| |
  
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
SA Bump
........................................
Sam the Man
Sam Adams, that great Christian Patriot Bible Thumper once said: "A man has not freedom, unless he is free from his sins. Are you free? Or are you still in bondage? Only King Jesus Christ can set you free, not Ron Paul.
"But why do the nations rebel and the people plot in vain against the Lord and against his Anointed One (Christ) saying let us break His chains and cast off his shackels. (Those who want to do their own thing, who don't want to have anything to do with Christ and his Laws.)
"But the Lord looks down from heaven and laughs and scoffs at them. Then He rebukes them in His Anger and terrifies them with His wrath, saying " I have installed my King on Zion, My Holy hill"
The real Savior, isn't Ron Paul. He be Christ who died on the Holy hill!
And all those who put their faith in Him, will rule and reign with Him, when he comes back.
I'd rather wait and rule with Him, then with a bunch of men who hate Christ and Laws.
Merry Christmas and to all a Good Night!
Ohh.......
Since you can't respond to previous posts, because you would need reason and comprehension of basic linguistics, you are just going to assume everyone here is not "saved" and preach to us. Wow - thanks so much. Let me paraphrase your "thinking":
"I'm right! I'm right! You are going to Hell and I'm not - who cares about the Constitution!? I'm taking my toys and going home!"
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
www.libertyrestorationproject.org
"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."
Merry Christmas - Signed Thumper
After reading many of the comments on this issue, I believe that the main view here is that government has no right to regulate morality, it is up to one's own conscience.
Let's see, the Bible says that "Thou shall not Kill", so since I am a "Thumper", and although I believe it is wrong to kill, I have no right to impose a law that would make murder illegal. Boy thats stupid. That is the same view the Libertarian party holds on abortion, which strips our 14th amendment guarantee that no one should be deprived of life.
My Thumper Bible say's "Thou shall not Steal", but since I don't want to impose my religious views on any one, if your conscience tells you to steal, go right ahead, were not going to stop ya.
My Thumper Bible say's that rape is wrong, but since I don't want to impose my Thumper views on anyone. I best not try to pass any Law that would try to keep your hormones in check, after all I wouldn't want to keep you from your sick little pleasure.
I could keep going on and on with this, but I hope you all see how dangerous that view is.
My thumper Bible tells me that God brought judgement upon a nation once because "Every man did what was right in his own eyes." They became a wicked nation with no justice. Sounds very familiar to "It's up to one's own conscience."
I think I will stick with the Thumper Founding Fathers of this country, rather then the New Liberaltarian views I am hearing here.
augdog: "Boy thats stupid."
No, what's stupid is somebody that still can't understand what "moral" means, in the context that libetarians use it, here on this forum.
You mix 'immoral' behavior that infringes on the rights and property of others with 'immoral' behavior that doesn't bother anybody else.
It's particularly evil to try to legislate the morality of consenting adults that don't hurt anybody else, as in the War on Drugs, that costs many 10s of billions of dollars per year and ruins more lives than the drugs themselves.
It's amazing that somebody like augdog can pretend to support Ron Paul and hang at DailyPaul, he clearly is not a proponent of freedom.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
Did you support Ron Paul
If your are such a proponent of Ron Paul. After he lost in the Republican presidential primaries, Ron Paul endorsed a Bible Thumper Pastor named Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party for President. Did ya vote for a Bible Thumper? Bugman. Or did you turn your back on Ron Paul's endorsement. I voted for Chuck Baldwin cause I am a proponent of Bible thumpers and thought Ron Paul made a good endorsement.
It was kind of amazing to me though, that after he endorsed Chuck Baldwin, I visited this site many a times, and was surprised to see very little written about it and hardly any articles on a continuous basis supporting Baldwin, I didn't see any big money bombs up here for Baldwin's support, very Little. Wonder Why?
But if Ron Paul endorses another Bible Thumper, I will be sure to vote for Him.
Oh I forgot, Merry Christmas :)
There is no "Libertarian Party View" on abortion
Each member has an individual view. The "Party" is not a person with views.
The members of the LP have all the same views expressed here, and more. What there is is no consensus about when a person is a person and their rights begin. Same as in the country.
