The media has fallen in love with Ron Paul. Doing a quick Google News search comes up with 2,520 recent articles when just searching for “Ron Paul”. My guess is that because Ron Paul is against the war and is pushing the idea that 9/11 was our “fault”, the press loves him. I can’t really think of any other reason. I can’t believe the majority of journalists are as libertarian as Ron Paul when it comes to the role of the federal government. I doubt many journalists want to eliminate any vestige of a social safety net as Ron Paul does. It has to be his position the war. He’s against the war and he “blames” us for being attacked.
Even though I think Ron Paul is somewhat wrong with his position on the war, at least it’s a position I can respect. There are definitely points to being totally non-interventionist in our foreign policy. It’s a legitimate argument to make. However, the one issue that Ron Paul is totally wrong on and the press is ignoring, is Ron Paul’s abortion position. He is very pro-life, and has lately tried to hide behind “returning the power” to the states. I’m not buying it.
In 2005, Ron Paul introduced H.R. 4379, which has the purpose of “To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.” Now, it is the job of Congress to create the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, and it has the power to restrict, but this is quite a radical step. And just what is Ron Paul wanting to restrict?
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–
(1) shall not adjudicate–
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
It almost sounds reasonable until you realize that this law would allow individual states to setup state religions, and the Supreme Court would be powerless to rule on state *established* religions. It’s also curious that a state’s rights advocate would only target very socially conservative issues. Why not gun control? Commerce? Why such religious based targets?
I think the answer is that Ron Paul is no libertarian. Instead, he wants to use his power as President to push his far right agenda.
It gets worse.
Also in 2005, Ron Paul introduced H.R. 776 which said:
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress–
(1) the Congress declares that–
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
Ron Paul wanted a federal law that declares life begins at conception and at the moment the sperm enters the egg, the zygote is a full person and protected under the law as any born human. I don’t think I’m way off base to say that this law would effectively ban abortion. If a zygote is a person, then abortion would be murder, prosecutable under the law. This is a very, very extreme position, and very un-libertarian. It’s downright draconian.
Ron Paul and the media can continue the charade that he’s just a small government, pro-liberty maverick. I know the truth, that Ron Paul would use his power to push his far right agenda. I will not buy the hype.
I love it when people talk about how Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian.
He isn’t. He is an American with many libertarian ideas.
One idea is that the unlected men in robes went to far in their seperation of church and state. Congress shall make no law means just that, congress shall make no law. How does that mean state run schools also can’t make a rule regarding religion?
Every other candidate ignores the consitutiton except when it is convenient. They also listen to special interests more then they do American voters, which is why we are still in Iraq, we are on the verge of granting amnesty, and we are 10 trillion dollars in debt.
Time to wake up America. The constitution shouldn’t scare you.
The dark side to one blogger is the bright side to another. If you believe that abortion is murder, you would not have any problem with Ron Paul trying to stop it.
Roe v. Wade is an unadministerable mess of a decision. Unfortunately like almost all the Supreme Court’s decisions since the Lochner era. The Court was supposed to protect the people from bad government activity – instead, the Court is the government’s biggest ally in perpetrating all sorts of evil.
Very easy to explain! If you watch the interviews with him.
He says he doesn’t support abortion at all. He introduced those
bills to get the power out the the Feds hands and put it in the States hands.
If the state wants to be pro-choice or pro-life its up to them.
HIS PERSONAL VIEW KILLING BABIeS IS WRONG>
BUT ITS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS JOB TO DICTATE.
Easy to debate.
If one uses the Bible as their moral compass regarding what is or isn’t alive. Then one must recognize that it is only when the “life-breath” is first taken in that the being becomes “alive” and no amount of beating blood makes it a living being until it breathes its first breath. Also, there is a “life after death” position that one must also recognize, in that, when the body dies and no longer pumps blood the being still continues on. Just look at Jesus and his “Return” after he was killed. No heart beating there, yet totally considered “living”. Abortion is not a protected right nor is it a murder. Until that zygote takes its first breath it is still just a blood bag able to become alive.
