrorists alone. Then, they can develop nuclear power and kill millions.)
Actually, quite the opposite. He wants to bring troops home from the Middle East so we can avoid another Vietnam... it's too late to avoid a disaster.
According to former CIA terrorist analyst Michael Scheuer (among others), the US is not in the Middle East to defend our freedoms - we're there because of business interests like oil. And being there is helping Al Quida recruit more people.
Even Benazir Bhutto - killed in Pakistan 12/27/07 - said that she believes US military involvement has helped to promote terrorism in Pakistan.
US foreign policy either installs and/or gives money to governments like Pakistan, and then when they don't do what we ask, we go to war, remove them from power, and start over. It happened in Iran, it happened in Iraq, it's happening in Pakistan.
Where in the Constitution does it give the US the right to do any of this?
And if you think we went to war with Iraq because of 9/11, think again. It has been the policy of the US to have 'regime change' in Iraq since 1997. Both the CIA and people on the ground in Iraq before the war started said there was no real evidence pointing to WMD's in Iraq. And now plans are for us to be there another 20-50 years - our embassy being built right now is as large as the Vatican and will cost $1.5 billion yearly to operate.
And if you think we need to fight them over there instead of over here - not only is it a fallacy to believe those are the only two options, the fact that 'they're' already here shows how wrong that thinking is.
We're doing nothing to protect our borders. And our defense is the weakest is been in a long time. Shouldn't this be our priority - rather than forcing democracy down the throats of a sovereign country using the barrel of a gun?
There was a concern raised about Paul's apparent lack of support for Israel. Let's first look at current US policy.
We do not respect Israel's sovereignty. They can make no decisions without checking with us first. They can't defend themselves... they can't enter into peace treaties unless we approve it. I believe they have to purchase all their weapons from us. And they have started asking us to fight their wars for them.
And we give more money to Israel's enemies than we do to Israel.
None of this sounds like 'support' to me.
And the Fed Govt doesn't have the right to 'support' anyone financially. That's our money. The Fed Govt is supposed to protect my right to support Israel - or not support them.
Please remember that the same type of 'support' the Fed Govt gives Israel is the same type of 'support' they give to performing abortions - our tax dollars at work as they see fit.
Let me - my group - my church - support Israel. The Fed Govt is only there to protect my God-given right to do this.
Paul believes we should be friends with as many as possible (harder to go to war with friends), free trade (not managed trade like NAFTA) with as many as possible, and set the good example. But stay out of entangling alliances. Let countries deal with their own problems. And if Congress, representing the people, wants to declare war, they can.
Remember that US foreign policy has typically been non-intervention, fighting only when necessary to defend yourself. To protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans. We've allowed ourselves to be convinced that there's a terrorist behind every door, an 'undefined enemy,' and we'll have to give up some of our liberties to be safe. Because of that, Benjamin Franklin said we will have neither.
Outside of saying he's pro-life and pro-marriage, Mike Huckabee's record is not 'conservative.' He has the support of the New Hampshire NEA. He believes he can decide 'what is right' (an answer in a debate) rather than follow the Constitution. He believes it's okay for the Fed Govt to ban smoking in all 50 states.
Regarding homeschooling, Ron Paul believes that:
1. Parents should make decisions about their children (defending life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
2. The Department of Education should be eliminated (same position as Reagan prior to his election), sending all Ed. decisions back to the state and local levels.
3. As long as there is an Fed Income Tax, homeschooling families should receive tax rebates for homeschool expenses.
And he has stood up for these rights consistently.
It doesn't get much more pro-homeschool than that.
Thanks for letting me share,
Wade0520
"A concern early on in this blog was raised about the apparent lack of any overt mention of Christianity on Ron Paul's site.
Hearing or reading Paul answer these questions himself far exceeds my attempt to answer for him (www.ronpaul2008.com; www.ronpaullibrary.org; www.lewrockwell.com; www.ronpaullibrary.com), but I'll try my best.
(1. He doesn’t mention faith or being a Christian anywhere on his issues page).
Somebody has already posted his statement of faith on this blog. (Kay inserting here: here is the comment that is being referenced "t has been questioned whether Ron Paul is Christian and according to him he is. Here is a quote from Ron Paul, "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." This can be found at:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/87/statement-of-faith/
Keep in mind that he's not running for pastor - he's running for President. The President swears to uphold and defend the Constitution - which means making sure you have the right to worship anyway you want to. As long as he follows this, his faith is irrelevant. (Even an atheist could defend my right to follow Jesus if s/he was a Constitutionalist). Paul even said Romney should not have had to address his Mormonism - unless he plans on forcing his beliefs on us, it's irrelevant.
Again, that's not to say Paul believes his faith is irrelevant. But it's reflected in the way he lives his life rather than verbally having to tell you (our works prove our faith, not the other way around).
He believes we walk a slippery slope when we start using our Christianity as a way to 'get votes.' Especially since the President represents all the people.
Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas said recently that he doesn't rule based on his faith (or his gender or race). He rules based on what he believes is Constitutional. But his faith validates what he does.
And ruling based on the Constitution sometimes means not following how one 'feels.' (The church could learn something if we applied following God's Word as written rather than how we 'feel' about it)
(2. He says he’s pro-life).
As a baby doctor, Paul has delivered 4,000 babies in his life, and has never seen a need to perform an abortion. He is 100% pro-life.