This issue has been in flux since women and children gained legal status, and more again when we advanced technology to allow premature babies to survive.
There is consensus in the LP that we don't trust politicians to make that determination, especially given that the rights (if any) of the unborn are entwined with the rights of parents.
Dr. Paul is right: if abortion is murder, murder comes under state jurisdiction, so states need to grapple with this at that level. This would allow us to see what works, and for attitudes to change with less violence.
The purpose of laws should be to make sure that the rest of us don't pay the price for your sins, that we don't encourage others to sin, or worse, force them to. If someone sins, they should suffer the consequences which may be to their souls and need not always be jail time.
I am a Libertarian precisely because I am sick of paying for the sins of others in the form of heavy regulation on my behavior aimed at others' misbehavior.
Abortion as an issue is one that is very important and is still changing. "We're" taking lives in Iraq and other places, too, and while I feel obligated to work against that, I don't feel guilty for it, and must accept that there is sin in the world.
IMissLiberty
At Conception
The Libertarian party website says this "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
Clearly this violates the 14th amendment that no State, or for that matter the citizens of that state has any right to deprive any person of Life just because of their conscience.
Ron Paul clearly believes and has been trying to pass an amendment in the House for years that states life begins at conception. Maybe it's you who don't hold Ron Paulian views.
The constitution only grants to the states powers not found in the constitution. And the power to ensure no states violate our unalienable right to life is found in the constitution. Therefore, when Ron Paul or any one else says they believe it resides with the states, their views are contrary to what is written in our constitution. If states were allowed to determine whether or not slavery should be legal, many Southern states would not have abolished it for years after the Civil War. In the same way many Liberal States today would vote to continue the practise of killing the unborn. It's quite pathetic that over 30 million unborn babies have been slaughtered in this country under the guise of freedom of conscience. That's Crap
Here's some more from your "Thumper Founding Fathers", as in:
"Thou shalt not steal - my money for your unconstitutional legislation, pay-offs and wars"
"Thou shalt not murder - my children fighting in your unconstitutional profit-driven wars".
"Thou shalt not bear false witness" when you have sworn to uphold the Constitution.
We could go on and on here, couldn't we?...
What the SA is talking about is phony moral "posturing" to get your vote. Don't fall for it.
Where to start....?
You Said "the Bible says that "Thou shall not Kill", so since I am a "Thumper", and although I believe it is wrong to kill, I have no right to impose a law that would make murder illegal. Boy thats stupid."
----So much right here....It is not just the Bible that says that - almost every known list of ancient and current laws includes it. (The commandments, all 29, were a record of laws for Israeli society and not a moral stance. It was perfectly fine, and ordered by God, to kill infidels and members of rival tribes - well not the virgins, they get to be raped). A man's life is his property and most valuable; taking a man's property is wrong in almost every society historically and life being the most valuable it demands the most punishment. And you are correct on one thing: "You" do not have a right to impose a law. Killing outside of military conflict is not wrong because the Bible says so, it was wrong and punished long before the Bible was written. It is an obvious benefit to a society of humans to protect each other's life.
You said: "...Bible say's "Thou shall not Steal", but since I don't want to impose my religious views on any one, if your conscience tells you to steal, go right ahead, were not going to stop ya."
---- Again, this is not a religious view. Taking a man's property has been wrong all over the globe for all civilizations. It is mutually beneficial for members of a society to condone punishment for such things. There are exceptions when it comes to "rulers" and religious leaders given that priviledge by the society itself. But, that's why the American Enlightenment was such a cool thing.
You said: "My Thumper Bible say's that rape is wrong, but since I don't want to impose my Thumper views on anyone. I best not try to pass any Law that would try to keep your hormones in check, after all I wouldn't want to keep you from your sick little pleasure."
---- Do you really want to stick to the claim that rape is wrong in the Bible? Rape is condoned and ordered by religious leaders and God himself throughout the Bible. So is "tricking" people to have sex. If you really want a long list of such things I'm sure I could give you dozens of places to look. And, I can't believe anyone is around in this century that thinks like you, but rape is not about hormones. It is almost always about power and retribution, a sick mind, insanity, ect.... Horny people have sex, and sometimes in ways I personally think are wierd and sick, but as long as it is mutually agreed I have no problem with it. Rape, as with those topics above, is about taking liberty and property from another person, thus most societies have laws against it.
