Ron Paul, iconoclast

Flo Hoff

July 22, 2007 11:28 PM

You may find his statement interesting. He is a true christian he walks the talk. He doesn't wear his christianity on his sleeve. He is a real man of intergity.

Statement of Faith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

For More Information Contact:
Paul Dorr
Iowa Field Director
RonPaul2008@iowatelecom.net
Phone: 712-758-3660

Ron Paul 2008
Presidential Campaign Committee
www.RonPaul2008.com
Phone: 703-248-9115
FAX: 703-248-9119

clay

July 23, 2007 2:52 AM

He's pro-life. He's also against the death penalty, he's consistent like that.

Michael

July 23, 2007 3:15 AM

Perhaps he is a modern Cincinnatus, and of course if he were in power all factions would want eventually want him dead for differing reasons.

Two important steps towards centralization occured since the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. First was Civil war/reconstruction(72 years after 1789) that greatly increased the power of the central government. The statement "the United States are.." became "the United States is..". Then of course the depression/New Deal/World War II (about 1932 or about 72 years after the beginning of the Civil war). There was also WWI under Wilson that also increased the leviathan but this was minor compared to the other 2.

So here we are about 72 years after the beginning of the great depression and what happens next? Another step up the ladder of centralization? Maybe it is time to make some changes and reverse the trend. The big huge multi-province state is over as in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Small works better.

I like Ron Paul. I like the von Mises institute he has been a part of for over 30 years along with Murry Rothbard and Lew Rockwell.

However, I believe there is indeed a Jihad in the world that will not end with the election of some pure libertarian. Remember, after American revolution Americans thought the country was a new civilization with no military or standing military, and almost a New Jeruselem, a city on the hill. But the first tast of reality came with, guess who?, the Barbary Pirates (remember "to the shores of tripoli" in the "Marines Hymn")

The Barbary Pirates justified their actions as the propagation of Islam. And who primarily shut them down? FRANCE!

bret

July 23, 2007 7:03 AM

I'm not a big Christianity kinda guy - I think it has some good things and some negatives, but on the whole, I think that Jesus fellow talked a lot of sense. Thus, I have no problem with Ron Paul being a Christian.

At any rate, he is right. We must stop war, in all its forms. To the first commenter, I think this is a ridiculous point that will be proven in time. I do not believe Muslims are some sort of blood-drinking boogeyman that will continue to slaughter Americans if only given enough time to develop the werewithal. This is a childish argument, in light of the fact that these countries are all fractions of the size of this one (excepting Indonesia perhaps?) and none, repeat none, has any Navy or armed forces to even begin to rival our own. Bring our troops home, protect our own shores, stay out of their business, and TRADE WITH ALL. That alone can produce real peace and prosperity. You will never get it at the point of a sword unless you murder every single last one of them. I hope you are not advocating such a scenario.

aaron

July 23, 2007 8:05 AM

Perhaps he needs to run as an Independent then, we still need a good viable option for this election.

Mike

July 23, 2007 8:49 AM

aaron;

Ron Paul could run as an independent or perhaps he can easily get the Libertarian Party nomination for president if he changes party.

From the Democrats he could pull the very angry rabid anti-war people who are angry with Nancy Pelosi and other democrats who do not do enough to stop the war.

From the Republicans and independents he could pull traditional conservatives, small govenment types, gold bugs, some pro-life people, etc. All in all, I think he could pull as much as 15-20% of the popular vote, and possibly carry 1 or 2 states such as Alaska.

So the practical question is; if he runs as a 3rd party candidate which party will he hurt the most?

That is not certain but I think he would hurt the Republican nominee considerably more than the Democrat and in effect, put the Democrat into the White House.

Anonymous

July 23, 2007 9:20 AM

Considering they come out in peices, I doubt it was crying.

JEFFREY TROCHELMAN

July 23, 2007 11:20 AM

I believe Dr. Paul is a man of honor and has been painted in a bad light by Caldwell.
It would appear Mr Caldwell had his own agenda. He also had the gall to state Dr. Paul would not win. I guess we can all go home now that Caldwell has spoken.

Simon

July 23, 2007 11:26 AM

I'd enjoy a Ron Paul candidacy, but let's not kid ourselves. As an independent/third party candidate, he'd be lucky to get 2% of the vote (less than 1% is far more likely). The only way any indy/3rd party candidate gets above 2% is if ALL three of the following conditions are met:

1. He has lots of money.
2. He is included in the major televised debates.
AND
3. A large chunk of the electorate not only likes and agrees with him but also becomes convinced he has at least some chance to win.