You may not know that Congress has the ability to override rulings of the Supreme Court. (I think it's more complicated than that, but that's the essence of it) More than once, Paul has introduced legislation that would overturn Roe vs. Wade, establish the fact that the Fed Govt recognizes life begins at conception, and remove the Fed Govt from the debate (sending it back to states to decide). This would also eliminate use of all funding of abortions with Fed tax money (our money).
My understanding is that at least 40% of the states would almost immediately put restrictions on abortion - something they can't do now because Roe vs. Wade was a Federal decision.
If you've never heard of Paul's legislation, it's because it never makes it out of committee. None of the so-called pro-life Congressmen nor President Bush have seen fit to support this legislation.
And we see how much progress has happened in terms of getting an amendment banning abortion. An amendment is not going to happen - it's just convinient for candidates to say that they support one..
(3. He doesn’t even talk about gay marriage at all. That’s a bad sign if you ask me!)
He has talked about this. In fact, when asked about a constitutional amendment defining what marriage is, he doesn't see a need for it - because marriage is already defined as a man and a woman. The fact that people want to redefine it doesn't legitimize it.
He believes marriage should return to the jurisdiction of the churches, completely out of the hands of the government. The fact that the govt is involved right now is a big reason why gay marriage is becoming 'acceptable' - the govt is redefining it.
Paul also believes the Fed Govt doesn't have a right to be a moral judge and jury - again, this issue also goes back to the states.
One other note about amendments. Paul has stated we need to approach amending the Constitution very carefully. When the government starts telling others what they can't do, the same principle applies in that they can also start telling us what we can't do as well.
(4. He wants to withdraw all troops from the Middle East immediately. He’s trying to repeat the disaster that happened in Vietnam and wipe out everything we’ve worked for in the Middle East. He wants to leave the terrorists alone. Then, they can develop nuclear power and kill millions.)
Actually, quite the opposite. He wants to bring troops home from the Middle East so we can avoid another Vietnam... it's too late to avoid a disaster.
According to former CIA terrorist analyst Michael Scheuer (among others), the US is not in the Middle East to defend our freedoms - we're there because of business interests like oil. And being there is helping Al Quida recruit more people.
Even Benazir Bhutto - killed in Pakistan 12/27/07 - said that she believes US military involvement has helped to promote terrorism in Pakistan.
US foreign policy either installs and/or gives money to governments like Pakistan, and then when they don't do what we ask, we go to war, remove them from power, and start over. It happened in Iran, it happened in Iraq, it's happening in Pakistan.
Where in the Constitution does it give the US the right to do any of this?
And if you think we went to war with Iraq because of 9/11, think again. It has been the policy of the US to have 'regime change' in Iraq since 1997. Both the CIA and people on the ground in Iraq before the war started said there was no real evidence pointing to WMD's in Iraq. And now plans are for us to be there another 20-50 years - our embassy being built right now is as large as the Vatican and will cost $1.5 billion yearly to operate.
And if you think we need to fight them over there instead of over here - not only is it a fallacy to believe those are the only two options, the fact that 'they're' already here shows how wrong that thinking is.
We're doing nothing to protect our borders. And our defense is the weakest is been in a long time. Shouldn't this be our priority - rather than forcing democracy down the throats of a sovereign country using the barrel of a gun?
There was a concern raised about Paul's apparent lack of support for Israel. Let's first look at current US policy.
We do not respect Israel's sovereignty. They can make no decisions without checking with us first. They can't defend themselves... they can't enter into peace treaties unless we approve it. I believe they have to purchase all their weapons from us. And they have started asking us to fight their wars for them.
And we give more money to Israel's enemies than we do to Israel.
None of this sounds like 'support' to me.
And the Fed Govt doesn't have the right to 'support' anyone financially. That's our money. The Fed Govt is supposed to protect my right to support Israel - or not support them.
Please remember that the same type of 'support' the Fed Govt gives Israel is the same type of 'support' they give to performing abortions - our tax dollars at work as they see fit.
Let me - my group - my church - support Israel. The Fed Govt is only there to protect my God-given right to do this.
Paul believes we should be friends with as many as possible (harder to go to war with friends), free trade (not managed trade like NAFTA) with as many as possible, and set the good example. But stay out of entangling alliances. Let countries deal with their own problems. And if Congress, representing the people, wants to declare war, they can.
Remember that US foreign policy has typically been non-intervention, fighting only when necessary to defend yourself. To protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans. We've allowed ourselves to be convinced that there's a terrorist behind every door, an 'undefined enemy,' and we'll have to give up some of our liberties to be safe. Because of that, Benjamin Franklin said we will have neither.
Outside of saying he's pro-life and pro-marriage, Mike Huckabee's record is not 'conservative.' He has the support of the New Hampshire NEA. He believes he can decide 'what is right' (an answer in a debate) rather than follow the Constitution. He believes it's okay for the Fed Govt to ban smoking in all 50 states.
Regarding homeschooling, Ron Paul believes that:
1. Parents should make decisions about their children (defending life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
2. The Department of Education should be eliminated (same position as Reagan prior to his election), sending all Ed. decisions back to the state and local levels.
3. As long as there is an Fed Income Tax, homeschooling families should receive tax rebates for homeschool expenses.
And he has stood up for these rights consistently.
It doesn't get much more pro-homeschool than that.
Thanks for letting me share,
Wade0520
Comments
I like the idea that Ron Paul said that. It seems an admirable sentiment.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/63/ron-paul-romney%E2%80%99s-faith-should-not-be-an-issue
I added the link to the article so others can look it up!
Happy New Year to you!
Blessings,
Tiany