You said: "I think I will stick with the Thumper Founding Fathers of this country, rather then the New Liberaltarian views I am hearing here."
---- Good Luck finding "Thumper" Founding Fathers. The great ones, Paine (the greatest), Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Adams, etc... were far from being Christian fundamentalists. You may have read some quotes written in books and pamphlets by a man named David Barton - who in a very Christian way, after being called out, admitted that he made them up or changed actual writings to make the founders appear to be Christian fundamentalists. Many of them, Paine and Jefferson especially, loathed the existing Christian religion.
I'm sure you will go on believing this nonsense no matter what I say - but all I can ask is that you accept the principles of the American Enlightenment and the idea of Liberty and continue this fight with us, as opposed to falling for the propaganda used to separate us.
www.libertyrestorationproject.org
"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."
Go Ahead
It's quite true that the enemies of Christ have been trying to rewrite American history for years. Evidently they have been doing a good job of duping many of the American people such as yourself.
Just for an example, let's take Jefferson who you say loathed Christianity. If so why was his library filled with so many BIbles, and why did he keep a Bible study Journal with the cover page entitled "The life and morals of Jesus of Nazareth". A matter of fact a latter Congress even authorized a reprint of his work to be made available to members of Congress, they even changed the cover page to "The Jefferson Bible"
And if you wan't to challenge me on what the Bible has to say on any issue, including rape. Feel free. Go ahead and make the Lord's Millenium.
Wow - Well, OK
"It's quite true that the enemies of Christ have been trying to rewrite American history for years. Evidently they have been doing a good job of duping many of the American people such as yourself." ---- Nonsequitor, has nothing to do with my points. Also, you haven't pointed out any history that the "devil" has tricked me into believing. As far as I know, the only people that have used dishonesty to rewrite American history are those that make-up quotes from the Founding Fathers and lie about their writings to make their case for a "Christian nation".
"Just for an example, let's take Jefferson who you say loathed Christianity. If so why was his library filled with so many BIbles, and why did he keep a Bible study Journal with the cover page entitled "The life and morals of Jesus of Nazareth"." I know all this - if you would actually read what Jefferson wrote, and his Jeffersonian Bible as I have, and the reasons why he wrote them, you would understand that he did indeed loathe the Christian cults/sects of the time. That was the whole reason he re-wrote the Bible and took out all the fairy-tale stuff and the idea of Jesus being divine and a god-man. He agreed with the philosophy of the Biblical Jesus and the morals of the stories. But, he also acknowledged that many of the parables and sayings had been stolen from other Christs and religious teachers.....Nevermind - you won't read anyway.
"And if you wan't to challenge me on what the Bible has to say on any issue, including rape. Feel free. Go ahead and make the Lord's Millenium." ---- I didn't make a challenge at all. I asked if you needed references from the Bible that show rape being used to advance God's tribes and not condemned as a crime. I am well aware that debating you about the Bible would be pointless. We would both need to be rational and honest, and you obviously can only lie.
www.libertyrestorationproject.org
"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."
Rape is Condemned in the Bible
You said "Rape is condoned and ordered by religious leaders and God himself throughout the Bible"
And asked if I needed references from the Bible that shows rape being used to advance God's tribes and not condemned as a crime.
Yes, why don't you provide Biblical references.
You seemed to have done quite a hack job on the Bible's story about the tribe of Benjamin.