TheisticAgnostic

July 23, 2007 11:31 AM

I am all for limited government... IF you get corporate money and corporate power out of Government. Until that time, limits on government services for the power and "less represented" will only take us further down the Road to Serfdom.

TheisticAgnostic

July 23, 2007 11:33 AM

The second sentence should have read... "Until that time, limits on government services for the poor and "less represented" will only take us further down the Road to Serfdom."

Mike

July 23, 2007 12:29 PM

Simon;

Dr Ron Paul would easily pull much more than 2% of the vote without the three conditions you mention.

~tv

July 23, 2007 1:18 PM

I am all for limited government... IF you get corporate money and corporate power out of Government. Until that time, limits on government services for the poor and "less represented" will only take us further down the Road to Serfdom.

Amen and amen.

That being said, I had reserved judgment of Paul until reading that letter Flo posted above. I am now solidly opposed to his becoming president of these United States.

Mike

July 23, 2007 1:47 PM

I liked Ron Paul until I read this line I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution - what.. divinely inspired Constitution? So Ron reads the Bible, the Church fathers and the Constitution as of one origin? What?!

A Constitution is a document of government, humanly inspired, amendable and always in flux... pretending it is more is tragic and idolatrous, not to mention.. odd.

fbc

July 23, 2007 2:38 PM

Considering they come out in peices, I doubt it was crying.

Not always, in fact you would be shocked to know how often babies born alive are simply abandoned to die in some bucket or closet (so the staff can't hear the child crying.)

I had a client who told me about his own child's death this way. They'd been told that their baby had a severe birth defect and so they induced early. The baby was born alive, but far too early to breathe on his own, and the father held his son and watched him die for half and hour.

Happens literally every single day in this country.

Simon

July 23, 2007 4:04 PM

Dr Ron Paul would easily pull much more than 2% of the vote without the three conditions you mention.

What do you base that on?

Unless we're going to switch to a French-style electoral system, there will never be more than a tiny minority of the electorate that votes for a candidate simply because he's their favorite. Our system ensures that most voters will always choose their favorite, or the least-awful, among those who actually have a chance to win.

There are two ways a poorly financed third party candidate could win a respectable vote total:

1. By representing the interests one geographic region that had become deeply alienated from the rest of the country (but aside from Southern segregationists, what strong regional candidates have we ever had?), OR

2. By serving as a protest vehicle if the usual supporters of one major party became overwhelmingly convinced that their candidate were headed toward defeat anyway, AND they did not like that candidate.

But even in those scenarios, if the candidate gets carved out of the major televised national debates, it's very unlikely that more than a handful of voters would give him a second look.

Loudon is a Fool

July 23, 2007 4:48 PM

That's a pretty bigoted comment, ~tv. Paul's a true believer who also truly believes that the federal government is not authorized to make you good. He opposes the drug war and opposes Constitutional amendments to protect marriage because they require the exercise of federal power beyond its proper scope. I doubt Paul thinks the Bible approves of sodomy and dirty hippies. Which evidences that, unlike 99.99% of politicians, Paul would not abuse the authority of the office to impose his personal preferences. Nevertheless, he's religious so you assume he must be a nut.

But you're certainly in good company believing the proper role of the federal government is to impose the will of the federal office holder. Except that it makes you a bit of a hypocrite when you criticize conservatives who want to use the federal government to impose their values on you.

Mike

July 23, 2007 11:17 PM

tv, others;

Don't worry. Ron Paul will not be elected President of the United States. But he is pulling in a lot of assorted support from various groups who are are variously single issued. Many people are selectively libertarian or "cafeteria" libertarians. True libertarians are opposed to both the welfare state and the warfare state among other things. They have varing views on social issues but they all want these issues off the Federal level (Supreme Court, etc) to the state and local level.

If a real, thorough libertarian (and Ron Paul I judge to be about 95% libertarian) were to attain power, most people, over 85% will want him gone.

If Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Davy Crockett (about as pure a libertarian as you can get) etc could be brought back to see and hear this, they would understand Ron Paul in an instant.

~tv

July 24, 2007 10:58 PM

It has nothing to do with his religion, Loudon, and everything to do with him wishing to force a woman to incubate a child against her will.

Rollins Wallace

July 27, 2007 1:50 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------