I am curious if you did indeed listen to what Ron Paul was saying in the debates or if you were listening to what the Fox “News” shills were saying. Blowback is something that actually happens and if you think that they hate us for our freedoms then perhaps you should watch less TV and do some more reading. The reading assignment that Ron Paul assigned to Giuliani would be a good place to start.
As with the issue on abortion, I oppose it because I too use to be a fetus. Here is an actual definition of life
American Heritage Dictionary life (līf) n. pl. lives (līvz)
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
An embryo fits all these criteria and yet some circles don’t call it life, I call it barbaric.
Thomas Jefferson once said,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”
The pro-life stance is very constitutional.
One is no little amused that the author of this piece deigns to have the authority over such issues given back to the states and the people thereof from whence they originated.
The entire Constitution was written to create the general government which was to be the mere agent of the states and the respective people thereof with their remaining the principals and to limit that general government to the power enumerated unto it. Save for the specific limitations which the states and the people thereof put on themselves, the Constitution was not written as a document to create of to limit states or their people.
Thus, rather that nine unelected and life-serving justices using the extra-constitutional power of judicial review to decide such important issues as abortion, such decisions will be left up to the legislatures of the states and the people who elected them. What a novel democratic idea!
Whether or not a state had a state religion or how any religion was manifest in that state would be left up to the legislature of that state and the people thereof. I, personally, would be very uncomfortable with a state-sanctioned church; and frankly do not believe that it would be likely to happen in most states, remembering, however, that it would seem that the dogma of secularism is the current state-sanctioned religion, proclaimed from the highest officials of the empire.
In essence, Dr. Paul want to reassert the authority of the states and of their respective people, who are, after all, the real sovereigns.
Vote for Ron Paul if you believe that the rights of potential humans trump those of actual humans! I mean hey, if the silly wimmins don’t wanna spend their fertile years incubating teh baybeez, then they should just keep their skank legs shut! Canni get a bitch, pleaze!? W00t!
Sigh. I frankly don’t see why it matters. Paul has a little over 1% of the vote and will not be the Republican candidate. He also said he wouldn’t run independent, so little threat there. The guy, while full of some great ideas, also thinks that Christians are under attack in America. As an atheist, myself, I think the guy needs to reassess that statement and look at who the most discriminated group in America is (according to various polls): atheists.
I don’t mind Ron Paul, but there are better candidates. It’s a moot point, anyway, though– he’s not going far.
Whenever Ron Paul is asked a question along the lines of “If you were President how would you change so and so” he always gives a direct answer, including the one that makes this point irrelevant: “Well I would try to influence congress as the President doesn’t have those authorities.”
The man has been a constitutionalist for over 30 years and has pushed the position for just as long. If you think these last 30 years has been a cleverly constructed ruse and that his small-government attitude is just a play to get the power he wants to institute an agenda, I don’t know what to tell you. He doesn’t believe the abortion precedent should be set in the court systems and as someone who doesn’t believe in abortion, just like someone who doesn’t believe in drug use, thinks it should be left up to the States to decide how it does and does not punish such an act, not the Union or the courts. As someone who is pro-abortion they should agree with this stance because all it requires is a majority in the supreme court to overrule Roe vs Wade. Would you be happy if the majority of the supreme court were against alcohol sales and prohibition is restored? Leave it to local governments.
As President he has no authority to make a change to the court’s precedent of an issue, however as a congressman he does have the authority to put forth a proposition and did.
even thought Paul is pro-life, he does not believe the Federal government should interfere in the issue.
Just so you get your facts straight, Ron Paul never said that we were the only fault that caused 9/11. What he DID say, is that we contributed towards the anger that did drive, and continue to drive, the fanatics who would want to do harm to our country.
It also seems that the bill simply wants to return a certain amount of power to the states. What’s wrong with this? Shouldn’t the states be allowed to govern themselves, or are you all about big government?
What you fail to understand is that RP’s views and the bills he has introduced are exactly what the Constitution indicates. It is up to each state to decide what it does. If that means one state allows abortions and another does not, so be it… It is the peoples decision. If one state wants to suceed from the union (go Vermont) than so be it.