Everyone can read the full story for themselves in Judges 19:1 thru Judges 21:25
Heres the story in a nut shell. A man and his wife were traveling and lodged for the night in a city controlled by the tribe of Benjamin. Homosexual perverts surrounded the house and wanted to rape the husband. But they took his wife instead and raped her all night and she died in the morning. So all the tribes of Israel gathered in battle against the city. They sent a message to the Benjaminites to deliver up the perverts who were responsible so they could be put to death for their crime. The death penalty for raping can be found in Deuteronomy 22:25-26. But the tribe of Benjamin refused and they decided to go to war to protect the perverted homosexual rapists. (They must have been practising libertarian tolerance towards perverts.) The rest of Israel wasn't sure if they should attack the tribe of Benjamin so they inquired of the Lord twice and God said "Go up against him". So Israel attacked the tribe of Benjamin and nearly wiped them off the face of the earth. 25,000 Benjaminites died, only 600 escaped. The tribe of Israel, not by the command of the Lord, but on their own vowed not to give any of their daughters in marriage to the 600 remaining Benjaminites. At the same time Israel, not by the command of the Lord, decided to destroy another city who did not assemble with them in battle against the Benjaminites, they spared 400 maidens from the battle and allowed them to live and told 400 of the surviving Benjaminites to marry them. (Marriage isn't rape Pal.)
Since 200 Benjamites still had no wives, the elders of Israel devised a plan on their own, not by the command of the Lord, to allow the Benjaminites to catch off a maiden during a feast to the Lord and carry her back to their territory to make them their wives, so that the tribe of Benjamin would survive. (Marriage isn't rape Pal.) A matter of fact according to the law, these men were not permitted to divorce these woman under any circumstances.
The only command given by the Lord during this whole story was to execute judgement against a tribe that would not hand over rapists and homosexual perverts to be executed.
Of course most libertarians think that the death penalty is to extreme for crimes like rape. But God doesn't have a problem with it.
The last verse Judges 21:25 is quite fitting for our conversation "Everybody did what was right in his own eyes" Sounds very familiar to the libertarian "Let each man do according to his own conscience of what is right and wrong"
I wonder if God valued the life of just one innocent woman so much that he almost had the tribe of Benjamin totally wiped out. I wonder what sort of judgement God has in store for America who won't protect it's innocent unborn babies from the hand of knife weilding abortionists.
I really think you need to read your Bible a little bit more carefully next time.
Merry Christmas!
Spot on, as usual
"...but by God those baby killin', gay lovin', gun hating Liberals are gonna' hear Merry Christmas whether they like it or not!" Classic.
awesome video! that was right
awesome video! that was right on.
Too much Egg Nog
The Southern Avenger must have had a little bit too much eggnog for the Holidays to say social conservatives have done very little to protect the 14th amendments right to life.
Social conservatives legislaters gave us the Hyde amendment which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion.
Social conservative presidents such as Reagan and Bush used their limited executive powers in their "Mexico City policy" to not allow federal funds to go to any oversees funding of abortions or allow abortions in the military. And in the case of George W Bush, appointed two prolife Supreme Court Justices
Social conservatives in the House just recently passed the Stupac amendment to not allow any health care money to provide for abortions. To bad the liberal Democrats in the Senate didn't do likewise
Social Conservatives passed the Born alive infant protection act which protects infants that are born alive during botched abortions from being snuffed out.
I guess the Southern Avenger just conviently forgot to bring these things up.
A matter of fact Ron Paul supported these.
To say that human life is a much less liberty then the size of government is pure stupidity. Over 30 million unborn babies have been killed in this country, and your more worried about the size of government.
It's not the Social conservatives who have taken away the right to life granted in the 14th amendment. They are the ones trying to restore it, but they can't unless they are in the majority.
The real danger to the 14th amendments right to life today is coming from liberal democrats. Obama overturned Bush's prohibition on money paying for abortions in the military oversees. Liberal democrats made sure abortion coverage is in the health care bill not giving a crap about the Stupac or Hyde Amendment. You can be certain Obama will fill any Supreme Court opening with a Pro-Abortion judge. As an Illinois state legislature he would not even support the Born Alive Infant Protection act and did everything in his might to stop it.
Southern Avenger - Get off the EggNog and Wake up pal!
conservatives & majorities
augdog says: "It's not the Social conservatives who have taken away the right to life granted in the 14th amendment. They are the ones trying to restore it, but they can't unless they are in the majority."
"But I don't get why a Pastor would endorse Ron Paul, when Paul believes prostitution, dope smokin and homosexual civil unions should be legal."
IMO, Conservatives will NEVER again get a majority until bible thumpers like augdog realize that THEY are the problem and reason. The majority of people don't want your morals and hypocrisy forced down their throats. Augdog, your definition if freedom is shared by a tiny minority here, I believe.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
your wrong Bugman
There are more here than you think. and majority does not = morality.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798, John Adams
2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
I believe the VAST majority...
of Ron Paulers agree with Ron Paul, that it's none of your business what adults do in the privacy of their homes as long as they don't infringe upon others' rights. You and your thumper friend are in the tiny minority, not sure why you're even here if you agree that we should lock up dope smokers and prostitutes.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
HMMM...What did Thomas Jefferson have to say about it???
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]
...by the way, i've been here a very long time...and i can see you could care less about the wisdom of the founding fathers of our country "Under God".
christopher X
2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
also Ron Paul said its none
also Ron Paul said its none of the Governments business. Federal government.. not none of my business. If the people of the state want it stopped and vote in a law to stop it then that should be the law of the state.
“Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.” - Dr. Ron Paul
For Pete's sake...
It's none of the f'ing state's business either, and show me where RP said he is a proponent of the state keeping drugs illegal... Say, what was your handle reb, before you were banned? I think we can probably guess...
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
go read genesis 13-14.. God
go read genesis 13-14.. God does not change.
“Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.” - Dr. Ron Paul
You would be suprised how many "thumpers"
think that drugs should be legalized. Especially among the ones that preach at the jails and help out with that ministry. We see way too many people in there for drug offenses. Furthermore I personally believe that if they legalized crack there would not be near the amount of prostitutes in this country because most of them are unfortunately crack "whores". I feel for the girls in these situations. I personally know somebody that is raising a crack "whores" baby, and he has nothing but compassion for the whole situation. You may think the guy behind the pulpit is all hell fire and damnation, but the ones I know I have seen there tears over these issues, and without compassion this movement wont get anywhere.
Didn't mean all 'thumpers' here...
the fact that they're here mean they're for freedom, including the freedoms that they don't condone themselves. I was referring to rebelsoul & augdog, who obviously only want the freedoms for others that they agree with...
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
I'd rather drink egg nog than Kool Aid
Firstly, it's funny that you first mention that abortion is an offense to god and then go on to say that the right to life was granted in the 14th amendment. Most people around here I think would agree that rights are granted by nothing other than your humanity, the mere fact that you exist allows you the right to life. By ignoring this and allowing yourself to believe that somehow this amendment of a constitution of no authority grants you rights that you would otherwise not possess shows how ignorant you are on this issue. The "victories" of the social conservative movement amount to nothing more than a series of hollow victories that allow candidates that the SA identifies here to leverage more money and more votes. If only they had another couple hundred dollars or if only we could get a few more of us elected, everything would be set right. That and a dollar fifty might get you a cup of coffee. The real issue is freedom, which comes back to how big the government is. The larger the government, the more power it has to enforce laws that destroy liberty and life, and the fact that you buy into the argument that the 14th should be interpreted in this way or that way when in fact, the interpretation shouldn't matter, government shouldn't have the power to destroy life, end of discussion, regardless of what it says in its amendments, it can't grant you rights you don't already have! The larger it gets, the more "interpretation" of your rights (meaning that they interpret that you have less) that they do! There is a simple law that illustrates this: as government expands, liberty contracts. That's the issue. Ron Paul's statement that it should be a state issue follows these thoughts: the federal government should not have this power because it is not constitutionally mandated, the proper venue is the states, regardless of whether or not you think that without a federal mandate abortions may continue here or there, the constitutional overreach that you advocate would allow further and future infringement on rights in other areas as the federal government naturally uses its precedent in this area to expand to others. So the venue should be the states because it both limits government and allows for a laboratory of democracy, as originally intended. Further, the issue of life as a natural right is one that the states, as already discussed, can't take or interpret you out of, therefore the states can not outlaw this either. The debate is and has always been when does life begin, in other words when does this natural right begin. But instead let's focus on a series of minor bureaucratic clashes designed to get campaign money for career politicians bent on expanding government power because we have to fit new information into preconceived categories.