Look, I believe life begins at conception. I no way do I or would I support abortion. But let me tell you this… If I lived in a state were the people chose to allow abortion, I have three choices.. 1) move to another state 2) do something to change the law 3) live in the state and do nothing… Its a freekin Republic knuckle head, not a democracy.
“Paul just doesnt want the federal government involved bla bla bla….” EXCEPT that he voted for the FEDERAL law making so-called “partial birth abortion” illegal. He’s a hypocrit.
And if you believe that there are “inalienable rights” that come from “nature and natures god” that no government (which includes states) can take away then Ron Paul is full of shit. How can you have inalienable rights, life liberty persuit of happiness, Bill of Rights, etc… if it just depends on which state you live in?
Abortion isnt murder either. Murder is a crime against order that the government can pass a law against because its in the countrys interest and is not a infringement of someones rights. Making abortion illegal is the opposite for both.
Youre right, Paul isnt a libertarian. I dont know what the hell he is; he seems more like a ‘states rights’ conservative to me.
I don’t think the bill of rights gave or took away the right to an abortion. State’s laws still wouldn’t be allowed to violate the Bill of Rights or any other piece of the constitution. That’s pretty clear in the document itself.
Personally, I support Roe v Wade, as I’m pro-choice, not anti-choice (I think “pro-life” is propangadist position), but Ron Paul is just promoting we treat the issue constitutionally.
As president, he can’t do a thing about abortion, except, of course, nominate judges that would overturn Roe v Wade. But that’s the same group that he’s trying to take the power from in the first place. This basic point logically destroys any argument that he would/could anyway promote an anti-abortion agenda after getting elected.
Hi,
Thank you for your respectful disagreement with Ron Paul’s principles…it’s nice to read something that isn’t just frothing at the mouth.
The issue of abortion, however, really isn’t about “the right to life”–that’s pure demagoguery–nor is it about your right to protect your own body.
Rather, the issue is about science. Plain and simple.
Stay with me here.
If your position were scientifically proved, without a shadow of a doubt, through tests and observation and lucid evaluation, that a fetus is not a human being, then I, for one, would abandon my opposition to the practice of abortion. Sure, there would still be the rabid, wild-eyed religious fanatics who would continue to oppose, but lots of reasonable people like me (if I may presume to call myself so) would change our tune. We respect science and its findings, and if it finds a fetus is non-human, then so be it.
Similarly, if science were to prove that the fetus is, in fact, a human being, without a shadow of a doubt, through tests and observation and lucid evaluation, I am confident that many reasonable people such as yourself would change your tune. Why would you? Not because you are already “pro-life,” you simply disagree with people like me on what, scientifically, constitutes human life.
I hope I make myself clear. Really, everyone is “pro-life” and everyone is “pro-choice.” The real question is: is a fetus, scientifically speaking, a human being? That is the question. The ONLY question.
So here is my question to you: what evidence is there–scientific, documented, lucidly evaluated evidence–that a fetus is not a human being (even at conception)?
If you would rather not respond on this forum, please send me an email at jamesviccor21@gmail.com.
I am not trying to argue with you, or sway you, or anything. I am simply asking an intellectually honest question, and I would appreciate elucidation.
Thank you
Walker
Walker,
If you had any real desire to read the scientific literature concerning a fetus, you wouldn’t be asking me on my blog. You’d be in the library reading medical studies.
As such, I believe this to be a simple baiting technique, where you hope that I incompletely quote a scientific study. Then, you respond by quoting some other study (most likely by a religious fanatic) that “contradicts” the one I referred to.
I’m not playing that game, sorry.
umm… Ron Paul will openly say that he is not a true Libertarian, based on his beliefs in Abortion, so what is the big argument about?
He is anti-abortion, but he thinks that the states should regulate it, not the Federal Government, I don’t know why that is so hard to understand. The Constitution of the United States calls for a much more limited federal government than it is now, and the Roe vs Wade ruling was in contradiction to the Constitution.
mad viagra onprocedure urban encircling viagra onfigure a dribble viagra onpath bucolic cotesides
Thanks!,
What is bumburbia?