Social Conservatism is not only a scam, its a fraud, committed by an established elite with no marketable skills (ie they can't profit in any other way) who steal money from millions of people while delivering no meaningful change, but this is not unique among political movements. What is unique in some ways about Social Conservatism is that it isn't designed to bring change, and never makes any claims to attempt to do that, but rather seeks to return to a idealized time where things were much different, more moral, and when people truly cared for one another, when this was always a revisionist view at best. What's more is that now social conservatives aren't showing up to the polls precisely because they realize what the SA says is true about how the neoconservative movement co-opted their movement to get them over the edge in 94 and more recently and significantly with Bush. Or is it because Social Conservatism is fundamentally incompatible with an approach to government that is designed to minimize it, because social conservatives never saw a law that benefitted them being passed as a problem, even as government expanded. In fact, they often used government in the same heavy handed way that they now decry (witness under god), even when religious minorities often objected and were equally bulldozed as not being a part of a real American tradition (reference: my version of American history vs. yours).
But why not ask an easier question that may explain why Social Conservatism (see: appendix a, false forms of Conservatism): Why would Social Conservatives want to outlaw abortion anyway, when it's so profitable (to them)?
"PRO-LIFE" CANDIDATES SHOULD PUT UP OR SHUT UP
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
November 30, 2007
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin415.htm
"In fact, the GOP has controlled the U.S. Supreme Court since the infamous Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion-on-demand was handed down in 1973. That means GOP appointments have dominated the Court for over thirty years, and yet abortion-on-demand is still the law of the land.
Beyond that, for six years (2000-2006), "pro-life" Republicans controlled the entire federal government....
.....Ron Paul seems to be the only presidential candidate who understands that under Article. III. Section. 2., the Constitution gives to the Congress of the United States the power to hold rogue courts in check and to overturn outlandish rulings such as Roe v. Wade.
Accordingly, Ron Paul has introduced and reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act (including in the current Congress). If passed, this Bill would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The Bill also recognizes the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, this Bill would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision. The Bill would also deny funding for abortion providers. In plain language, the Bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand.
Is it not more than interesting that "pro-life" President George W. Bush, along with the "pro-life" Republican Party leadership of both houses of Congress, refused--and continues to refuse--to support Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act? In addition, not a single "pro-life" presidential candidate outside of Ron Paul has even bothered to mention the Sanctity of Life Act, much less aggressively call for its implementation with a promise that, if elected President, he would sign it into law."
Sorry
Ron Pauls bill HR 2533 was introduced this year May 2009 under democraric majority in both houses and demoncrat president.
Ron Pauls bill HR2597 and HR1094 was introduced in the 110th Congress which had a majority of democrats in both houses.
It was also introduced in the 109 th Congress, but "social GOP conservatives" never held a majority in the GOP majority senate. Ya might want to get your facts straight. And there are 4 prolife leaning Justices, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito that were appointed by Social Conservatives.
During the campaign I heard alot of interviews and debates where Ron Paul when asked on the issue of abortion said that he believed it should rest with the states to make that determination.
Wrong BIGTIME!
The Constitution's 14th amendment already prohibits all states from depriving any person of Life. If you allow states to make that decision, there are plenty of Liberal states that would not protect the unborn.
Please don't blame the loss of our right to Life on Social Conservatives. If every member of Congress, President and Supreme Court Justice was a Bible Believing Social Conservative of any party there would be no such thing as a right to kill the unborn in this country.
Sorry Chuck
One more thing, I voted for Pastor Chuck Baldwin, But I don't get why a Pastor would endorse Ron Paul, when Paul believes prostitution, dope smokin and homosexual civil unions should be legal. I think Balwin needs to go back and read the Constitution parties statement of supporting a government run under Biblical principles. Maybe he should join the libertarian party
I know my Bible pretty well, these all clearly violate God's Word. Sorry Chuck
Ron Paul does not say
Ron Paul does not say prostitution, dope smoking, and homo unions should be legal. he says that the federal government should have no say in it and that its a states rights issue. If you were able to ask Ron Paul personally I belive he would council someone not to partake in those activities. But, your life is your own. Screw it up however you want.
“Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.” - Dr. Ron Paul